New Superpower or New Superparty?

New Superpower or New Superparty?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 11, 2013

Summary: Obama gave Xi Jinping a present, a California Redwood setee. The two men sat side by side on it for a photo op. The image showed the two on an equal footing. The relationship may be a "new superpower relationship." It may be a "new partnership." Either way, it suggests wide acceptance of the notion of a "G2."

Full Text below:

Obama gave Xi Jinping a present, a California Redwood setee. The two men sat side by side on it for a photo op. The image showed the two on an equal footing. The relationship may be a "new superpower relationship." It may be a "new partnership." Either way, it suggests wide acceptance of the notion of a "G2."

Xi Jinping and Obama discussed a "new superpower relationship." Let us begin by addressing the notion of Mainland China as a "new style superpower."

Mainland China may well become a "new superpower." Compare Mainland China with the 19th century British Empire. The British Empire held high the banner of capitalism. Through aggression, colonization, and exploitation of other countries, it became a great nation. But Mainland China used a century of globalization to become a superpower. It used high volume, low-wage labor to become the "world's factory." This made it a "new style superpower."

Compare Mainland China with 20th century Soviet Communism. The Soviet Union led the Cold War. It led North-South confrontation. Shock therapy failed to save this single party dictatorship. Eventually it imploded. By contrast, Mainland China, under Deng Xiaoping's "reform and liberalization," became a model for the transformation of communist regimes. This too made it a "new style superpower."

Now compare Mainland China with the United States. The U.S. was established by emigrants who objected to home rule by Great Britain. From the very beginning it had a free and democratic political system. Mainland China by contrast, experienced the three red flags, the Cultural Revolution, the June 4 Incident, and other such governance nightmares. It owes its people a political debt not easily paid off. This too makes it a "new style superpower."

These comparisons show that Mainland China will not become an aggressor like the British Empire. It will not implement an "Iron Curtain" like the Soviet Union. It has already successfully negotiated its internal crisis. It will not implode the way the Soviet Union did. Therefore Mainland China is a new style superpower that has the wherewithal to maintain peaceful foreign relations.

Mainland China's problems are internal. The United States was founded on freedom and democracy. It upholds these universal values. It may be guilty of hypocrisy and double standards. But it has not deviated from liberal democracy. This important pillar provides support for this superpower. What sort of value system will Mainland China use to maintain harmony internally, and define itself externally? This will be the ultimate test of this new style superpower.

Xi Jinping said, [Mainland] China will not export revolution, will not export hunger and poverty, and will not attempt to sow chaos among others. What else is there to say? These are things that the new style superpower will not do internationally. But a more fundamental question is, what moral high ground will this new style superpower seek internally? Will it merely flaunt its status as a "new superparty?"

The Chinese Communist Party has become a "new superparty." It is the world's largest political party. For 60 years it has no opposition political parties to speak against it. It has practiced Communist one-party dictatorship. But it has not imploded the way the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries did. It still uses the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to assert one party control over the land and resources. It still uses a wide range of political tools to impose "capitalism with Chinese characteristics." These have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become a "new superparty." For now and for the foreseeable short term future, it remains a successful model. But is it a sustainable model? That is a major question.

The CCP cannot use "Chinese characteristics" to maintain its "new superparty" rule, in perpetuity. It cannot avoid universal values such as freedom and democracy in perpetuity. These have already been made part of the "seven unmentionables." The Mainland government wants China to be a superpower. But the constitutional rights of the people remain unfulfilled. The human quest for freedom and democracy remains frustrated. The only law is "one-party communist dictatorship, forever." What civilized human values can the Mainland government invoke? How can it be a true superpower?

Actually, the CCP could use the Sudong Po dominoes turmoil to transform itself into a new superparty, and to create a political miracle. Its next step should be to invoke its "new superparty" status. It should take a different path than "old country" superpowers such as Great Britain, America, and the Soviet Union. Mainland China can become a model for the universal values of freedom and democracy. It can indeed achieve "new style superpower" status. The rejuvenation of the Chinese nation cannot ensure that the Communist Party will forever remain a "great" one-party dictatorship. It is impossible. A genuine renaissance must be founded on freedom and democracy for every member of the Chinese nation.

For Mainland China to be a "superpower," it must be "internally a saint, externally a  king." In today's language, "internally a saint" means democracy, whereas "externally a king" means peace with other nations. The Chinese Communist Party cannot alter these requirements by imposing its will as a one-party dictatorship. Mainland China must become a new style superpower. Only then can it establish a "new relationship among superpowers." Only then can it establish a new model for human civilization. Only then, can it speak of a great renaissance of the Chinese nation.

