WANG Jisi

Essential Goals
in World Politics
Essential Goals in World Politics
WANG Jisi

Essential Goals in World

Politics

123
WANG Jisi
Institute of International
and Strategic Studies
Peking University
Beijing, China

ISBN 978-981-16-0561-1 ISBN 978-981-16-0562-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8
Jointly published with CITIC Press Corporation
The print edition is not for sale in China (Mainland). Customers from China (Mainland) please order the
print book from: CITIC Press.

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publishers, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Introduction

Honestly, I feel underqualified to write this book.

The central theme of this book is the ultimate goals of world politics and their
interrelationships. In a disciplinary sense, this book may belong to the profound
terrain of political philosophy, or fit as an exploration in political theory. I, how-
ever, have not equipped myself with a background in these disciplines prior to
writing this book.
I didn’t attend college until I turned 30 years old, when I undertook my
undergraduate studies with a major in international politics. During the preceding
10 years, I worked as a shepherd, peasant, and factory worker; before that, I had
experienced the Cultural Revolution for 2 years as a high school student. During
those first 12 years of my adulthood, I didn’t read many books, much less any
classics or literary masterpieces. I went to college in 1978, and for the 40 years
after, in addition to studying, teaching, and writing, I spent 30 years concurrently as
an administrator in a few academic institutions. I have neither studied social science
systematically nor published any academic monographs. I do not hold a Ph.D.
degree. Therefore, it feels like an uphill battle for me to write a book touching on
issues in political philosophy or political theory.
My expertise is in international politics or International Relations (IR), as it is
called in the United States, especially contemporary China-US relations. While
international politics is usually classified as a branch of political science, those
without proper academic training in political science can nevertheless freely
comment on practical international issues such as China-US relations. In other
words, one does not have to understand political science first to study practical
political issues. Moreover, my studies and teaching in IR and IR theory are not
directly relevant to the subject of this book. For this reason, my writing about the
ultimate goals of world politics runs the risk of being seen by experts in these fields
as an act of trespass.
This being the case, why did I still venture to write about this topic?
To begin with, I have a desire to share my personal reflections on world politics
with my readers. As a rough estimate, in the 40 years since I entered the field of
international politics, I have spent cumulatively more than 7 years outside of China,

v
vi Introduction

visiting dozens of countries and regions, including long-term scholarly visits and
short-term lecture trips, as well as traveling to attend conferences and for personal
pleasure as a tourist. I have met people from all walks of life, ranging from gov-
ernment officials and former government officials at different levels to entrepre-
neurs, media professionals, scholars, students, and ordinary people who seem
indifferent to politics. The dazzling array of political views I have encountered
covers the full spectrum from left to right, and from radical to moderate. I have tried
my best to understand the national conditions, political situations, and popular
sentiments of the countries I have visited. In my experience, it is not the rela-
tionships between countries that strike me the most, but rather those different ideas
held by the people I have met from different cultures, including their views on
government, faith, organization, and family.
For example, it is hard for us in China to imagine the level of devotion of many
Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Hindus, and Buddhists to their
faith without seeing for ourselves. Stepping out of a religious place abroad and
entering a local Chinese restaurant where you are greeted with the large signboard
of “Zhao Cai Jin Bao” (Chinese idiom, meaning “ushering in wealth and pros-
perity”) and the statue of the traditional Chinese Kitchen God (Zao Wang Ye) is a
special kind of experience that evokes specific feelings. People in different societies
share some of the same life goals, such as the pursuit of health, emphasis on family
ties, and longing to make more money. But when it comes to other aspects of social
life and the spiritual realm, differences among countries, or between other countries
and China, are obvious. It is by getting in touch with people from different countries
and cultures that I began to understand the “ultimate goals of world politics.”
My intellectual examination of this topic originated from a discussion in China
of the “Clash of Civilizations,” a theme proposed by Harvard Prof. Samuel
Huntington in 1993. In 1994 [1], Civilizations and International Politics, a book in
Chinese that I edited, collected comments on Huntington’s theory by Chinese
scholars, myself included. According to Prof. Huntington, ideological conflict and
rivalry among the great powers were no longer the focus of world politics after the
Cold War ended; instead, collisions of “civilizations,” as defined by religion,
especially those clashes between Christianity and Islam, would take the center
stage. At that time, Chinese thinkers and scholars gave typical reactions to this
argument. They argued that politics is about power and economic interests; inter-
national politics is the struggle for power among countries. Many of them said that,
in accordance with the “Law of the Jungle,” issues of religion and faith are either
unrelated to international politics, or tend to be used as cloaked tools to gain
political power. Therefore, they suggested that Huntington’s viewpoints were
ill-founded. In those days, those Chinese who cared about international politics
often debated peace and development, as proposed by Deng Xiaoping. They con-
sidered the nature of peace and development in the world and whether more should
be done to promote those two ideals.
Another debate at that time centered on identifying the world’s foremost set of
contradictions—i.e., East versus West, North versus South, China versus the U.S.,
or socialism versus capitalism. These debates, as divergent as they were from
Introduction vii

Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” hypothesis, helped me realize how different

China was from many Western and Islamic countries in terms of political discourse.
It struck me that these major differences in discourse were not related to arguments
about the benefits of socialism or Marxism, but instead highlighted a significant
disparity in the understanding of the ultimate goals of politics as they relate to
differences in national conditions, cultures, and history.
Many people in China believe that if the whole world were capable of simul-
taneously maintaining long-term stability and high-speed economic growth, as
China has been doing in its reform era, mankind would enjoy eternal peace and
happiness. However, for many other countries in the world, “politics” is about more
than just peace and economic development. For example, many Muslims and their
leaders perceive Westerners (especially Christians) to be unjustly dominating the
world and bullying other peoples. Many Palestinians, though also longing for
happiness and prosperity, prioritize the need for justice and the return of the
Palestine homeland in the face of Israeli oppression. That is why some Palestinians
have resorted to violent resistance and have even shown sympathy and support for
Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
The primary goal of the American people is not “peace and development,” but
“freedom.” In a 2004 speech about the September 11 terrorist attacks, then U.S.
President George W. Bush said: “The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their
cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear—and they should be
afraid, because freedom is on the march [2].”For the Chinese, the logic behind
Bush’s words was hard to understand. The terrorists had destroyed security, peace,
stability, and prosperity. What did the attack have to do with what Mr. Bush called
“freedom”? The terrorists had leveraged their “freedom” to engage in violent
activities. Is that what they were looking for? However, every U.S. citizen who
grew up learning about President Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms”—freedom
of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear—in
their early education fully understood Bush’s words.
One of my motivations for writing on this subject was to illustrate the differences
between Chinese people and foreigners in their understanding of the ultimate goals
of politics. In fact, there was a period when the Chinese people of my generation
regarded the “revolutionary war” as necessary and righteous, and held it as uni-
versal truth that, as Mao famously put it, “political power grows out of the barrel of
a gun [3].” At that time, peace and stability was not an ultimate goal; revolution
carried the highest value. “Pacifism” was said to be a propaganda slogan of the
bourgeoisie to induce workers and peasants to give up revolution, and nonviolence
was criticized by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. “Armed
struggle” was one of the “three magic weapons” of the Chinese revolution before
1949. As Mao Zedong (1991) pointed out, “The central task and the highest form of
revolution is to seize power by armed forces and to solve problems through war.
This Marxist-Leninist revolutionary principle is universally true, both in China and
abroad [4].” However, China today no longer advocates armed seizure of power
and solving problems through war. Instead, China adheres to the path of peaceful
development.
viii Introduction

Therefore, under different historical and social conditions, political goals change,
and these goals often contradict one another. For example, each country chooses
how much money to spend on the welfare of its citizens, on national defense, and
on maintaining political stability at home. If justice and freedom must be achieved
by violence, then peace is sacrificed. Choices are made based on contemporary
times, and in an effort to balance competing goals.
My second reason for writing this book is that I have learnt from my past work
that domestic politics is the foundation for foreign policy and international rela-
tions. This is well-illustrated in Foreign Policy Begins at Home, a book by Richard
Haass (2014) [5], an American expert on international affairs. To understand
international politics, we should start by understanding the domestic politics,
economy, society, and culture of each country, instead of starting with their
diplomatic relations. Having this context enables us to see diplomatic relations as
the tip of the iceberg—or part of a more complex whole. Perceiving and under-
standing the full picture, to the best of our abilities, can prevent a disaster of Titanic
proportions in terms of international relations.
A few years ago, I did a quiz at the beginning of a course I taught. All 20
students in attendance were familiar with Prof. Alexander Wendt, a leading
American constructivist in the study of international relations. But almost no one in
the class knew that Bangladesh, a large country neighboring China, gained its
independence from Pakistan in 1971. In my opinion, general knowledge of Asian
history is more essential than knowing the details of political theory. This highlights
problems not with our students but in our academic curriculum and textbooks.
Improving the knowledge structure of college students in this field calls for
better textbooks and reference books that combine comparative politics with
international politics. Regrettably, I have not read many good books in this inter-
disciplinary field, either in Chinese or in English. Therefore, I am determined to
write one or two books of my own that may be easily understood by Chinese
readers. This book marks the first and challenging step in that direction.
Although this is not a lengthy, complicated book, its contents are wide-ranging
and nuanced. During my writing, I constantly found myself walking a tightrope. On
the one hand, I dare not blindly trust the ideas of any particular school of thought,
be it ancient or contemporary, Chinese or international. On the other hand, I am
cautious in what I have discovered, restraining myself from being complacent and
over-reliant on my own thoughts. I am not a fan of “telling without creating,” or
merely commenting on well-established thinkers without expounding my own
opinions. But writing about one’s own views, whether academic or political, is
always risky in China. It is my hope that this book can contribute, in a small way, to
promoting China’s political development. In this book, I neither deliberately avoid
discussing China nor intend to insinuate Chinese politics by discussing other
countries. When it comes to China, I can only ask my readers to forgive me if this
book fails to express views clearly or fully.
It should be emphasized that although I have tried to make annotations in
accordance with academic standards when using citations to elucidate my views,
Introduction ix

this book is not a strictly academic work. However, I believe it could be helpful as a
reference book for college students in related majors.
Without the tremendous help of many friends, this book would not have been
possible. I am deeply grateful for their assistance. Ms. Xiao Hui collected a large
amount of data for the understanding and positioning of the “five major goals,” and
revised the annotations of the entire book. Ms. Lu Ningbo carefully reviewed the
full manuscript, putting forward pertinent opinions on the content in addition to
correcting errors in the text. Ms. Xu Bei arranged adequate time for me to write;
without her, my work and life would have been very disorganized. Without the
dedication of the editors from CITIC Publishing Group, the book might never have
been published at all.
A blissful family is one of the ultimate goals of my life. I owe the most gratitude
to my wife, Zhu Zhiping, and my son, Xikang, for my happiness and the freedom to
immerse myself in academics. My father, Prof. Wang Li, passed to me his scholarly
devotion, persistence, and diligence. My mother, Xia Weixia, bestowed upon me
her legacy of moral principles and passion for the new. My brothers, Jizhi and
Jixian, and my sister, Jici, helped me through the difficulties of my life and I have
been inspired by their achievements. It is the love of family and the ubiquitous
friendship around me that fill me with the courage and energy to pursue my own
goals as I enter my seventies, which are known as the “rare years” in Chinese
tradition.

