chinadaily_pdf_20101109392022

A

gainst the back-drop of compli-cated and variable international situations, civili-zational dialogue and global gover-nance have become two hot topics in international relations. Th is is to some extent a refl ection of human aspirations for lasting peace and common prosperity.

Since May 21 was declared the “W orld Day of Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development” by the United Nations (UN) Gen-eral Assembly in 2002, advocacy of civilizational dialogue has gradually gained ground. By declaring such a day, the UN aims to help diff erent countries pursue self-improvement and development, learn from each other through mutual dialogues, and jointly cope with diffi cult global issues.

An open dialogue mechanism will facilitate trans-civilization commu-nications and help to eradicate mis-understandings and promote mutual coordination.

Notably, some consensuses have been reached among world members on civilizational dialogue, as indicat-ed by their awareness that they are in the same boat and should help each other following the global fi nancial crisis. However, it remains diffi cult to put civilizational dialogue into prac-tice. For its better implementation, countries should fi rst have a better grasp of diff erent cultures and clear

away the artifi cial obstacles in the way

of dialogue.

Given that all civilizations are equal and there is no superiority or inferi-ority among them, diff erent civiliza-tions should pursue common devel-opment while shelving diff erences. Every civilization should be tolerant of others instead of hostile.Civilizational dialogue also remains a precondition for world members to better promote the global governance strategy.

As a theory of international politi-cal science, the concept of global gov-ernance was fi rst put forward in 1990 by Willy Brandt, a German politician and chancellor of W est Germany from 1969 to 1974. Th ere have been strong political calls for global gover-nance in the international communi-ty in recent years, especially since the outbreak of the global fi nancial crisis. However, no substantial headway has been achieved.

Historically the rise of new powers has brought changes to the world. However, in today’s globalized

world where science and technology develop rapidly and mutual interde-pendence among countries is unprec-edented, a country cannot expect ascendancy through aggression and expansion, like countries in the past. Over the past two decades since the end of the Cold W ar, the rise of some emerging countries as a group has been achieved in the context of accelerated multipolarization aft er the collapse of the Soviet Union. Th e force of the US has been weakened aft er the Cold W ar, but

it still remains the only superpower in the world. Regional issues under the infl uence of the US still remain the main factor behind complicated international situations, and W ash-ington-involved power-to-power relations still determine to a large extent the world security environ-ment. But that does not mean the US is powerful enough to control the whole world.

Global governance should not be dependent on a single country, or on only a few, it is inseparable from the self-governance of every country. It should not be used as an excuse for some countries to intervene in other countries’ internal aff airs. Coop-eration between the UN and some regional organizations and relevant regional powers should become the main platform to push for better global or regional governance. In the process, relations between some emerging powers and traditional powers should be properly handled and the rights and obligations between them balanced.

Ethnic identity, religious beliefs, cultural traditions and social sys-tems should not be obstacles in the way of global governance. Multi-lateralism is desperately needed to facilitate this goal at a time when nuclear proliferation, terrorism, the global fi nancial crisis, climate change, the deteriorating environ-ment and natural disasters are seri-ously threatening mankind. Th e world’s ongoing eff orts for

global governance proceed at a time when peace and development remain the two major international themes. Currently, peace and devel-opment remain irreversible and competition and cooperation coexist side by side.

Under these circumstances, emerging countries should adhere to a peaceful approach, give full play to their innovative spirit and persist in consultation and cooperation in a bid to attain sustainable develop-ment.

Civilizational dialogue will pos-sibly help emerging countries and traditional big powers, and help developed and developing countries seek convergent points of interest. As a responsible member of the group of emerging powers, China has always been active in advocating civilizational dialogue and pushed for its implementation. While winning extensive respect from the international community, the achievements China has made in the process of its peaceful development have also invited some misgivings. Holding higher the banner of peace, development, and coop-eration, China should consistently match its actions with its words and continue working hard to enhance trust from the international commu-nity, although it will be a long and arduous process to dispel talk of the “China threat”.

Th e author is a researcher with the Research Center of Contemporary World.

