Westerners need self-reflection before criticizing China · Global Voices
Andy Yee

In an afterword to the 2006 edition of The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama depicted a possible scenario of world politics: the victory of an authoritarian type of capitalism over liberal democratic capitalist states. While this is not his preferred destination, it is moving in that direction.
The West seems to be annoyed by a series of events: China’s cyber attacks on Western computer networks, disputes with Google, crackdowns on human rights activists, execution of a British citizen, and its unhelpful role ranging from the climate change talks to Iran’s nuclear program. The list goes on. Pundits point to the increasing threats posted by an increasingly self-confident China.
But before going on criticizing China, let’s view the matter from another angle: The West’s response to China’s economic reform and opening. It plays an important part in fuelling China’s self-confidence, one of the key themes discussed in posts by Chinese scholar Zhu Xueqin (朱学勤) on BBC Chinese Web and Lu Di (芦笛) on Bullogger.com.
China’s great gamble
Deng Xiaoping, China’s legendary reformist leader, once said, ‘no matter black or white, it is a good cat as long as it can catch a mouse.’ It is this pragmatism that underlies China’s economic reform in 1978 after the disastrous decade of Cultural Revolution. China’s embrace of capitalism, as Zhu Xueqin likens it, successfully turns itself into a cat that catches many mice, or Western capitalist democratic nations:
小平投注的是猫，猫鼠联姻，被吃的是鼠，不是猫。
Xiaoping placed a bet on the cat. In the marriage between cat and mouse, the one being eaten is the mouse, not the cat.
Even at the most dangerous moment of the gamble, the Tiananmen Incident of 1989, China’s authoritarianism steered itself out of dangers, thanks to Western capitalists:
世纪豪赌最危险的时候，是1989至1991那三年。坦克一上街，所有的老鼠都吓得屁滚尿流，外资大撤退，内资亦不继，GDP直线下降，中国面临崩盘，真可能玩完。小平同志跑到南方画一个圈，说一句“不问姓社姓资”，招商引资，春雷滚滚。
The dangerous moment of the gamble is between 1989 and 1991. With tanks on the streets, all mice were scared. Foreign investments retreated, GDP nosedived, and China faced imminent collapse. Comrade Xiaoping, during his Southern Tour, said ‘I don’t care if it is socialism or capitalism.’ With one strike, he reopened the floodgate for foreign investments again.
亏得小平高瞻远瞩，还能“不争论”，带头招商引资，引无数老鼠竞折腰。让一点市场，撒几把米粒算得了什么？资本家，资本家，我就不信资本家来了，资本家的政府不来！果然，西洋各国寻米而来，争抢中国订单，哪一国总理订单要少了，回去还有受民主舆论的喝斥。经济制裁是这样打破的，政治制裁则不消说，强虏烟飞灰灭，1989政治危机就是这样度过的。
With Deng’s far-sightedness and welcoming of foreign capitals, the mice just could not resist. What tiny cost it is just to open up the market a bit! Capitalists, capitalists, I don’t believe that once capitalists come to China, their governments would not follow! Indeed, Western countries come in one by one for Chinese contracts. What’s more, those governments which secured too few contracts would be criticized by its own constituencies and media. The economic sanction was broken in this way, not to mention political isolation. The crisis of 1989 was resolved.
Capitalism and universal values
Reflecting on Zhu’s article, Lu Di is not so sure whether Western civilization could insist on the universal values of justice and freedom in face of China’s capitalism:
其实列宁早就发现这点了。还在西方文明世界封锁苏俄时，他便断言，甭看帝国主义跟咱们貌似势不两立，贪婪是资本家的本性，因此他们迟早要来和我们做生意，帮助我们把国家弄得强大起来。老邓之所以在中国翅膀未硬前，便敢冒全世界之大不韪血洗北京城，也无非是吃透了西方的道义高调是假的，再“义薄云天”，最后还是得为铜臭弯腰钻狗洞，虽则可能是掩着鼻。
Actually, Lenin discovered this long ago. When Western civilization was boycotting Soviet  Union, he judged that greed was the nature of capitalists. Sooner or later, they would come and do business with Soviet Union. The reason that Deng decided to bloodily suppress the Tiananmen protest of 1989, at a time when China was weak, was that he saw the hypocrisy of the West. No matter how noble or just your cause is, you just could not resist but bend down for coins.
He discussed his views on a number of recent cases:
谷歌与雅虎的区别，说起来也很可怜：雅虎完全接受后面这一条，甚至向中国政府提供异议人士的通信内容，导致师涛被重判，而谷歌本已同意中国政府有权管制资讯，只是实在难以同意中国政府有权窥探公民隐私。区别也就只在这点上而已。就连这最后的底线，谷歌能否最后守住，也还在未定之天。
Talking about Google and Yahoo, it’s sad to note about their difference, which is tiny: Yahoo completely accepted [Chinese government’s intrusion on privacy], and supplied communications information of dissidents, resulting in the heavy imprisonment of Shi Tao. Google had in principle accepted Chinese government’s right to control information, and only did not accept intrusion on privacy. This is the only difference, and it is uncertain whether Google could keep to this bottomline.
不难看出当局为何敢重判刘晓波：第一，他们吃准了鬼子为了钱不敢作声，顶多只是不疼不痒地咋呼两声，但经济制裁之类的凶器是再也没本事亮出来了。第二，他们吃准了“民心所向”，知道大部份或起码是相当大的比例的精英出于自家利益反对“普世价值观”，因此无论他们怎么胡作非为，都不会引起国内舆论民情强烈反弹。
It is not difficult to see why the Chinese government dared to heavily imprison Liu Xiaobo: First, they knew that Westerners, for the sake of commercial interests, would control their reaction, at most mumbling a word or two. Economic sanction is a weapon the West no longer posses. Second, they knew that domestic elites would oppose to so-called ‘universal values’ out of their own interests. Therefore, no matter what the government does, there would not be strong backlashes.
这说明了什么？道义在金钱面前的脆弱。普世价值观再崇高，也抵挡不住银弹攻势。自由世界不怕苏联的核弹，但在我党的糖衣炮弹面前只能乖乖投降。
What do these show? The weakness of justice in front of money. Universal values could not survive the ‘money offensive’, no matter how noble they are. The free world is not afraid of Soviet nuclear bombs, but has no choice but to surrender under China’s sugar-coated bullets.
Goodbye Google
Is the West’s hope that engagement with China economically will lead to political reforms merely wishful thinking? Zhu quoted some philosophical reflections on the relationship between capitalism and authoritarianism:
市场经济与现代宪政并不具有必然因果关系，前者是后者的必要条件，而不是必要充分条件。也就是说，无市场经济必无宪政民主，有市场经济则不一定必有宪政民主，两者之间还要有其它条件。
Market economy and modern constitutionalism do not necessarily have causal relations. The former is a necessary condition for the latter, but by no means a necessary and sufficient condition. In other words, without market economy, there is no modern constitutionalism. But market economy does not imply modern constitutionalism. Other conditions must exist.
Zhu ended his article with a pessimistic note:
中国猫完成了转基因，输血者恰是被食者，自然界多了一种新物种。内鼠也好，外鼠也罢，总有一天都会噬脐莫及。硕鼠硕鼠，适彼乐土，回你的美国老家吧，别了，司徒雷登，别了，谷歌搜索！
The China Cat has transformed its DNA. Those which feed it are also those being eaten. The world now has a new species. Whether the mouse is within or outside it, they will all be eaten. Big mouse, Big mouse, this land does not suit you. Go back to America. Goodbye John Leighton Stuart, goodbye Google!