References

1. Wang, J. (Ed.) (1995). Civilization and International Politics: Chinese Scholars Debate
Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations Thesis. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House
2. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, George W. Bush, (2004). Washington:
United States Government Printing House, 2007, p. 1861.
3. Mao, Z. Speech at the August 7th Conference. Hankou, Wuhan, China. 07 Aug 1927.
4. Mao, Z. (1991). War and strategic issues (November 6, 1938). Selected Works of Mao Zedong
(vol. 2). Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
5. Haass, R. (2014). Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in
Order. New York: Basic Books.
Contents

1 Themes and Eras of World Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 How to Understand “World Politics” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Different Eras and Their Corresponding Political Themes. . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Classifying Political Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Interests and Happiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2 Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 Stability, Order, and Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 Democracy and the Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5 National Unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.6 Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.7 Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 31
3.1 On Security and the “Sense of Security” . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 31
3.2 Traditional Security: Domestic Stability and International
Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 35
3.3 Prominence of Nontraditional Security Issues . . . . . . . . . ....... 43
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 48
4 Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1 Wealth as Political Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 “The Great Enrichment” of the Contemporary World . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.3 The Role of Wealth in Contemporary World Politics . . . . . . . . . . 61
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

xi
xii Contents

5 Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.1 Categories of Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.2 Political Functions of Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6 Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.1 What Is Justice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.2 Justice and Income Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.3 Justice and the Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7 Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7.1 Notion of Freedom and Political Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7.2 Political Constraints of Individual Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
7.3 Contemporary Liberalism and Its Opposites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8 Interactions Among the Five Goals . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . 129
8.1 Ranking of Priority and Choice . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . 129
8.2 Security and Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . 132
8.3 Interaction of Security with Faith, Justice, and Freedom . . . . . . . . 137
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . 143
9 Road to an Ideal Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
9.1 Standards of the Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
9.2 The Endless Quest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Chapter 1
Themes and Eras of World Politics

1.1 How to Understand “World Politics”

Global economic development trends and changes in foreign countries’ domestic

politics are becoming increasingly relevant to the future and interests of the Chinese
people. In May 2017, the “China for the World: Belt and Road Forum” was held in
Beijing, with representatives from more than 130 countries and more than 70
international organizations vowing to support China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”
(BRI). According to one press report, China’s trade with countries participating in
the BRI reached US$1.07 trillion in 2016, and its foreign direct investment in those
countries had reached US$14.5 billion (Wang 2017).
In fact, the scope of Chinese business activities, its cultural and educational
programs abroad, and its international tourism, have already gone far beyond the
BRI’s boundaries, extending to almost every corner of the world. As China
showcases its ambitious blueprint to the world, it becomes imperative to seize
opportunities and avoid risks, paying special attention to the potential for domestic
political risks in relevant countries to negatively affect the safety and interests of the
Chinese people.
When it comes to avoiding political risks, we must first consider countries
experiencing poverty and turmoil. Meanwhile, economic development in developed
countries is exerting growing influence on China. When Republican candidate
Donald Trump won the November 2016 presidential election in the United States, it
took most American political elites and mainstream media by surprise and defied
the expectations of most international observers.
Following his inauguration in January 2017, President Trump adopted a series of
policies that sent shockwaves through the political world and disrupted economic
development and social life in China. For instance, the Trump administration could
accelerate capital outflows in China by cutting down taxes at home or raising
interest rates on the U.S. dollar. The tightening of immigration policies by the
administration have affected Chinese citizens studying and working in the United

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 1

W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_1
2 1 Themes and Eras of World Politics

States, while causing young Chinese who had been planning to study in the U.S. to
reconsider their plans for life and career. The Trump administration’s shift in
attitudes and policies concerning its trade with China and investment from Chinese
companies, especially investment in infrastructure, affects the interests of many
Chinese companies. Trump and his administration claimed that China should
assume greater responsibility in the denuclearization of North Korea, otherwise the
U.S. would impose more pressure on China. The direct impact of domestic political
changes in the U.S. on China would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.
Numerous examples have shown that as China becomes more and more inte-
grated into the world, Chinese people need to pay more attention to world politics.
However, when people talk about “world politics,” the first thing that comes to
mind is “international relations,” such as China’s relationships with the United
States, Japan, Russia, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK), or
U.S. policies toward North Korea and Iran. Over the past few years, heated dis-
cussions in public discourse and on social media have included the sovereignty
issue of the Diaoyu Islands with Japan, South China Sea disputes with some
neighboring countries and America, U.S. deployment of the THAAD anti-missile
system in South Korea, as well as territorial disputes between China and India.
These are also mostly international relations issues. As a relatively stand-alone
discipline, International Relations (IR) has existed for 30–40 years in China.
Nevertheless, from the perspective of the social sciences, the discipline in China is
neither mature nor advanced, so much so that some even say in jest that China’s IR
scholars are less sophisticated than Beijing’s taxi drivers when it comes to current
affairs commentary. Still, it is an indisputable fact that ever-present hotspots in
international relations have long caught the imagination of many Chinese, often
sparking heated debates.
I contend that “world politics” is a discipline that studies the general trends of
political development worldwide, politics within various countries and regions, and
relationships between countries. Its scope is deeper and broader than IR as the field
is commonly understood.1 For example, why Donald Trump was elected President
of the U.S. in 2016 was a matter of world politics. This issue initially seemed to
have little relevance to international relations or U.S. diplomacy, but rather to be a
result of domestic politics in the United States. Policy preferences and
decision-making by the Trump administration, however, can greatly affect inter-
national relations. In another example, the onset of the Arab Spring beginning in

1
Among the disciplines divided by the Ministry of Education of China, political science is a
“primary discipline” comprising seven “secondary disciplines”, which includes political theory,
Chinese and foreign political systems, scientific socialism and the international communist
movement, the history of the Communist Party of China, international politics, international
relations, and diplomacy. The division of disciplines has long been controversial in academic
circles. In my opinion, from the perspective of the disciplines, there is no difference between
“international politics” and “international relations”, and it is more appropriate to call it “world
politics”. However, the conventional classification of disciplines is difficult to change, and we must
respect the reality for the time being.
1.1 How to Understand “World Politics” 3

Tunisia and Egypt in North Africa in 2011, the Syrian refugee crisis, and violent
terrorist activities frequently plotted by extremists around the world started as
domestic politics in their respective countries. These incidents are the result of
political evolution and transformation in different countries and regions, and at the
same time also affect international relations. In their understanding of world poli-
tics, the needs and visions of many Chinese have long moved beyond the per-
spective of state-to-state relations, and have begun to focus on global issues that
transcend national boundaries and internal political issues in individual countries.
Since the end of the “Cultural Revolution,” China has become stronger and more
prosperous by pursuing peace abroad and development at home. At the same time,
we in China emphasize that political systems in the world are diverse and colorful,
and that we cannot simply copy the development models of Western countries.
Instead, we claim to stick to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. To
be sure, world politics is multifaceted, and every nation has its own characteristics.
Some places look bright and eye-catching, attracting waves of tourists, investment
and trade, while others are overshadowed by despair, impoverishment, and rampant
corruption. Why is it that the development gap among countries and regions has not
been significantly reduced in the era of deepening globalization? Why do countries
vary widely in political systems and guiding ideologies while their constitutions all
subscribe to the notions of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law?
For decades, the United States has been the world’s largest economy. By 2016,
the U.S. economy had largely stepped out of the shadow of the financial crisis eight
years earlier, and its employment rate had greatly increased. Why did most
American voters feel then that their country was not “on the right track” and
demanded change in national politics?
“Modernization” is regarded as a national goal for most East Asian countries and
regions, including China. Nonetheless, this goal is shunned by many politicians and
citizens in the Middle East who instead advocate “Islamization” of politics and
society. Why do people in some Muslim countries not admire “modernity” or strive
for modernization as we Chinese do?
This small book tries to explain the diversity and commonality of world politics
from the perspective of the “ultimate goals of politics.” On the one hand, countries
and their citizens, with different levels of economic development, different cultural
backgrounds, and different political systems, share some common standards
regarding what is good and desirable, such as peace, stability, and prosperity. This
should be the premise and basis for China’s proposal to build a “community of
common destiny for humankind.” On the other hand, people are engaged in armed
conflicts over territorial claims, clash over different religious beliefs, and resist
tyranny in the quest for liberty and justice. It clearly shows that countries, groups,
and individuals may think that, under some circumstances, there are political goals
more worthy of pursuit than peace, stability, and prosperity. Thus, we can see that
there are multiple ultimate goals of politics, which can be either mutually com-
patible or contradictory.
Before analyzing the ultimate goals of politics, it is necessary to understand what
“politics” is. Since ancient times, people have mixed feelings of love and hate when
4 1 Themes and Eras of World Politics

it comes to their understanding of politics. According to many, politics is an evil,