8

C H I N A

D A I L Y.C O M .C N /O P I N I O N

C H I N A

D A I L Y

Comment

E D I T O R I A L S

CHINA DAILY

editorials ? opinion

T U E S D A Y, N O V E M B E R 9, 2010Global governance should

not be dependent on a single country, or on only a few, it is inseparable from the self-governance of every country. It should not be used as an excuse for some countries to intervene in other coun-tries’ internal aff airs.

C H I NA F O R U M | Y U S U I

F

or US President Barack Obama, whose Democratic Party took a “shellacking” in the midterm election,

his 10-day trip to Asia, that began on Friday, should be one of soul searching.

But that has not seemed to be the case so far.

With unemployment in the United States staying stubbornly above 9.5 percent for 15 consecutive months, Obama promised that the trip would focus on job creation. However, the some 50,000 new US jobs that might be created by the $10 billion business deals with India are mostly in the defense industry. Th ese are jobs to build weapons that could escalate a regional arms race. Th ey are hardly jobs for people to be proud of.

Given the lobbying of the US defense industry, which employs an estimated 3 million people, it is perhaps not surprising that the US president serves as a broker for military contractors. Th e US is eager to replace Russia as the biggest arms supplier to India, the world’s largest arms importer last year.In fact, it is not just the arms deals that are worrying, both Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clin-ton, display a Cold War mentality in dealing with other countries, par-ticular Asian countries. By grouping countries into diff erent categories such as allies, partners and rivals, the Obama administration is saying that in essence it has not changed much from the previous admin-istration and it won’t be able to remain impartial in mediating dis-agreements between these nations.Obama should ask himself why the Muslims in Indonesia, where he spent part of his childhood, stage protests instead of welcoming him.Obama has not acted to end the war in Afghanistan as he promised. Rather, he has made it his own war. It is now the longest war in US his-tory.

Obama should face up to real-ity and no longer live in denial, he should tell the US people some hard truths. Th ose companies that secured deals in India are also the ones that have moved tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs overseas.He should say clearly that there is nothing wrong with that for the US, since the country gains much more in this global division of labor than developing countries such as China and India.

Statistics show that nearly half of the earnings reported by companies on the S&P 500 are from overseas. Fast growth in China and India has fueled the US economy, rather than balked it.

As a national leader, instead of repeating the dry rhetoric himself, Obama should put a stop to the continuous China bashing in the

US, which blames China for US domestic economic woes, from unemployment, housing market bubbles to trade defi cits and fi scal debts.Th ere are more honest voices in the US these days.

US economist and money man-ager Zachary Karabell wrote in the recent issue of Time magazine that: “China is far from perfect and seeks its own advantage, but hold-ing it accountable for our domestic problems is beyond anachronistic. It refl ects a dangerous refusal to deal

with the world as it is”.

New Y ork Mayor Michael Bloom-berg, who was in Hong Kong while Obama visited India, also criticized the China bashing in the US: “I think in America, we’ve got to stop blaming the Chinese and blaming everybody else and take a look at ourselves,” Bloomberg said.Bloomberg also criticized the decision by the US Trade Represen-tative’s offi ce to probe China’s clean energy industry. “Let me get this straight: Th ere’s a country on the other side of the world that is taking their taxpayers’ dollars, and trying to sell subsidized things so we can buy them cheaper and have better products, and we’re going to criti-cize that?” asked Bloomberg.

If Obama does not choose to tell the truth about Asia and China as Mayor Bloomberg did, it means that he has not learned from what he himself described as the Democrats “shellacking” in the midterm elec-tion.

Th e author is Deputy Editor of China Daily US Edition. He can be reached at chenweihua@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/c26037524.html,.

Promote dialogue of civilizations

Eff ective global governance requires better communication

and less political and cultural misunderstanding

Soul searching for Obama in Asia

C H E N W E I H UA

LU O J I E

Unknown consequences

WITH OIL HITTING A TWO-YEAR HIGH, GOLD rallying to an all-time peak, and most global stock and com-modities markets in a sharp upswing, the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has proved its capability to drive up the world’s infl ation expectations.

