Can the Chinese (Communist) experience in international regimes be globalized to other areas?
And, “[t]o achieve harmony between oneself and others one must first find harmony between body and mind. Traditional Chinese culture stresses ‘zhong,’ [which] refers to the appropriate ‘degree’ for everything.” Degree changes according to the times and the conditions, and it should be applied flexibly in real life. Arguably, from the above discussion, peaceful rise, harmonious world, international regimes, and swarm theory can be integrated as one theory. Due to this reason, the Chinese (Communists) can globalize the first two terms and its experience related to regimes and swarm theory to other parts of the world. An academic coined a new term, Chiglobalization, which fuses the strengths of all other globalizations, such as Ameriglobalization, Angloglobalization, and the Silk Road, which was the first wave of globalization originating from ancient China.3 Needless to say, we have to also talk about the definitions of the term “globalization.” That is to say, we have to choose at least one of them, if possible, since I have described and explained seven different regimes. For example, it would be interesting to note which definition for globalization I should use for the arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation regime, or another regime. Just as there are many definitions for strategy and for religion, there are many definitions for globalization. The Chinese Communists study the term from an economic perspective. They believe that economics comes before everything else; as Karl H. Marx said, what prevails in economy ultimately will prevail in politics. Having done that, they would proceed to describe, explain, and predict the superstructure (ShangcengJianzhu), which embraces ideology, country, politics, and military affairs in that order of importance.4 I will first mention some of them, as defined by the non-Chinese. Then, I will try to rule out some. If I have to abandon all of them, I will have to come up with one of my own. Alphabetically, here are what I call the driving forces of globalization: Americanization, centralization,5 deterritorialization,6 digitization,7 Easternization, integration, internationalization, liberalization, modernization, privatization,8 regionalization,9 reterritorialization, territorialization, universalization, weaponization, and Westernization. Some scholars regard modernization as being equivalent to Westernization. Other phrases (or variations) regard globalization as: a “compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole;”10 “a respatialization of social life opens up new knowledge and engages key policy
challenges of current history in a constructively critical manner;”11 “[t]he intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa;”12 “the spread of transplanetary-and in recent times more particularly supraterritorial-connections between people;”13 and (economic) interdependence. Another academic believes that, when talking about globalization, the following varieties (or key elements) should be included: communication, market, and direct (meaning palpable and psychological).14 A Japanese company, Sony, coined the term “glocalization,” which is a mixture of globalization and localization.15 In sum, after conducting the discussion, it is non-dialectically very difficult to come up with a new, catch-all definition that can subsume all of the abovementioned definitions, not even the Chinese Communist one which looks at globalization from an economic perspective and which should be understood dialectically: economic globalization, to which the Chinese PLA also subscribes.16 YU Keping, who is a high-ranking member of the CPC, mentioned the binaries of universalization/particularization, integration/fragmentation, centralization/decentralization, and internationalization/domestication.17 For this reason, I will simply define globalization as the spread of the Chinese (Communist) (economic and non-economic) experience in forming, maintaining, and sustaining those regimes to other parts of the world. Thus far, the term “globalization” gives many people a feeling that it is a good process and force. However, globalization could be bad, as one reviewer commented on a book, Japanese Occupation Sarawak 1941-1945:18 “Globalization in its worst form arrived at our shores on December 16, 1941 with the first landing of Japanese troops and the people of Sarawak soon found themselves sucked into the throes of the Second World War.”19 If so, can we say that the PRC wants to globalize its threat to all parts of the world? There are many writings on the China threat in the West. In September 2009, LEE Kuan Yew, Senior Minister in Singapore said he does believe in what the older generations of the PRC leaders say, that is, the PRC’s rise is peaceful and that it will not seek hegemony. However, he said he is not so sure about the younger generations.20 If we say Beijing is globalizing harmony, not many academics and experts would challenge that, but some may cast doubts, especially among those academics and experts in the West. However, would the Chinese (Communists) globalize threat? As recent as September 2009, a few mass media, while commenting on the national parade for celebrating the 60th founding of the PRC still mentioned the China threat.21 In December 2010, a PRC State Councilor, DAI Bingguo said the following: “Countries should consider themselves passengers in the same boat and cross the river peacefully together instead of fighting one another and trying to push one another off the boat.”22 A former general, XIONG Guangkai, said US military officials are not clear what the Chinese PLA’s intent is. The former said the US mistranslation of the Chinese idiom, TaoGuangYangHui, as “hide our capabilities [YingChangZiJiDeZhenZhengYiTu] and bide our time [DengDaiShiJiChengShouZaiChuShou]” is the culprit.23