filthy deal among a small group of ambitious politicians scrambling for power and
profit, and politics is replete with conspiracy, violence, lies, manipulation, and
corruption. As early as 1775, Englishman Johnson (1798) dismissed politics as
“nothing more than means of rising in the world.” In the nineteenth century, British
historian Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) said that “power tends
to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” which has been widely cir-
culated to this day. The Italian political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli publicly
advocated in The Prince (Il Principe) that political leaders would use means of
deceit, cruelty, and manipulation in order to seize, maintain, and expand power.
Others believe that politics is a force for good. In his book Politics, Greek
philosopher Aristotle pointed out that man is by nature a political animal, that
human nature is social and cooperative, and that people can live a better life through
politics. According to Aristotle, politics involves actions initiated by people in order
to improve life and create a better society. He considered knowledge the study of
“good”; the study of individual good (ethics), the study of family or village-level
good (economics), and the study of good within the city-state or state (political
science). As the good of the city-state or group is the highest good, Aristotle saw
political science as “the master of science.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French
thinker of the eighteenth century, believed that political participation is an intrinsic
good, and only when all citizens directly participate in political life can the state
truly serve the public good.
In fact, politics, like many phenomena such as economics and law, also has two
sides. One can see both dirty, evil politics and clean, good politics. Even as many
people simply believe that “politics is a power struggle,” there are also different
situations such as “good people fighting against bad people”, “bad people fighting
against bad people” and “bad people fighting against good people.” It is the political
standpoint of the observers that makes the judgement call as to who the “good
people” and “bad people” are. It is difficult to escape from power politics in the era
of globalization, whether you are in a metropolitan area like the New York City, or
in a desolate, mountainous region of Afghanistan. Robert A. Dahl, an American
political theorist, once said: “Whether a person likes it or not, virtually no one is
completely beyond the reach of politics. A citizen encounters politics in the gov-
ernment of a country, town, school, church, business firm, trade union, club,
political party, civic association, and a host of other organizations” (Dahl and
Stinebrickner 2002). Not to mention education in China demands that every citizen
should study politics and be equipped with “political consciousness.”
The concept of politics has had a long history in both China and the West. In
ancient China, the two Chinese characters of zheng (meaning “politics”) and zhi
(meaning “govern”) were often used separately. Zheng referred to power, system,
order, and law of a country. According to Confucian classics, zhi referred to “right”
and “good” life, manifested in Confucius quotes such as “To rule is to set straight.
If you give an upright lead, who will dare walk crooked?” Zhi also referred to the
management and enlightenment of people, and the conditions of social stability and
good order. In modern times, Japanese scholars invented the Chinese term zhengzhi
1.1 How to Understand “World Politics” 5

(“politics”) when translating the Western concepts into Chinese characters. Among
Chinese people who began to use the compound term zhengzhi, Sun Yat-sen was
the most influential. Here is his definition: “as zheng is the business of all people,
and zhi is management, therefore managing the business of all people becomes
politics” (Chen and Chen 1999).2
The English word “politics” has its root from the Greek word polis, which
referred to the castle or the acropolis where people held discussion and debates on
public affairs. Accordingly, politics could be understood as affairs related to the
polis (city state), and in modern times these affairs are related to the nation or the
state (Bao 2015).3 Defining politics as national affairs has been a general under-
standing all along.
Modern Western society is accompanied by the emergence of pluralism, and
political activities are no longer exclusive to governments, parliaments, and polit-
ical parties. As political science has grown into an independent discipline in the
West, the definition of politics has expanded, with dozens of different definitions
now in use. British political scientist Heywood (2013)4 divides politics into four
categories: politics as the art of government, politics as public affairs, politics as
compromise and consensus, and politics as power and resource allocation.
According to Heywood’s classification, politics is more than just state affairs. As
Sun Yat-sen put it, it is “the business of managing all people.”
In 1936, the American political scientist Harold D. Lasswell published his
classic book Politics: Who Gets What, When, How, a work whose title gave politics
a concise definition. According to Lasswell (1936), the task of political science
researchers includes explaining the interdependence between values and power,
how values affect the distribution and use of power, and how the positioning and
use of power in turn affects the distribution of different values. Therefore, politics
involves political relations: who gets what, when and how. Politics can be seen as
struggles over scarce resources, and power as the means of such struggles.
However, Lasswell was preoccupied with studying how influential political groups
and political elites use their power to obtain what was desirable in society.
Aristocrats possessing the most social values were seen as social elites, while the
rest were commoners. The elites obtained the most social values through symbols,
violence, materials, and practical measures. Lasswell listed three social values:
security, income, and respect.
In his academic writings in the 1950–1960s, David Easton, an American
political scientist, defined politics as “the authoritative allocation of values for a
society.” This is a widely accepted definition among contemporary political sci-
entists, and it is a concept that I myself strongly agree with and refer to throughout
this book. In his three books on the structure of political systems, Easton detailed

2
For the definition of the concept “politics” in China from ancient times to the present, see Chen
and Chen (1999).
3
For the ancient Western definition of the concept “politics”, see Bao (2015).
4
For definitions of the four categories of politics, see Heywood (2013).
6 1 Themes and Eras of World Politics

how a political system interacted to authoritatively allocate value to a society.

Politics, he noted, involved many different processes in which feedback on social
pressures was achieved by reward or sanction of benefits. Easton argued that the
study of political science involved various methods or policies of authoritative
allocation, and that it sought to understand how different values were authoritatively
distributed to society as a whole (Easton 1953, 1990, 1965).
What did Easton mean by the term “value”? He explained that value could be
“any object, activity, idea, principle, goal or other phenomenon upon which large
numbers of people place appreciable value, something which is considered by many
individuals and groups within the political community to be good, desirable,
attractive, useful, rewarding, beneficial, or advantageous. One set of values may be
tangible, or material, in form—i.e., in the form of money, property, and/or other
economic goods, services, and conditions. Another set of values may be intangible;
that is, the value may be symbolic, ideological, cultural, ethical, moral, or religious
in character. Examples of intangible values in contemporary American politics
include the expressed goals of political activists who assert that they are concerned
primarily with ‘social’ or ‘family’ issues, that they seek mainly to promote and
defend ‘social’ or ‘family’ values.” (Easton 1965).
Confusing though the passage may appear, Easton was trying to suggest that
value is what many consider good and useful in a society, including tangible values
such as money and properties, as well as intangible values such as culture and
religion. Liberal or conservative values advocated by Americans, as well as the
rights of gay or lesbian people that are asserted by some Americans, all fall within
the category of “value”.
In their writings, Lasswell and Easton also used “scarce resources” to explain
what is “value,” which made this concept clearer and easier to apply. In 1983, as a
professor at University of California, Irvine, Easton gave a guest lecture in the
Department of International Politics at Peking University. I clearly recall that when
he explained “scarce resources,” he suggested that some resources seemed to be of
little value in society, but when they became scarce, they would be valuable. For
example, he said, if clean air became a scarce resource in certain social settings,
how to authoritatively allocate clean air would become a political issue. Professor
Easton was admirably prescient: more than 30 years later, climate change has
become a heated topic in world politics, and carbon emissions trading is a typical
example of “authoritative allocation” of clean air.
One of the easiest ways to understand “authoritative allocation” is to look at
decision-making and implementation by states and governments. In my opinion, a
lot of things in life that are not related to government can also be seen as politics.
For example, the assessment of professional titles at workplaces could be political.
The number of titles is usually smaller than the number of applicants. Therefore,
titles are a “scarce resource” and hence “valuable.” Usually, the assessment of a
professional title means that quotas are “assigned” to individuals in a specific time
through “authoritative” procedures such as appraisal and voting by peers, and
approval by higher authorities. Such assessments also fit into the definition of
“politics” by Lasswell: “who gets what, when, how.” In this sense, assessment of
1.1 How to Understand “World Politics” 7

professional titles is a typical political process, or more precisely, a kind of

“micro-politics.”
Of course, the focus of this book is not on micro-politics like title assessment,
but the macro-politics of the international community and within different national
societies; and these political phenomena are not related only to states or govern-
ments. Unlike Easton’s treatise and a lot of other works in the field of political
science, this book concentrates on the values or scarce resources in world politics;
that is, the political goals pursued by societies, rather than on political systems and
their operating mechanisms, processes, and outcomes. Political values, goals, and
themes are objective, but they are also subjective. Throughout different stages and
societies in human history, they have different priorities and trade-offs.

1.2 Different Eras and Their Corresponding Political

Themes.

My exploration of the political goals of the world began with thinking about the
meaning of China’s consistent official statement that “peace and development are
the themes of the contemporary world.”
In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping put forward the conclusion that “peace and
development are the two major themes of the contemporary world.” “The real big
problems in the world today,” Deng asserted, “are global strategic issues, one of
them is peace, and the other is economic or development issue. The issue of peace
is the issue between the East and the West, and the issue of economy is the issue
between the North and the South. To sum up in four words, the big problems in the
world today are ‘East–West, North–South’. The North–South issue is the core
issue.” In 1987, the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China
(CPC) explicitly included the statement that “peace and development are the themes
of the contemporary world” in the Party’s programmatic documents (Deng 1993).
Since then, reports have followed this formulation all the way to the report of the
18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. The report of the 19th
National Congress of the CPC once again proclaimed: “Peace and development
remain the themes of the era.”
The strategic and policy implications of this statement need to be carefully
understood. At the same time, as a political scientist, I cannot help thinking about a
few rather pedantic questions: what is the definition of “era” (shidai)? How long is
an era? What are the eras in which human history can be divided? What are the
corresponding themes of these eras? How do we abstract the themes from the
manifestation of the eras? etc. Historically speaking, is it possible for us to identify
the themes across time and space that all countries, all societies and all carriers of
civilization pursue, and extract from them what I call the “ultimate goals of poli-
tics”? What are these themes and goals? And how do they relate to each other?
These questions are the central themes of this book.
8 1 Themes and Eras of World Politics

