Yu Tu Moon Landing: Chang'e Shock

Yu Tu Moon Landing: Chang'e Shock
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
December 15, 2013

Summary: In 1957 the Soviet Union's Sputnik became the first man made satellite ever launched into earth orbit. American pundits at the time referred to the domestic reaction as "Sputnik shock." Yesterday, the Chinese mainland's "Chang'e 3" lunar exploration vehicle enabled the "Yu Tu" (Jade Rabbit) lunar rover to make a soft landing on the moon. One might refer to the reaction from some quarters as "Chang'e shock."

Full text below:

In 1957 the Soviet Union's Sputnik became the first man made satellite ever launched into earth orbit. American pundits at the time referred to the domestic reaction as "Sputnik shock." Yesterday, the Chinese mainland's "Chang'e 3" lunar exploration vehicle enabled the "Yu Tu" (Jade Rabbit) lunar rover to make a soft landing on the moon. One might refer to the reaction from some quarters as "Chang'e shock."

Sputnik shock was a turning point in the Cold War. It lit a fire under the US. In 1969, the Apollo mission put a man on the moon. In 1983, President Reagan launched "Star Wars." Today, historians think the space race was one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Will the Chinese mainland's "Chang'e shock" transform the Chinese mainland into another unsustainable Soviet Union? Or will the Chinese mainland continue its rise? This is where Chang'e's potential and Sputnik's reality part ways.

Today's Chinese mainland and yesterday's Soviet Union are different in many ways. Consider several examples. One. The Soviet Union's biggest problem was an unsound economy. But globalization saved the Chinese mainland. It has become the world's second largest economy. Living standards have improved accordingly. Two. The Soviet Union was burdened with the leadership of the Eastern Bloc socialist nations. It was eventually crushed beneath the Berlin Wall. The Chinese mainland, by contrast, long ceased "exporting revolution." Three. the Soviet Union had Gorbachev. Today's China is neither reverting to rigid feudalism nor putting old wine in new bottles. It is hard to imagine the appearance of a Gorbachev style leader. Such differences have led to widespread speculation. The Chinese mainlnand is also socialist. But the Chinese mainland and the Soviet Union have taken different paths. Where will they end up? In other words, should one apply stereotypical "China collapse theory" thinking to the Chinese mainland? That is the question.

The Chinese mainland truly has developed a system with "Chinese characteristics." Consider a few examples. One. The authoritarian windfall. Those in power are not afraid to talk the talk and walk the walk. They encounter little resistance to their plans. As a result they dare to imagine, and often succeed. Two. The space program windfall. Its impact has been far reaching, The Sichuan earthquake could not shake the entire nation. Bo Xilai could only shake up Chongqing. Differential development has created a vast hinterland. Three. The population windfall. A large population has mass. Industrial innovation creates wealth. It enables the Chinese mainland to become a global producer as well as a global consumer. It enables the Chinese mainland to become an industrial and commercial hub, with the economies of scale to become relatively self-sufficient. Such a Chinese mainland may lack political rights, but may continue to progress by virtue of economic and social rights. An authoritarian political system may nevertheless be able to make the right economic decisions. If so, can the world really cling to its assumption that "China must inevitably collapse?"

U.S. President Barack Obama referred to the rise of China and India in his 2011 State of the Union Address. He included India only because mentioning China alone would have embarrassed India. Obama said that the rise of China and India has changed the rules of game for the global economy. He said this was a Sputnik moment for the US. Obama's State of the Union Address voiced his concern over the comparative efficiency of Chinese mainland authoritarianism over US democracy. Obama's Sputnik moment might well be renamed the Chang'e moment.

One could expand on Obama's idea. Not only could the Chinese mainland not collapse, its authoritarian rule might be able to make the right decisions, and may survive. If so, how should the world view the Chinese mainland? This may be something anti-Communists are reluctant to consider. But it is a problem the world must face. Refusing to face it, hoping that "China will inevitably collapse" will not help one respond to the rise of the Chinese mainland.

Chang'e and Yu Tu have become world news. Meanwhile, three significant domestic events have taken place. One. Twenty-five provinces are choked by record levels of smog. This is a warning against unbalanced development. Two. News of Zhou Yongkang's arrest has broken. This is a result of authoritarian corruption. Three. The conflict over ADIZs has led to chaos in the East China Sea. This is the result of the end to the Chinese mainland's low profile policy. Beijing's current form of governance is merely a fascist cloak over a socialist body. From one perspective it is enlightened despotism. From another perspective, it is organized crime rent-seeking. This "socialism with Chinese characteristics" differs from the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian people recently smashed statues of Lenin. The Chang'e shock differs from Sputnik shock. Thirty-four years after Sputnik, the Soviet Union imploded. But the Chinese mainland and the world must wonder. What will the Chinese mainland look like 10, 20, or 30 years after the Chang'e shock?

During the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian eras, the "China collapse theory" formed the backbone of cross-Strait political and economic policy. But today, even the most rabid anti-Communist must have his doubts. Suppose the Chinese mainland does not collapse? Suppose it continues to rise? Can one really continue to use Taiwan independence and opposition to trade in services agreements to oppose Beijing? Or is some alternative needed?

