What are we going to do tomorrow

Author: Editor-in-Chief: Qian Handong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 1999-12-01
Features: Excerpt: Some Thoughts on the International Environment by He Fang
In recent years, I have often read articles discussing China's international environment in the 21st century. Many opinions are consistent, but the emphasis and tendencies differ greatly. Some believe the opportunities are rare and great things can be achieved; others think the situation is grim and excessive optimism is inappropriate. Each has its own insights. We must, on the one hand, boost morale and continuously strengthen our confidence and courage in achieving the three-step strategy; on the other hand, we must remain vigilant and continue to enhance our sense of urgency and crisis awareness. While I had little to say about these matters, many articles touch on controversial issues in international studies, so I decided to "build on the theme" and offer some personal opinions on the following points.
Regarding the world order and multipolarity, it is widely acknowledged by academia that the world will transition from a bipolar to a multipolar structure, and that we are currently in a transitional period between the old and new orders. However, there are still differing views. For example, some articles argue, "Multipolarity is both a vague concept and a temporary state of chaos." In reality, multipolarity is very clear—it simply means there are more poles than two. Even before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Deng Xiaoping stated, "The world order in the future may be tri-polar, quadri-polar, or penta-polar, but the Soviet Union will still be one of the multipolar poles, regardless of how weakened it becomes or how many republics withdraw. What we call multipolarity includes China as one pole." Moreover, multipolarity is a long-term process, so as early as the early 1970s, Nixon and others proposed the theory of five power centers. As for the idea of "chaos," it is merely a borrowed term from other disciplines or foreign sources and is not entirely accurate. To say that a bipolar system is orderly while a multipolar one is chaotic does not align with reality. Historically, multipolarity has been the norm, while bipolarity was a product of specific conditions. We have repeatedly stated our support for the world moving toward multipolarity, as this benefits peace, but this does not mean we support "chaos." Some articles oppose the idea of a transitional period, arguing that after the collapse of the bipolar system, a new so-called "unipolar superpower" structure has already formed and will persist for a long time. In reality, the transition between historical world orders has always involved a period of time, either long or short, during which the balance of power gradually stabilizes before the new order is fully established. The formal establishment of the post-World War II order came after four years of transition, from the Paris Peace Conference to the Washington Naval Conference. The post-war bipolar order did not form immediately after the war—it was officially established starting in 1949. Before that, it was still a transitional period. Although the Truman Doctrine of 1947 had already led to the full outbreak of the Cold War, by 1949, Germany was formally divided, East-West barriers were clearly drawn, the Western powers formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe established a de facto alliance system through a series of bilateral treaties, solidifying the antagonistic relationship between the two major groups led by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The transitions between the last two world orders were relatively short and swift because they were achieved through war. The current transition, following the Cold War, is taking place under peaceful conditions, so the transitional period will naturally be longer. Of course, it won’t be endless. Since it is a transitional period, it won’t be excessively long. Given the accelerating trend of multipolarity, the new order is expected to take shape within the first decade of the 21st century. International predictions about world trends also often use 2010 as a dividing line.
There are two other differing views. One, though implicit, essentially argues that the new order replacing the bipolar structure is one led by the U.S., as it has become the sole superpower with continuously growing strength. The other view essentially maintains that the old bipolar structure persists, but the composition has changed, with the U.S.-led Western bloc opposing hostile forces like Islamic and Chinese powers. I will discuss these two opinions in detail below.
Postscript: When we signed off on the "Strategic China" series, including What Are We Doing Today—China's Reform Strategy Report and What Will We Do Tomorrow—China's International Competitiveness Report, for printing in late 1999, we felt as if we heard the bold footsteps of the hardworking, intelligent, and courageous Chinese people marching toward the year 2000. With great joy, we welcomed this great moment. Looking back, we were filled with emotion. China's reform and opening-up has gone through 20 years of arduous struggles and has achieved remarkable accomplishments. The "sleeping giant" has finally awakened, with its economy soaring, national strength growing, and people's living standards significantly improving. We firmly believe that tomorrow will be even better. It is our privilege to be witnesses to China's entry into the new century, and we compiled and published this series for the following reasons:
1. The articles included in this book are reflections by renowned scholars on issues that have emerged or will emerge during China's reform and opening-up, such as rural economic development, financial investment risks, and China's future position in international competition. These scholars have proposed many constructive suggestions and opinions, some of which have drawn the attention of the central leadership and have even been incorporated into laws, regulations, and documents. Reading these articles, we can see the foresight and genuine concern for the nation that these scholars, standing at the forefront of their time, have demonstrated. Even today, these reflections still hold valuable insights.
2. These papers were published in influential academic journals over the past two years, characterized by clear viewpoints, rigorous arguments, thorough reasoning, and fluent writing. They have played a positive role in accelerating China's economic development. By rereading these articles, we not only revisit history but also gain inspiration to face the new century with composure, embrace challenges, and forge a brilliant future.
During the editing process, we were supported and assisted by leaders from the Shanghai Municipal Propaganda Department, the Shanghai Municipal Press and Publication Bureau, and relevant experts. We extend our gratitude to them. Due to our limited capabilities, there may be omissions and shortcomings, and we sincerely welcome corrections from our readers.
Wen Wei Press
November 28, 1999
281