Some experts on international affairs have pointed out that, according to the
views of Marxist scholars, eras are the historical stages of social development
divided by certain characteristics; eras belong to the highest strategic generalization
of the world’s development process and basic direction, and are the general envi-
ronment of international politics (Liang and Hong 2000). Some other experts argue
that the themes of an era refer to issues of a certain historical stage that are
determined by the principal contradictions of the world, reflect the basic charac-
teristics of the world, and have overall strategic significance for future development
(Li 2002). However, these definitions of the era and the themes of an era, as
mentioned above, are still relatively vague and fail to comprehensively address my
aforementioned questions.
In the history of Marxist theories, the discourse of era (or “epoch”) was pio-
neered by the Russian communist leader Vladimir Iliych Lenin. In Lenin’s words,
“… and the historic events that are unfolding before our eyes can be understood
only if we analyze, in the first place, the objective conditions of the transition from
one epoch to the other. Here we have important historical epochs; in each of them
there are and will always be individual and partial movements, now forward now
backward; there are and will always be various deviations from the average type
and mean tempo of the movement. We cannot know how rapidly and how suc-
cessfully the various historical movements in a given epoch will develop, but we
can and do know which class stands at the hub of one epoch or another, determining
its main content, the main direction of its development, the main characteristics of
the historical situation in that epoch, etc. Only on that basis, i.e., by taking into
account, in the first place, the fundamental distinctive features of the various
‘epochs’ (and not single episodes in the history of individual countries), can we
correctly evolve our tactics; only a knowledge of the basic features of a given epoch
can serve as the foundation for an understanding of the specific features of one
country or another” (Lenin 1964). The above quotation clearly shows that Lenin’s
purpose of discussing the eras was to guide revolutionary movements.
Lenin was keenly aware of the major changes in the international situation on the
eve of Russia’s October Revolution in 1917. He believed that the major Western
capitalist countries had entered a fierce rat-race stage of hegemonic rivalry, the era
of free competition in capitalism had passed and it had entered the monopoly stage
—that is, the stage of imperialism. The world then entered the era of imperialism
from the era of capitalism. Lenin also put forward two important judgments: first,
imperialism was war; second, war inevitably led to revolution. Hence, Lenin’s
success. Joseph Stalin called it “the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution”
(Lenin 1995; Stalin 1979).
It follows that war and revolution were the themes of Lenin’s era. From the First
World War and the October Revolution to the more tragic Second World War, the
post-war revolution led by the Communist Party of China to overthrow the
Kuomintang (KMT), then to the Korean War in the 1950s and the Vietnam War in
the 1970s, followed by the turbulent national liberation movements and armed
struggles in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, “war and revolution” as the main
feature of a historical stage had lasted for as long as sixty to seventy years. During
1.2 Different Eras and Their Corresponding Political Themes. 9

this period, there were also five wars in the Middle East between the Arab states and
Israel, and three wars between India and Pakistan, among other armed conflicts.
At the same time, the domestic politics of the Western developed countries were
far from tranquil. In his famous book, The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative
History of America, 1932–1972, the American writer William Manchester tells the
story of several violent upheavals in American society, such as the racial riots in
1965–1967 that killed and injured thousands of people, which were violently
suppressed by the U.S. government dispatching more than ten thousand National
Guards (Manchester 1975). The struggle of black Americans against racial dis-
crimination and their quest for freedom and rights, as well as the domestic mass
movements against the Vietnam War in the United States, were also gaining great
momentum. From May–June in 1968, a large-scale student strike and workers’
strike broke out in France, resulting in a state of chaos in the economic life of the
whole country, known as the “May Storm.”
From the founding of the People’s Republic of China to the middle and late
1970s, Chinese leaders had been closely observing the specter of international wars
and the turbulence of the world. As far as the judgment of “era” was concerned, in
general China still adhered to the Leninist view of “the epoch of imperialism and
proletariat revolution,” and overestimated both the danger of war around China and
the revolutionary tide in the world.
This was also a reflection of the extreme “leftist” tendency in the CPC during
that period. In 1966, Lin Biao, Vice-Chairman of the CPC Central Committee,
observed, “Mao Zedong Thought is Marxism-Leninism at a time when imperialism
is on its way to an all-round collapse and socialism is on its way to world victory”
(Lin 1967). In 1970, a New Year’s Day editorial published jointly by the People’s
Daily, the Red Flag magazine, and the People’s Liberation Army Daily pronounced
that “the 1970s will be the era in which the storms of the people’s revolution rise
higher in the world, the era that the collapse of imperialism will accelerate in
contradictions one upon another, and the important era when the revolutionary
forces around the world fight fiercely with the dying counter-revolutionary forces.”
As Mao Zedong pointed out in 1970, “the danger of a new world war still exists,
and all people must be prepared. However, the main trend in the world right now is
revolution.” (Mao 1970). In 1973, Premier Zhou Enlai noted in the report of the
10th National Congress of the CPC that “countries desire independence, nations
want liberation, and the people aspire revolution. This has become an irresistible
historical trend.” Zhou’s words were the standard formulation of the characteristics
of the era in China before it embarked on reform and opening in the late 1970s
(Zhou 1973).
The transition from “war and revolution” to “peace and development” was not
only the result of objective changes in the international situation, it was also the
subjective judgment made by Chinese leaders according to their changing
10 1 Themes and Eras of World Politics

observations of the world situation and the adjustment of domestic and foreign
policies (He 2013, 2000).5 In the early 1980s, the tide of world politics changed
significantly. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher took office in the United States
and Britain, respectively. Both rigorously promoted free market economy by tax
reduction, privatization, reduced government intervention in economy, and reduc-
tion in social welfare. And they both adopted a tough policy toward the Soviet
Union. Major European countries and Japan were also affected by this trend of
political thought, and the entire Western world was “turning to the right.”
Around that time, the political vitality of the Soviet Union declined, and its
economy stagnated. Leonid Brezhnev, the long-time top leader of the Soviet Union,
died in 1982. After Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in Kremlin in 1985, he
introduced glasnost, a policy of détente with the West. Socialism in the world was
at its low ebb. Japan and the “Four Little Tigers” in East Asia (South Korea,
Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) were boosted by rapid economic develop-
ment. It was under this historical background that the Chinese leadership made the
strategic judgment that “peace and development are the theme of the era.” The end
of the Cold War a few years later reinforced this judgment.
If “war and revolution” had been the major theme of the era from the early years
of the twentieth century until the 1980s, which was later replaced by “peace and
development,” can we look into the history of world politics before the twentieth
century, divide the history into different eras and find out the major themes for each
era? I think we can and will try to do that as follows.
We can refer to the human history from 2000 BC to the sixteenth century
generally as “the Farming Era.” Compared with modern times, the economic,
technological, cultural, and political progress of humankind in these 3000 years
plus was relatively slow. You would not even notice any major changes using a
hundred years as an observing unit within this time period. People in today’s
sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Oceania were isolated from the continent of
Eurasia. In the case of Eurasia and North Africa, empires with blurred and
ever-changing borders fought against each other over land, slaves, and property,
while merchandise trade gradually developed. Civilizations based on different
religions drew on each other as well as engaged in wars and conflicts. In short, the
rise and fall of empires and dynasties were always accompanied by wars, slavery,
commodity exchange, and conflicts in the name of religion, constituted the themes
of the Farming Era.
The period of about 400 years from the early sixteenth century to the early
twentieth century can be called “the Era of Western Expansion.” The European
Renaissance, which began in the fourteenth century, promoted the emancipation of
the mind, and its core was to affirm the worth and dignity of men. The status of the
Pope and the church was shaken, and the theocratic political system was ques-
tioned. Freedom of thought gave impetus to technological innovation and

5
For the debate over “issues of the eras” in China’s political circle, see He (2013); see also He
(2000).
1.2 Different Eras and Their Corresponding Political Themes. 11

productivity. Navigation of the ocean and the industrial revolution emerged on the
scene at the same time.
The Age of Exploration gave Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the United
Kingdom, France, Germany and other European powers a huge advantage in
developing production and expanding their markets. The United Sates soon joined
the ranks after its independence. The Industrial Revolution, spurred by techno-
logical innovation and accelerated in the second half of the eighteenth century,
generated military technological innovations and the arms industry. After the Great
Geographical Discovery, African slaves were captured and trafficked by European
colonialists and shipped to American plantations. By the end of the nineteenth
century, European powers and Japan had carved up the colonies of the world.
Four centuries of Western expansion can be divided into several historical
periods, and political developments around the world were highly imbalanced. To
sum up, world politics had undergone dramatic change in many respects.
First, modern sovereign states and the international system began to take shape.
The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 established the norms for international rela-
tions based on sovereign equality. The theocratic world that once unified Europe
was on the verge of disintegration, and nation-based countries as opposed to the
theocratic states began to take the stage of history. There was no longer any
authority above the sovereign state. Since then, there had been no longer wars in the
name of religion in Europe. The international system and its corresponding order
were formed in Europe in the seventeenth century, with the expansion of the West
to other continents, laid the material and ideological foundation for today’s inter-
national system and global order.
Second, the expansion of the West not only contributed to the increase in global
wealth and the modernization process, but also exacerbated the severe imbalances
in the economic and social development of the world.
Research by American historian Morris (2011) has shown that from the sixth
century to the mid-eighteenth century (equivalent to China’s Sui, Tang and Qing
Dynasties), the Eastern part of Eurasia was more advanced and developed than the
West. It was not until the Kangxi and Qianlong periods of the Qing Dynasty in
China that a series of industrial and political revolutions broke out in the West,
leaping to the commanding heights of world civilization. Of course, the advance-
ment and development of the Western countries came at the expense of the
development of the underdeveloped countries, and the brutal oppression of
underdeveloped societies, and the plundering of resources in colonies and
semi-colonies were devastating. In the face of a rapidly changing world, the Qing
Dynasty collapsed irreversibly under internal troubles and external aggression. The
Mughal dynasty in South Asia, along with the Ottoman Empire across Asia, Africa
and Europe, were defeated by European expansionists because of their lethargy and
excessive concentration of power. The once splendid Islamic culture was dwarfed
by the Christian culture.
The era of Western expansion witnessed unprecedented economic growth rates
and wealth accumulation in history. However, economic and political inequalities
among races, nations, and countries around the world had also reached
12 1 Themes and Eras of World Politics

unprecedented levels. The Western ways of production, lifestyles, political and

economic institutions, and ideologies became symbols of modernization and
civilization.
Third, industrial revolutions and capitalism in the West drove profound changes
in world politics.
In the Era of Western Expansion, a series of political changes took place in
countries around the world. The major successes began in Britain and ended in
Japan. The Glorious Revolution of the 1680s established a parliamentary monarchy
in the United Kingdom. The U.S. Constitution of 1787 established a federal system
with the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. The French
Revolution that began in 1789 overthrew the Bourbon dynasty that had ruled
France for centuries, destroyed absolute monarchy, and inspired national inde-
pendence and revolutions later across Europe. Peter the Great, the reigning Tsar of
Russia, carried out the Europeanization reform, which laid the foundation for the
strength of the Russian Empire. Tsar Alexander II introduced the reform to abolish
serfdom in 1861, which greatly promoted industrial development. The Meiji
Restoration of Japan established a constitutional monarch, making Japan the first
Asian country to embark on the road to industrialization. It took only three to four
decades for Japan to become one of the world’s great powers. These revolutions
and reforms, whether thorough or not, hastened the demise of the autocratic rule
inherited from the Farming Era, promoted the establishment of the electoral system,
the parliamentary system, the multi-party system, and independent judiciary, paving
the way for their gradual refinement over time.
If we use a few central concepts to describe the political themes of the Western
expansionist era, these are equality of state sovereignty, ideological emancipation,
capitalism, industrial revolutions, colonial oppression, unbalanced development,
and democratic republicanism.
The purpose of summarizing the political themes of different eras in human
history is to find out the ultimate goals of politics across time and space. On some
occasions, “themes” and “goals” can be the same, but they also can be different
from each other. For example, “peace” can be both a theme and a goal, whereas
war, revolution, colonial oppression, imbalance of development, religious conflicts
etc., can be themes of the day that reflect the characteristics of an era. However, few
people think of them as lofty goals. In other words, themes can be evil, but goals
must be good in the eyes of most people, as something worth pursuing and pos-
sessing over a long period of time.