Y et, unfortunately, it remains unknown if the Fed’s announce-ment last W ednesday to purchase $600 billion of Treasuries has any chance of succeeding in eff ectively reviving the sluggish US economy. Moreover, the second round of quantitative easing, or QE2, has given rise to international concerns that the move will only increase global economic uncertainty.

Last Friday, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China’s central bank, pointed out that the Fed’s move was “not likely” to benefi t the global economy, because there may be a confl ict between the international role and the domestic role of the US dollar.Th e Fed’s move to print more money may help boost employ-ment and maintain a low infl ation rate domestically, but it will bring a fl ood of liquidity to the global economy, especially to emerging economies, and drive infl ation expectations to dan-gerous levels.

Last week, German Finance Minister W olfgang Schaeuble criticized the Fed’s capital-injection for its potential to “create extra problems for the world” and cause “long-term damage”.Th e German minister noted that the huge economic problems of the United States should not be tackled with more debt, as cut-ting defi cits, rather than adding more, was one of the priorities among all developed countries.

Equally worried was Robert Zoellick, president of the W orld Bank, who even suggested a modifi ed global gold standard to guide currency movements.

Admittedly, a return to using gold as an anchor for currency values is probably premature, even though gold prices are more solid than ever. But it is now quite obvious that the current inter-national system cannot aff ord doing nothing about the latest US attempt to revive its economy with the help of the central bank’s printing press.

If US policymakers turn a deaf ear to such international criticism over its latest attempt to stimulate its economy’s slow recovery, they will risk undermining other countries’ eff orts to normalize their monetary and fi scal policies for a lasting recovery.

Worse, the phenomenal infl ationary impact that QE2 has so far exerted on the global market could be just the tip of the iceberg. Th ere will undoubtedly be unknown consequences of printing such a large amount of US dollars, a key international reserve currency that is widely used in international commodity trade, capital circulation and fi nancial transactions.Th e international community should make it an issue for seri-ous discussion at the G20 summit in South Korea later this week. It is necessary to drive home the message that neither a country, nor the world as a whole, can refl ate its way out of a crisis as wide and deep as the one that we are all still suff ering from.

Cyber cooperation

LIKE THEIR IDENTITIES IN THE REAL WORLD, China and the United States are also two big nations in cyber-space. Th e US is a major player in Internet infrastructure facility research and development; China, with the world’s largest online population, is a main force in Net technology applications.The two nations have the responsibility of building the cyber communication environment. Our respective Internet information dissemination practices have shown us the many wonders of the Internet and, at the same time, its problems and conundrums.

T o deal with the lessons we have learned from experience, the two nations need to expand exchanges and cooperation. Th e ongoing China-US Internet Industry Forum in Beijing is a step in the right direction. Th e forum has brought policymakers and smart minds from the two nations together since its debut in 2007.Th e Internet is broadly and deeply aff ecting China, while the US determines the W eb’s development direction in terms of core technologies and innovative solutions.Th e development of the IT industry in China and the US is diff erent and, therefore, complementary. Cooperation is essen-tial for promoting the healthy and orderly development of the Internet industry given its global nature.

China and the US need to engage in mutually benefi cial coop-eration in the Internet industry while increasing exchanges and cooperation between professional Internet institutes to combat spam, viruses and pornography, so as to guarantee security and credibility.

A communication mechanism should be established based on mutual trust and close cooperation. Th is is crucial in order to create innovative applications, ensure the security of electronic transactions and combat online crime.

It is important to break down communication barriers, allow-ing exploration of the means to a better life and stimulation of an ever-higher intelligence potential.

Maintaining a safe digital network environment is the respon-sibility of Internet technology and content providers. Th e two nations, therefore, need to focus their attention on the issue of the Internet information environment. Experts and scholars of the two nations should be encouraged to conduct academic exchanges and share their research fi ndings.Th e confrontational threat of a legislative blunt instrument is not constructive. Th e “Global Online Freedom Act of 2007,” a bill passed by a US foreign aff airs committee, would make it a crime for US Internet companies to cooperate with Chinese authorities.Th e Internet is supposed to act as a platform for diff erent cultures to learn about, communicate with and understand one another in order to live in harmony.