Many may be skeptical about the Chang'e shock. How much substance to it is there? But the world must not imagine that the Chinese mainland will collapse like the Soviet Union. Obama invoked the term Sputnik moment.Today, on Taiwan, this is a Chang'e moment.

玉兔登月：如何解讀「嫦娥震撼」
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.12.15 04:21 am

一九五七年，蘇聯的「史潑尼克一號」成為第一顆進入地球軌道的人造衛星，美國輿論當時稱之為「史潑尼克震撼」；昨天，中國大陸的「嫦娥三號」月球探測船，成功地攜送「玉兔號」月球車在月球表面軟著陸，也可說是「嫦娥震撼」。

「史潑尼克震撼」是冷戰的轉捩點，它激發了美國的憂患意識，至一九六九年阿波羅號載人登月成功，再至一九八三年雷根總統發動「星戰計劃」，如今歷史學家認為這場太空競賽是導致一九九一年蘇聯解體的主因之一。今天，若從中國大陸演出的這一場「嫦娥震撼」看向未來，將是一個如蘇聯一般在各方面逐漸撐持不住的中國？還是一個將繼續維持上升曲線的中國？這是「嫦娥號的想像」與「史潑尼克號的史實」不同之處。

今天的中國大陸與當年的蘇聯有頗多不同之處，例如：一、當年蘇聯的主病是在民生經濟的貧弱，但「全球化」卻救了中國，如今已成為世界第二大經濟體，民生經濟亦獲得相對改善。二、蘇聯背負著社會主義國家之「共同祖國」的包袱，終被柏林圍牆壓垮，但中國如今已不談「輸出革命」。三、蘇聯出了一個戈巴契夫，但今日的中國，卻是「不走封建僵化的老路／也不走改旗易幟的邪路」，不能想像會出現「戈巴契夫」那樣的角色。諸如此類的差異，帶給世人一個想像：同樣是「社會主義國家」，中國與蘇聯經由不同的路徑走到今日，今後會不會也有不同的結局？也就是說：世人能否再用「中國崩潰論」的刻板思想來看中國，大可斟酌。

此時的中國，確實發展出一套有「中國特色」的體制。例如：一、專制紅利：使主政者敢想敢作，由於調度能量幾無任何阻力，所以想作敢作的也大致都能作成。二、空間紅利：幅員廣闊，一場四川地震撼動不了全國，一個薄熙來只能攪動重慶，再因各地發展的差異形成了縱深廣大的腹地。三、人口紅利：這樣的人口「量體」，如果產業創新、人民富裕，不無可能成為一個世界「生產」與「消費」的工商樞紐及相對自給自足的規模經濟。換句話說，這樣的中國，可能會在背負一些「政治人權汙點」的情況下，經濟人權及社會人權皆有持續進步；也就是說，如果發展出一個能夠「以專制的能量／作出正確決策」的政經體制，世人還能以「中國必然崩潰論」來看中國嗎？

美國總統歐巴馬在二○一一年國情咨文中，對中國及印度（提及印度，只因不好意思只提中國）的崛起深感焦慮。歐巴馬說：中國與印度的崛起，「已經改變了世界經濟規則」；他說：「現在，正是美國在這個時代的『史潑尼克時刻』！」歐巴馬在那篇國情咨文中，對中國的「專制紅利」與美國「民主包袱」所表現的效率差異之憂慮溢於言表。如今，歐巴馬所說的「史潑尼克時刻」，已可改稱「嫦娥時刻」。

就本文的角度，或許可將歐巴馬的思想引伸為一個觀點，那就是：如果中國不但不會「崩潰」，而且能以「專制能量／正確決策」的表現繼續發展下去，世人應當如何看中國？這或許是反共反中者所不願想像之事，卻是世人不能不面對的問題。若不能面對這個問題，只是想像「中國必然崩潰論」，就找不到因應中國的正確方案。

然而，正當嫦娥玉兔成為世界話題之際，中國也正發生三件極具指標意義的內部事件。一、二十五省陷於空前的霾害，這是發展失衡的警訊；二、周永康被捕的消息甚囂塵上，這是專制腐敗的宿命；三、防空識別區攪渾了東海，這是韜光養晦的破局。中共如今這一套治理方式，不啻是用社會主義的外衣來包裹法西斯主義的身軀，橫看成開明專制，側看成幫派尋租。這套「有中國特色的社會主義」與蘇聯不同（烏克蘭群眾日前已砸爛列寧銅像），因此，「嫦娥震撼」亦與「史潑尼克震撼」不同。在「史潑尼克」後三十四年，蘇聯解體；但中國與世界都要想一想，在「嫦娥震撼」的十年、二十年、三十年後，中國將是怎樣的中國？

台灣在李登輝與陳水扁時代，是以「中國崩潰論」作為兩岸政經政策的脊樑，但今日即使最強烈的反共反中者也須自問：如果中國大陸不「崩潰」，反而在各方面繼續維持上升曲線，難道還能用台獨及反《服貿協議》來反共反中嗎？或者，必須另有方案？

不少人對「嫦娥震撼」的後繼能量有所存疑及保留，但世人也必須想像一個不會像蘇聯一樣「崩潰」的中國。借用歐巴馬「史潑尼克時刻」的語法：現在，也是台灣的「嫦娥時刻」。