References

Alfred Knopf, A., & Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
Bao, G. (2015). General knowledge of politics (pp. 11–12). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Chen, Z., & Chen, B. (Eds.). (1999). Politics: Concepts, theories and methods (pp. 1–4). Beijing:
China Social Sciences Press.
References 13

Dahl, R., & Stinebrickner, B. (2002). Modern political analysis (6th ed.). Hoboken: Pearson.
Deng, X. (1993). Peace and development are the two major issues of the contemporary world
(March 4, 1985). In Selected works of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. 3, p. 105). Beijing: People’s
Publishing House.
Easton, D. (1953). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York:
Wiley.
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life (p. 21). New York: Wiley.
Easton, D. (1990). The analysis of political structure. New York: Routledge.
He, F. (2000). On the era of peace and development. Beijing: World Knowledge Press.
He, F. (2013). Observation of international issues under disputes (pp. 3–110). Beijing: China
Social Sciences Press.
Heywood, A. (2013). Politics (4th ed). New York: Red Globe Press (Palgrave Macmillan).
Johnson, S. (1798). Dr. Johnson’s table talk: Containing aphorisms on literature, life, and manners;
with anecdotes of distinguished persons, selected and arranged from Dr. Boswell’s life of
Johnson.
Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: Whittlesey House.
Lenin, V.I. (1964). Under a false flag (written not earlier than February 1915). In V. I. Lenin
(Eds.), Collective works, August 1914–December 1915 (Vol. 21, p. 151). Moscow: Progress
Publishers.
Lenin, V.I. (1995). Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism (January to June 1916). In See
selected works of Lenin (Vol. 2, pp. 575–688). Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
Li, B. (2002). On the theme of the contemporary era. Theoretical World, 2, 9.
Liang, S., & Hong, Y. (2000). An introduction to international politics. Beijing: Peking University
Press.
Lin, B. (1967). Preface to the reprinted edition of Quotations from Chairman Mao (december 16,
1966). In General Political Department of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, eds.,
Quotations from Chairman Mao (p. 1), Beijing.
Manchester, W. (1975). The glory and the dream: A narrative history of America, 1932–1972.
New York: Bantam Books.
Mao, Z. (1970). The people of the world unite to defeat the American invaders and all their
running dogs. China: People’s Daily.
Morris, I. (2011). Why the West rules—for now: The patterns of history, and what they reveal
about the future. New York: Picador Paper.
Stalin, J. (1979). Basics of Leninism (lecture at Sverdlov University). In See selected works of
Stalin (Vol. 1, p. 185). Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
Wang, Y. (2017). Belt and road: A new journey of great practice. Beijing: People’s Daily,
Overseas Edition.
Zhou, E. (1973). Report of Zhou Enlai at the 10th National Congress of the Communist Party of
China, August 24 1973. Resource document. https://www.gov.cn/test/2007-08/28/content_
729616.htm. Accessed 20 April 2020.
Chapter 2
Classifying Political Goals

When we examine political phenomena in the world, such as the rise and fall of
empires, changes in dynasties, religious conflict, colonial expansion, class revolu-
tion, national independence, democratic reform, and economic development,
among others, we find different political themes in different eras and different
countries. Under different political themes, we observe many political goals that
transcend space and time, such as wealth, interests, power, peace, security, stability,
order, solidarity, cooperation, harmony, faith, freedom, democracy, rule of law,
unity, justice, equality, and dignity. China’s “Core Socialist Values” explicitly
advocated since the 18th National Congress of the CPC includes 12 words (or 24
Chinese characters): prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, freedom, equality,
justice, the rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendship. These core
values encompass a number of political goals that are widely recognized and
pursued by national states worldwide in modern times.
We set multiple goals in our personal lives and work. We must prioritize those
goals and distinguish between short-term goals and long-term goals. Some of the
political goals mentioned above overlap. Some are respected in certain societies and
among certain audiences, and ignored or even rejected in others. Through devel-
oping the concept of “ultimate goals,” I seek to uncover those long-term goals that
are acceptable to most countries, societies, and individuals engaged in political life
in the contemporary world.
The question of defining ultimate political goals is roughly equivalent to the
“clash of the pantheon of political values” discussed by Chinese political scientist
Ren Jiantao, who writes that, “every person decides on the ultimate value of his or
her faith among the various contending ultimate values” (Ren 2014). Ren also notes
that “the political arguments of the ‘pantheon’ from different value positions
advocate different or even opposing ultimate values and their corresponding sys-
tems. Basic political values such as freedom, equality, justice, rule of law, revo-
lution, constitutionalism, and order have been interpreted quite differently in
different political theories. For a layman who is trying to understand and participate
in political life, the confrontational nature of these claims is mind-boggling, and he
might not know which path to take” (Ren 2014). Different from Ren’s analogy of

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 15

W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_2
16 2 Classifying Political Goals

the “clash of the pantheon,” this book tries to select a few ultimate goals or ultimate
values among many political goals or values, so as to distinguish them from
transitional or functional goals and values.
Let’s take education as an example to illustrate the difference between transi-
tional goals and ultimate goals. The transitional, immediate, or functional goals of
education are to teach people to read and write, to help them understand and abide
by public morality and social ethics, and to impart scientific and cultural knowl-
edge. Many educators believe that the fundamental or ultimate goal of education is
to elevate natural and emotional being to social and rational being, and to strive to
help the educated reach a lofty spiritual realm. Others, particularly in China,
emphasize the political function of education, believing that the fundamental pur-
pose of education is to improve the excellence of the nation and cultivate more and
better talents for the country. No matter what point of view educators hold, they
may all agree that teaching literature, mathematics, physics, and other specific
subjects is not the final objective of education.
Likewise, I believe that while the goals of unity, stability, order, revolution, and
reform are important in political life, they serve a more fundamental purpose.
Which political goals are the ultimate goals (or ultimate values), and how are they
related to each other? These “are central questions of political philosophy” (Miller
2003). They are significant but also controversial. To illustrate this point, I will start
by offering a few quotes from British scholar of political philosophy David Miller’s
book, Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction, and then provide my
interpretations.
Suppose we were to ask a politician what his goals were, and what aims or values the
political community he belongs to is trying to achieve. If he belonged to a contemporary
Western society, he would probably come up with a predictable list consisting the fol-
lowing: law and order, individual liberty, economic growth, full employment, and a few
other goals. How might a political philosopher respond to that answer? First of all, he
would turn the spotlight on the goals themselves, asking which of them were really the
ultimate goals. Let’s take economic growth for an example. Is this a self-sufficient good
goal in itself, or is it only good in so far as it provides people with more opportunities to
choose from, or does it make their lives healthier and happier? Can we assume that further
growth is always a good thing, or will it be a point where economic growth no longer
contributes to what really matters? Similarly, we can have questions about full employment.
Do we value full employment because we believe that it is intrinsically valuable for people
to engage in paid work, or is it rather that people cannot achieve decent standards of living
if they do not have jobs? However, if the second assumption is true, why not give everyone
an income regardless of their employment situation, and transform work into a voluntary
activity for those who enjoy working?
Our political philosopher will also ask: how do the different goals on the politicians’ list
related to one another? Politicians, in general, very rarely would concede that they may
have to sacrifice one aim in order to achieve another, but perhaps in reality they do. Take
law and order vs. individual liberty, for example: can streets not be made safer by limiting
individual liberty—for instance, by giving the police greater powers so that they can arrest
people they suspected that might be about to engage in criminal acts? If so, which value
should have the higher priority? Of course, in order to solve the problem, we would need to
explain a bit more precisely what individual liberty means. Is it simply being able to do
2 Classifying Political Goals 17

whatever you like, or does it mean that you can do anything you like so long as you don’t
harm anyone else? This makes a big difference to the question being asked.
In raising these questions and implying some of the answers, political philosophers are not
(or needn’t be) adhering to any esoteric forms of knowledge. What they do instead is to
invite their readers to reflect on their own political values, and to figure out which ones they
care about the most in the final analysis. Along the way they may add in some new pieces
of information. For example, when contemplating the values of economic growth, it is
important to look at how people whose material living standards are dramatically different
score in terms of physical indicators such as health and mortality, and psychological
indicators such as life satisfaction. Therefore, political philosophers need to have a good
grasp of knowledge in social science and political science (Miller 2003).

In my opinion, three points are most noteworthy in these paragraphs. First,

politicians will propose goals such as order, individual liberty, economic growth,
full employment, and so on. They may be reluctant to acknowledge that these goals
may contradict each other and require the sacrifice of one to achieve another.
Second, political philosophers need to explore which are the ultimate goals and
their interrelationships. Third, there is no set answer to determine the ultimate
political goals, because they are dependent on one’s personal values. In Political
Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction, Miller dismisses the idea that economic
growth is the “ultimate goal,” and that individual liberty, rights, and equality are
equally important. Similarly, Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari poignantly sati-
rizes that contemporary leaders have regarded economic growth as the “supreme
religious value.” “From its belief in the supreme value of growth,” said Harari,
“capitalism deduces its number one commandment: thou shalt invest thy profits in
increasing growth, … We will never reach a moment when capitalism says: ‘That’s
it. You have grown enough. You can now take it easy.” Harari (2017) contends that
in order to protect the earth’s ecology and human civilization, the pace of tech-
nological progress and economic growth need to be properly slowed down.
Based on my reading of numerous works on politics, and on my personal
observations of real-world politics, I have established that security, wealth, faith,
justice, and freedom are the five ultimate goals of contemporary world politics.
I will examine them one by one in chapters three to seven.
These five political goals—security, wealth, faith, justice, and freedom—are
universally pursued by governments, organizations, and individuals engaged in
politics. They are easily found in the constitutions and official documents of
countries around the world.
The United States Declaration of Independence begins with a righteous decla-
ration of faith and delivers the strongest message of the era: “We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness” (U.S. declaration of Independence 1776). And the preamble
of the United States Constitution has only one sentence: “We the People of the
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
18 2 Classifying Political Goals

ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (U.S.
declaration of Independence 1776). Chinese scholar He Huaihong examines the text
and significance of the Declaration of Independence in detail and concludes that the
basic American values reflected in this document are “survival, freedom, happiness,
independence, faith, and equality” (He 2017).
The national motto of France, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” (Liberty, Equality,
Fraternity), is deeply rooted in the hearts of its people. The French Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du
Citoyen) emphasizes the protection of human rights: “Men are born and remain free
and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.
The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and impre-
scriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to
oppression” (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789).
The Republic of Argentina’s Constitution begins with the following: “… in
order to form a national union, guarantee justice, secure domestic peace, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves, to our posterity, and to all men of the world who wish to dwell
on Argentine soil: invoking the protection of God, source of all reason and justice:
do ordain, decree, and establish this Constitution for the Argentine Nation”
(Constitution of the Argentine Nation 1994).
The Constitution of the Russian Federation states in the Preamble: “We, the
multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our
land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving
the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized
principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, revering the memory of
ancestors who have conveyed to us the love for the Fatherland, belief in the good
and justice, reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia and asserting the firmness of
its democratic basic, striving to ensure the well-being and prosperity of Russia,
proceeding from the responsibility for our Fatherland before the present and future
generations, recognizing ourselves as part of the world community, adopt the
Constitution of the Russian Federation.” The Russian Constitution’s Article 2
promises that “Man, his rights and freedoms are the supreme value. The recogni-
tion, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall
be the obligation of the State” (Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993).
The constitution enacted by Japan after World War II is known as the “Peace
Constitution,” emphasizing peace over war. It goes by: “We, the Japanese people,
desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling
human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence,
trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire
to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation
of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for
all time from the earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to
live in peace, free from fear and want” (The Constitution of Japan 1947).
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran explains the important value of
religion. Its Article 1 states: “The government of Iran is an Islamic Republic, which
2 Classifying Political Goals 19

the nation of Iran based on its long-held belief in the rule of the truth and the justice
of the Qu’ran.” Article 2 specifies the specific content of faith, which refers to the
noble values of human beings, namely, freedom and duty to Allah. But the Iranian
constitution also allows people to practice other religions: “Zoroastrian, Jewish, and
Christian Iranians are considered the only recognized religious minorities. They
may exercise their religious ceremonies within the limits of the law. They are free to
exercise matters of personal status and religious education and they follow their
own rituals” (The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran 1979).
The Constitution of Pakistan, another Islamic country, contains the phrase that
“Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social
justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed” (The Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973).
The Constitution of Nigeria, enacted in 1999, has its preamble saying “We the
people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having firmly and solemnly resolved, to
live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation
under God, dedicated to the promotion of inter-African solidarity, world peace,
international co-operation and understanding, and to provide for a Constitution for
the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our
country, on the principles of freedom, equality and justice…” (Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999).
Countries around the world in general have made it their national goals to ensure
security, promote the well-being of citizens (generally manifested as the possession
of wealth), safeguard faith, social justice, and individual freedom. For most
countries, the constitution is solemn and permanent; thus, the goals in their con-
stitutions should be regarded as the ultimate goals by those who drew up the
constitutions. In the following chapters, I am going to illuminate the obvious and
implied meanings of the five goals and their status in politics. What may be puz-
zling and controversial here is that this book does not list many other goals and
themes in political life as “ultimate goals.” These will be examined below.

2.1 Interests and Happiness

It is often said that the goal of political activities is nothing more than the pursuit of
interests, and that the goal of an individual in politics is nothing more than the
pursuit of personal and collective happiness. That is certainly true. John Stuart Mill,
a famous nineteenth century British thinker, said that the sole purpose of human
behavior is to obtain happiness, hence the promotion of happiness becomes the
criterion by which all human behaviors are judged (Feng 2009). This being obvi-
ous, however, “interests” and “happiness” are too broad, vague, and
all-encompassing as concepts. While economic growth and national security serve
people’s interests and happiness, some may say that ideology and religion will also
promote interests and happiness. If “interests” and “happiness” are all-inclusive,
20 2 Classifying Political Goals

they mean the same as “goals” or “objectives.” When we state that the political goal
is to safeguard interests and pursue happiness, it becomes a tautology.

2.2 Power

Hans Morgenthau, founder of the realist school in Western theories of international

politics, emphasized that power was the central content of national interests. He
wrote in Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, “Whatever
the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim… it
is sufficient to state that the struggle for power is universal in time and space and is
an undeniable fact of experience” (Morgenthau 1948). Here, he acknowledges that
power is an immediate goal of politics, but not necessarily the ultimate goal.
Morgenthau’s theory aimed to challenge the strategy of putting moral standards
above national interests, as well as attempts to obtain interests beyond the reach of
national power.
In both international politics and domestic politics, power and the position it
represents are means to achieve other ends. A popular view in China holds that the
core of politics is state power, and in class societies all political struggles revolve
around questions of state power. However, common sense in political science tells
us that such a view is specious. State and government were created for the purposes
of political order, national security, social justice and wellbeing of the people, not
the other way around; these goals are not designed to serve the power of the state
and the government.
There is no doubt that “power,” especially the power of the state, is the central,
most important factor in all kinds of political activities. Only by holding certain
power can one be engaged in and influence politics. However, “acquiring power” is
not the declared ultimate objective by states, political organizations, and politicians.
Revolutionary forces like the CPC before 1949 who wanted to seize state power
proclaimed that their objective was to liberate the oppressed people and attain
national independence rather than state power per se. In Western democracies, the
incumbent party and opposition parties in their political campaigns announce their
platforms to attract voters and give promises; they will not admit they are simply
motivated by sustaining or obtaining power itself. Instead, maintaining security and
stability, promoting economy and social welfare, protecting freedom and justice,
and fulfilling faith are taken as their goals in order to attract public support and
legitimize the regime.
By the same token, it is justifiable for a country to use its power to safeguard its
interests internationally. However, if it declared that enhancing its state power was
its utmost objective, while ignoring international rules and encroaching on the
rights and interests of other countries, the country would be put under immense
pressure from the international community, which in turn would harm its own
interests. The unilateral “America first” approach upheld by the Trump adminis-
tration in international affairs has been very unpopular in the international
2.2 Power 21

community. In contrast, China is always critical of “power politics” in international

affairs, and China’s President Xi Jinping has been promoting the idea of building a
“Community of Shared Future for Mankind,” but its specific contour and the
concrete steps toward realizing this community have not been enumerated.

2.3 Stability, Order, and Harmony

Stability, order, and harmony are three closely related political concepts and goals.
“The overriding need is for stability” is a basic principle of Deng Xiaoping
Theory. In China, “maintaining stability” is a well-known political practice in the
period of reform and opening up. At a meeting with U.S. President George H.
W. Bush in February 1989, Deng pointed out: “The overriding issue with China is
the need for stability. Without a stable environment, we can accomplish nothing and
may even lose what have gained” (Deng 1993). From Deng Xiaoping’s above
remarks, we understand that stability is necessary to obtain and maintain other
objectives, such as economic reform and opening up, rather than the ultimate goal
by itself.
Order can only be maintained in a stable environment. Domestic political order
requires state institutions to use their power to regulate political activities and curtail
illegal behavior. The international order is composed of two basic elements. The
first is the power structure and relative strengths among major countries with their
allies and affiliations. The second is the norms and rules that should be followed in
conducting international affairs. Maintaining order is a goal in itself, but like sta-
bility, order is the environment and prerequisite for achieving other goals.
For more than a decade, “harmony” has held a special place in China as a
guiding principle. In October 2006, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th CPC
Central Committee formally put forward the goal of “building a harmonious
socialist society.” The characteristics of the harmonious society to be built in China
are said to be: to enhance the creativity of the whole society by mobilizing all
positive factors, to maintain social equity by coordinating interests of all parties, to
form a good interpersonal environment by creating a good social atmosphere, to
safeguard social stability by strengthening the construction of democracy and the
rule of law, and to ensure sustainable development by properly handling the rela-
tionship between humanity and nature. The “harmonious world” advocated by
China is to “adhere to multilateralism and achieve common security, to pursue
mutually beneficial cooperation and achieve common prosperity, and to uphold the
spirit of inclusiveness and build a harmonious world” (Hu 2005).
When the ideas of the harmonious society and harmonious world were initiated,
many Chinese observers pointed out that harmony is the essence of Chinese culture.
Citing the text of Tao Te Ching written by Lao Tzu more than 2,500 years ago, they
explained that the thinking of “Dao patterns itself on what is natural” (Dao Fa Zi
Ran) and “harmony of the great way” (Da Dao He Xie) reflects the Chinese nation’s
desire for acquiescence and admiration of harmony and embodies the profound and
22 2 Classifying Political Goals

wide-ranging charm of Chinese culture. Indeed, in the context of China’s politics in

recent years, there is little dissent for making harmony an ultimate goal of politics.
There is no doubt that other civilizations in the world also advocate the idea of
harmony. Some Chinese scholars have verified the existence of the concept of
“harmony” in the Qu’ran and the Bible. Nevertheless, a conversation with an
American friend of mine made me question the inclusion of harmony as one of the
ultimate goals of world politics. In 2006, General Brent Scowcroft, former National
Security Advisor to the George H.W. Bush administration, asked me in a private
conversation specifically why the Chinese government so strongly advocated for a
“harmonious society” and a “harmonious world.” I explained to him that harmony
was regarded as the core of Chinese civilization and an “ultimate goal” in Chinese
society. His immediate response was: “Harmony as the ultimate goal? No, the
ultimate goal is success! Harmony is only a situation or a state of affairs, and
success is the goal.” After this conversation, I consulted several other American
friends about whether harmony is the ultimate goal. The reaction was mixed. Most
said no. Others said Scowcroft represented the inclination of the Republicans in the
U.S., and it is easier for the Democrats to accept harmony as important. In any case,
I do not believe that a politician who keeps harmony in mind and talks about it in
America’s intensely competitive political environment would become a U.S.
President. Neither do I believe that in international relations, the United States
would commit itself to building up a harmonious world.
In fact, there is no shortage of controversy in China over whether harmony is a
principal measure of political success. Mao Zedong had the famous saying that “the
philosophy of the Communist Party is the philosophy of struggle,” which is in line
with Marxist–Leninist theories of class struggle and the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat. Even if we insist on “harmony being the essence of Chinese culture,” we
must admit that before China’s reform and opening in the late 1970s, “harmony”
was not the core concept and pursuit of domestic politics or foreign relations.
Therefore, although stability, order, and harmony are widely recognized as
“good things” in the context of world politics, they can only be an ideal state, rather
than ultimate goals to be universally pursued.