How cross-strait relations should bear on external relations presents a major challenge to this new style superpower. Can cross-strait relations be reconciled with "peace externally" and "democracy internally?" Can reasonable arrangements be made? The new style superpower framework may not support these. That means that externally "new superpower relationships" may be difficult to maintain as well.

新型大國或新型大黨？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.06.11 02:14 am

歐巴馬贈與習近平一張加州紅杉二人座的長椅，兩人並肩坐在椅上合影；此一平起平坐的圖像顯示，不論是「新型大國關係」或「新合作關係」，皆透露著一股「Ｇ２」的飛揚意態。

習近平與歐巴馬談「新型大國關係」，其實，可先從把中國大陸建構為「新型的大國」作起。

中國不無可能成為「新型的大國」。若以中國與十九世紀的大英帝國相比，英帝國高舉資本主義的大纛，經由侵略、殖民及剝削他國，成為大國；但中國則是趁上世紀末的全球化風潮，以大量低工資的勞動階級成為「世界工廠」而崛起。這是「新型」。

再將中國與二十世紀的共產主義蘇聯相比，蘇聯以領導東西冷戰與南北對抗為能事，最後是因「休克療法」未能挽救一黨專政而致大國崩解；中國則在鄧小平的「改革開放」下，成為共產政權的轉型典範。這也是「新型」。

再以中國與美國比，美國原就是由抗議英國母國統治的出走者所建，自始即有自由民主的立國價值體系；而中國卻經歷了三面紅旗、文革、六四等統治夢魘，對其人民尚有不易償贖的政治債務。這亦是「新型」。

由以上簡略的比較可知，中國不會變成英帝國那樣的侵略國，亦不會變成蘇聯那樣的「鐵幕連線」，也已暫度過蘇聯那樣自內部瓦解的危機；因此，中國在對外關係上，確具備主張「外部和平」的新型大國條件。

但是，中國的問題在內部。像美國以自由民主立國，站在普世價值的同一邊，雖亦有其偽善及兩重標準的行徑，畢竟不曾背離自由民主，這是支撐其為大國的重要支柱；而中國將以何種價值體系來維持其「內部和諧」及「外部號召」，這才是新型大國的終極考驗。

習近平曾說：中國一不輸出革命，二不輸出饑餓和貧困，三不折騰你們，還有什麼好說的？這些，皆是新型大國的對外條件。但根本的問題卻在於：其內部的統治究竟是具有「新型大國」的道德高度，抑或只是以標榜一個「新型大黨」而自豪？

中共已經成為一個「新型大黨」。它是舉世最大的政黨，且是一個六十餘年來沒有反對黨的政黨；它實行共產黨的一黨專政，卻未像蘇聯及東歐諸國一樣崩解；它仍以「無產階級專政」為名，卻以一黨控制之土地、資源及各種統治工具來推進「有中國特色的資本主義」……。這些，皆使中共成為一個「新型大黨」，而且迄今及在可見的短期未來，它皆是一個成功的模式。然而，這會不會是一個永續的模式，卻是個大問號。

因為，中共不可能永遠以「中國特色」來維持這種「新型大黨」的統治正當性。亦即，它不可能永遠不面對必然趨向自由民主的公民社會與普世價值（皆已列入「七不講」）。中國若想作為一個「大國」，若連人民的憲法權利皆不能兌現，若連自由民主的人性追求都不能實現，而認為「共產黨永遠一黨專政」是唯一的政治鐵律，其對於全人類文明價值之號召何在？又如何成為名副其實的大國？

其實，中共能在「蘇東波」的骨牌風潮中，轉型成為一個新型大黨，誠為一個政經奇蹟。下一步，即應運用此一「新型大黨」的特殊條件，設法使中國能經由與英、美、蘇聯那些「老牌大國」不同的路徑，而也能成為實現自由民主普世價值典範的「新型大國」。因為，中華民族的偉大復興，不會因確保共產黨永世一黨專政而「偉大」（其實，也不可能永遠保住）；真正的「復興」，應是建立在中華民族每一人民皆能享有自由民主之上。

中國的「大國」形象，是「內聖／外王」。以今日語言說，「內聖」即是「民主」，「外王」即是「和平」。此一至理，不可能隨中共一黨專政的意志為轉移。中國必須成為如此的新型大國，始有可能建立並引領真正的「新型大國關係」，亦始有可能作為人類文明的典範；如此，始有可能言中華民族的偉大與復興。

再者，兩岸關係處於「內外介面」之間，如何處理，亦是對新型大國的考驗。若兩岸關係不能經由「外和平」與「內民主」的途徑合理的安排，新型大國的架構必難支撐，對外的「新型大國關係」恐怕也就難以維繫。