2.4 Democracy and the Rule of Law

Democracy and the rule of law are also widely recognized as “good things.” In the
world today, a vast majority of countries call themselves a “democracy.” There are
several developing countries that are regarded as “totalitarian states” or “autocra-
cies” by the West, whose full names, respectively, are the “Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea,” the “Lao People’s Democratic Republic,” the “Democratic
Republic of the Congo,” the “Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,” and the
“Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.” This means that these countries in partic-
ular want to be recognized as democracies regardless of how their government runs.
2.4 Democracy and the Rule of Law 23

In modern politics, democracy is closely related to the rule of law. A democracy

without the rule of law is not a genuine democracy, and the rule of law without
democracy is not true rule of law.
Democracy is not a system of government that has always been celebrated
throughout human history. Until the nineteenth century, democracy was widely
seen as “tyranny of the majority.” The concept of democracy originated in ancient
Greek and literally means “rule by the people” (demokratia). As a matter of fact,
democracy as a form of government had been in practice in Athens for just over
100 years before it went into decline. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did not consider
democracy to be an ideal form of government. In their opinion, democracy was
civilian rule at the expense of wisdom and property, which could easily lead to
tyranny of the majority, or mob rule (Bao 2015). Rousseau (1999), a French
Enlightenment philosopher in the eighteenth century, pointed out: “If the term is
taken in its strict sense, true democracy has never existed and never will. It is
against the natural order that the majority should govern and the minority be
governed.”
Democracy became popular in Europe and the United States in the nineteenth
century. At that time, the United States, the world’s first modern democracy, was
thriving. The French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville, after
examining the American democracy, submitted that “to attempt to check democracy
would be in that case to resist the will of God; and the nations would then be
constrained to make the best of the social lot awarded to them by Providence,” and
predicted that “it seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most ancient,
and the most permanent tendency which is to be found in history” (Tocqueville
2000).
However, many modern Western thinkers acknowledge that democracy is only a
relatively reasonable institutional arrangement to achieve the country’s long-term
political goals. As the political economist Joseph A. Schumpeter indicated,
“Democracy is a political method, that is to say, a certain type of institutional
arrangement for arriving at political—legislative and administrative—decisions and
hence incapable of being an end in itself, irrespective of what decisions it will
produce under given historical conditions.” “… the democratic method is that
institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals
acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s
vote.” He also noted: “… no society tolerates absolute freedom even of conscience
and of speech, no society reduces that sphere to zero—the question clearly becomes
a matter of degree. We have seen that the democratic method does not necessarily
guarantee a greater amount of individual freedom than another political method
would permit in similar circumstances.” Schumpeter gave only limited credit to
democracy: “democracy does not mean and cannot mean that the people actually
rule in any obvious sense of the terms ‘people’ and ‘rule’. Democracy means only
that the people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to
rule them” (Schumpeter 2006).
In his weighty tome, What Democracy Is For, the Norwegian-born British
political scientist Stein Ringen makes a strong case for the benefits of democracy.
24 2 Classifying Political Goals

He emphasizes that the purpose of democracy is, “in short, for the freedom of the
common man. It’s freedom that democracy is finally for.” At the same time, he
“look[s] inside the democracies that are usually thought to be the most robust and
find[s] them wanting—and possibly on the decline” (Ringen 2007).
Modern politics defines “democracy” in a variety of ways. In Western discourse,
democracy is regarded as a universal value, and liberal democracy is the best choice
and the ultimate way out for all countries in the world. However, democracy has
been criticized in theory and frustrated in practice as a political system. Pan Wei, a
Chinese political scientist, believes that the world today is permeated with a
“democracy fetish,” which places democracy higher than the family, the nation,
sovereignty, human rights, and the right to life and property rights of all
non-Westerners. Pan deplores that the worship of democracy has become the
political religion that rules the world. A thousand years ago, the Christian Crusade
was launched in barbaric manner to the East. A thousand years later, the crusade of
democracy has already been waged to destroy all pagan political civilizations (Wei
2003). Pan also believes that the “principle of majority rule” does not reflect fair-
ness. It is said to be a convenient decision-making mechanism, but there is no
appearance of justice, equality, let alone universal value (Wei 2003). Wang (2014),
a Hong Kong-based political scientist, argues that the “principle of majority rule” is
in fact “election of a ruler”. Under such a mechanism, the votes decide everything.
In the end, the interests of the majority may not be guaranteed, or a few people may
control politics in a substantive way.
In practice, many countries in transition to Western-style democracy after the
Cold War overweighed elections while ignoring the substance of democracy, thus
resulting in holding elections without establishing democracy. In these countries,
the principal administrative officials were elected ostensibly on a regular basis, but
the election process was neither free nor fair, and there were various political
manipulations, cheatings, and frauds. Carothers (2002), senior vice president for
studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, once said pessimisti-
cally: “Of the nearly 100 countries considered as ‘transitional’ in recent years, only
a relatively small number—probably fewer than 20—are clearly en route to
becoming successful, well-functioning democracies or at least have made some
democratic progress and still enjoy a positive dynamic of democratization… By far
the majority of third-wave countries have not achieved relatively well-functioning
democracy or do not seem to be deepening or advancing whatever democratic
progress they have made.”
Democracy is a way to express individual free will, and the rule of law is a
means to achieving justice. In theory, democracy and the rule of law could be
abandoned if there were better ways to achieve political freedom other than
democracy, and better ways to achieve social justice other than the rule of law. Of
course, in contemporary world politics, this theoretical assumption does not seem to
be valid. However, we can verify or falsify this hypothesis by examining different
countries and regions, rather than believe a priori that it is a “universal truth.”
Therefore, I will not include democracy and the rule of law in the ultimate goals of
world politics. As institutional arrangements, the positive role of democracy and the
2.4 Democracy and the Rule of Law 25

rule of law in advancing the process of world politics should be fully recognized.
As political concepts, there is no doubt that democracy and the rule of law are much
more advanced than autocracy or totalitarianism.

2.5 National Unity

One of the characteristics of China’s politics is its persistent pursuit of national

unity and reunification. In traditional Chinese culture, unity symbolizes light and
progress, whereas division means disaster and darkness. Throughout Chinese his-
tory, no matter what the price may be, the cause of national and territorial unifi-
cation has been celebrated. Records of the Grand Historian of China recorded
Emperor Qin Shihuang’s inscription on a stone tablet after he climbed up to the
Langya Mountain, which reads: “The lands of the emperor spread over the whole
country…. Wherever there are human beings, they all are the citizens of the
emperor. His achievement overshadows those of three emperors and five sovereigns
and his blessing goes all the way to any living creatures. Under his rule, all enjoy
their life in happiness and order.” John King Fairbank, an American historian who
studied China, remarked that for two thousand years the central issue of Chinese
politics has been the unity of all Chinese people under the grand unification
(Fairbank 1983). Harari, an Israeli historian, also notes, “In Chinese political
thinking as well as Chinese historical memory, imperial periods were henceforth
seen as golden ages of order and justice. In contradiction to the modern Western
view that a just world is composed of separate nation states, in China periods of
political fragmentation were seen as dark ages of chaos and injustice” (Harari 2015;
Cong 1997). Only by understanding Chinese people’s overriding desire for ethnic
unity and national unification can we fully explain Chinese attitude and policies
toward Taiwan, Hong Kong, and national minority areas like Tibet and Xinjiang,
and understand the PRC’s Anti-Secession Law introduced in 2005.
However, when we turn to the politics of foreign countries, there are four aspects
of complication concerning national unity. First, the concept of the right to national
self-determination has spread throughout the modern international community. The
Charter of the United Nations and other relevant United Nations resolutions provide
for the right to national self-determination; that is, the freedom of every nation to
determine its own political, economic, and cultural systems in accordance with its
own choice. People of a nation under colonial rule have the right to an independent
state. An important principle of Marxism–Leninism in handling national issues is
the right of all nations to determine their own destiny until they are free to separate
and declare themselves independent states. According to Lenin, “The article of our
programme (on the self-determination of nations) cannot be interpreted to mean
anything but political self-determination, i.e., the right to secede and form a separate
state” (Lenin 1977). But Leninism also held that whether or not to support the
secession of a nation depends on whether or not the secession would serve the
interest of the proletarian revolution and of human progress as a whole.
26 2 Classifying Political Goals

Second, the emergence of new independent states in the contemporary world is

often the result of internal divisions in previously unified countries regardless of the
will of the countries in question, as long as the independence process is broadly
recognized by the international community. After World War II, more than one
hundred sovereign states declared independence, most of which had achieved
national liberation from European colonies, while a number of countries were
separated from the original sovereign states, such as Bangladesh’s separation from
Pakistan. The emergence of more than twenty newly independent states after the
Cold War was almost entirely caused by national divisions. These included fifteen
new countries after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, six new countries after
the breakup of Yugoslavia, as well as Eritrea, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and so
forth. There are also a number of political entities that have declared independence,
exercised autonomy and are not yet widely recognized internationally, such as
Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Western Sahara.
Third, there are more than twenty federal states in the world today, and they have
different attitudes toward the political rights of their domestic provinces or states.
Countries under a federal system include global or regional powers like India,
Pakistan, the United States, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Nigeria,
Ethiopia, among others. The combined population of these federations accounts for
about one third of the world’s total population and their total land area is about half
of the world’s total land area. The United States maintained and consolidated its
national unity through the Civil War from 1861 to 1865. The U.S. Constitution does
not provide for the right of states to secede from the federal union and become
independent, but in the face of national political storms, some states such as
California and Texas have occasionally called for sovereignty, and the indepen-
dence movement in Hawaii has always been legal. According to the federal con-
stitution adopted in Ethiopia in 1994, all ethnic groups in the country enjoy equal
autonomy and the right to self-determination and secession. After the legislative
body of any ethnic group passes the secession request by a two-thirds majority, the
federal government of Ethiopia shall organize a referendum of the ethnic group
within three years, whose success requires a majority of the ethnic group in favor of
secession.
Fourth, movements for separation of ethnic groups or regions within a number of
countries have sprung up. The United Kingdom rejected the demand for Scotland’s
independence by holding a referendum there in September 2014, thus maintaining
the unity of the United Kingdom, but the votes for and against independence were
very close. The aspirations for independence in Scotland and Northern Ireland have
become stronger after the U.K.’s departure from the European Union. The Kurdish
issue in the Middle East, the Quebec issue in Canada, the Corsica issue in France,
and the Catalonia issue in Spain all pose challenges to national unity and territorial
integrity in these countries.
There is no doubt that China’s pursuit of national unity is completely legitimate
and serves the interest of the whole country. However, whether maintaining
national unity is an ultimate goal in world politics, whether from an academic
perspective or from the perspective of political practice, may be controversial.
2.6 Equality 27

2.6 Equality

After I listed security, wealth, faith, justice, and freedom as the five ultimate goals
of world politics in some earlier discussions, several scholars have suggested to me
that “equality” should also be included. I acknowledge that equality is also one of
the ultimate goals of world politics, but there are two reasons why it is not placed on
par with the other ultimate goals I have listed in this book.
First, “equality” can be included in the meanings of “justice” and “freedom.”
Greek philosopher Aristotle stated explicitly that injustice meant inequality and that
justice equaled equality (Sartori 2015).1 Brunito Lartini, an Italian philosopher of
the thirteenth century also remarked that just as justice was an issue of equality,
injustice was inequality; therefore, those who wanted to establish justice were
trying to change inequality into equality (Sartori 2015).
The first sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence, “men are
created equal,” is said to be a “self-evident truth.” In fact, however, according to the
law of nature people are born unequal. Human beings’ intelligence quotient and
physical strength are inherently different. What is commonly referred to as equality
can only be achieved through acquired interpersonal relations, social policies and
individual efforts. This is more a question of social justice. According to John
Rawls, an American political scientist, the issue of justice is all about equality.
Rawls points out in his book Justice as Fairness that social and economic equality
should be met by two conditions: first, the public offices and positions to which they
are subordinate should be open to all under the condition of equal opportunity;
second, they should serve the best interests of the most disadvantaged members of
society (Difference Principle). Rawls argues that, first of all, society should guar-
antee equal opportunities and people should not be deprived of equal rights because
of factors such as family backgrounds (Rawls 2002). On the premise of guaran-
teeing equal opportunities, those at the bottom of the society economically should
be compensated through taxation and other means.
Zhou Baosong, a political scientist based in Hong Kong, regards freedom and
equality as the basic values of modern society (Zhou 2017). He believes that
“liberalism not only attaches importance to freedom, but also to equality, and
tightly associates the justification of equality with the idea of a free man.” He
summarizes the moral foundation of Rawls’ theory of justice as follows: “Society is
a fair and cooperative system in which free and equal individuals walk together.
A just society must reflect this ideal. This ideal contains three important values,
which are freedom, equality and fair cooperation” (Zhou 2017).
In my opinion, if freedom, equality, and justice are inseparable, it is unnecessary
to make equality a separate ultimate goal of politics. In fact, in many cases, freedom
and equality may be antithetical, and justice can alleviate such opposition. This
complex issue will be further explored in Chaps. 6 and 8 when we look into the
relationship between justice and freedom.

1
Aristotle. The nicomachean ethics. Quoted from Sartori (2015).
28 2 Classifying Political Goals

Second, everyone pursues freedom and justice, but not everyone pursues
equality. Equality is a goal pursued by the weak, while the strong often enjoy
inequality to their advantage. In international relations, small and weak countries
hope to get equal treatment from larger and more powerful countries, who demand
equality from the largest and most powerful players. In a company where
employees ask that their bosses treat them as equals and ask for equal pay for equal
work, “approachable” bosses who do not look condescending are popular.
Conversely, bosses need not demand equal treatment from employees or praise their
subordinates as “approachable.” Therefore, while everyone agrees that “equality is
desirable,” when it comes to specifics, especially as far as income distribution is
concerned, “equality” may mean completely different things.

2.7 Dignity

In June 2017, when I discussed the ultimate goals of world politics with a French
government official, he suggested that “dignity” (dignité in French) should be listed
as one of the goals.
I considered his ideas carefully and did some research. Article 38 of the current
Constitution of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that “the personal dignity
of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, slander and false
accusation against citizens by any means shall be prohibited.”
The first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the
United Nations in 1948 stated that “All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights.” “Dignity” has a high place in the teachings of Buddhism,
Christianity, and Islam. The constitutions or regulations of Germany, Iran, South
Africa, Switzerland, the United States, Canada, France, the European Union, and
other countries and international organizations all contain provisions such as “hu-
man dignity is inviolable.” The Chinese political scientist Yu Keping regards
“dignity” as the supreme value. He submits, “as an inherent value naturally pos-
sessed by all human beings, human dignity transcends all other values and is of
supreme quality. It shows that human being is an end in himself and not a mean to
any other end” (Yu 2017).
Dignity is the respect for the existence of value and status of individuals, groups,
cultures, and beliefs. It is an inalienable right of equality. There is a motto in The
Book of Rites in ancient China that reads, “Never eat food received under con-
tempt,”—that is, in order to be a person with dignity, one should never accept
humiliating alms. As the Chinese saying goes, “A person needs a clean reputation
to survive, just like a tree needs its bark to live.” A similar saying is “better a
glorious death than a shameful life.” Both aphorisms emphasize the importance of
human dignity and spiritual value. The dignity of nations and states is derived from
the dignity of human beings. National dignity is a concept closely related to
sovereign equality and freedom from discrimination and insult by other countries.
2.7 Dignity 29

Dignity is certainly significant in world politics. But similar to “equality,” it is

generally the request of the weak to the strong. The rich need not demand dignity
from the poor, and the oppressor need not demand dignity from the oppressed. With
freedom and justice at hand to protect and respect people’s beliefs, dignity will no
longer be a question. Dignity, freedom, justice and equality are in parallel with
overlapping meanings. This is the reason why I do not include “dignity” on my list
of the ultimate goals of politics, although I will not deny its importance.
To sum up, power, stability, order, harmony, democracy, the rule of law, unity,
equality, dignity, and various state systems are all processes, means, and methods to
achieve the five ultimate political goals—security, wealth, faith, justice, and free-
dom—or can be included in the appeals of these goals. It is not my intention to
obscure the significance of the other themes and objectives mentioned above, but to
show that they are subordinate to, serving, or equivalent to some of the more
fundamental goals. In the following chapters, I will examine the five ultimate goals
individually and their interrelationships.

References

Ren, J. (2014). Worshiping the gods: Tracking western political theory and methods. Beijing:
Social Science Academic Press.
Miller, D. (2003). Political philosophy: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo deus: A brief history of tomorrow. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.
U.S. Declaration of Independence. (1776).
U.S. Constitution, Preamble. (1787).
He. (2017). Justice: The historical and the realistic. Beijing: Beijing Press.
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).
Constitution of the Argentine Nation (1994). Resource document. https://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.
ar/argentina-constitution.pdf. Accessed 06 May 2020.
Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993), Preamble & Article 2. https://www.constitution.ru/
en/10003000-01.htm. Accessed 06 May 2020.
The Constitution of Japan (1947), The Constitution of Japan (came into effect on 1947), Preamble.
Resource document. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/
constitution_e.html. Accessed 06 May 2020.
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979), article 1, 2 & 13.
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973), preamble..
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), preamble.
Feng. (2009). Sociology research methods. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press.
Morgenthau. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Deng (1993). Stability is the top priority (February 26, 1989). In X. Deng (Ed.), Selected works of
Deng Xiaoping (Vol. 3, p. 284). Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
Hu (2005). Nulijian she heping, gong tong fan rong de he xie shijie, Sep. 16. Resource document.
Xinhuanet. https://www.china.com.cn/zhuanti2005/txt/2005-09/16/content_5971778.htm.
Accessed 28 Sep 2020.
Bao. (2015). General studies in political science. Beijing: Peking University Press.
30 2 Classifying Political Goals

Rousseau (1999). Chapter iv: democracy. In J. Rousseau (Ed.), The social contract, book iii
(p.101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tocqueville. (2000). Democracy in America. New York: Harper Perennial, HarperCollins
Publishers.
Schumpeter (2006). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (p. 242; p. 269; pp. 271–272; pp. 284–
285). London & New York: Routledge.
Ringen. (2007). What democracy is for: On freedom and moral government. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Wei. (2003). The rule of law and superstition of “democracy” (p. 2003). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Social Science Publishing Co., Ltd.
Wang. (2014). Four lectures on democracy. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.
Carothers. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 9.
Fairbank. (1983). The United States and China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Harari (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. On the different perceptions of China and
the West on the issue of national unification and division. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Cong (1997). “One” and “many”: analysis of the two personalities of chinese and western political
cultures. In D. Xu & J. Gao (Eds.), A comparative study of traditional chinese and western
political cultures. Tianjin: Tianjin Education Press.
Lenin (1977). Theses on the national question (June 1913). In V.I. Lenin (Ed.), Lenin collected
works, (Vol. 19, p.243). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Sartori. (2015). The theory of democracy revisited (p. 513). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s
Publishing House.
Rawls. (2002). Justice as fairness. Shanghai: SDX Joint Publishing Company.
Zhou. (2017). Equality politics of free people. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.
Yu (2017). Pursuing a happy life with dignity: A speech at the graduation ceremony of the school
of government management of peking university. Resource document. https://www.sohu.com/
a/156245092_100928. Accessed 16 May 2020.
Chapter 3
Security

3.1 On Security and the “Sense of Security”

The minimum standard of security is “survival,” or “physical survival.” Without

life, all other values are worthless to human beings. For nations and other com-
munities, “survival” is also the foundation of all other values. In this regard, there is
little doubt of putting security first among the ultimate goals of world politics.
Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, proposed the theory of hierarchy
of needs, which was divided into five levels as a pyramid. According to Maslow,
safety needs ranked second after physiological needs, which was a low-level, basic
need. Maslow believes that the whole organism is a mechanism to pursue safety,
and human's sensory organs, effector organs and intelligence mainly are tools to
seek safety and security. Science and philosophy can even be regarded as a part of
meeting safety needs (Maslow 1943).1
Security means much more than simply “survival.” For individual adults, to
obtain “a sense of security,” they need to have a healthy body, a stable residence,
freedom of movement, a stable income, an interpersonal network with the family as
the core, reliable sources of information, etc. The majority of average person will
feel “insecure” if he or she lacks any one of these. In addition, “safety” includes

1
In 1943, Abraham Maslow proposed the theory of hierarchy of needs in his article “A Theory of
Human Motivation”, which divided human needs into five categories from low to high like a
ladder, namely: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem and self-fulfillment.
Among them, physiological needs, safety needs and social needs belong to the low-level needs,
while esteem and self-fulfillment belong to the high-level needs. At the same time, a person may
have several needs, but in each period, there is a dominant need that determines his or her
behavior. Maslow and other behavioral psychologists also argue that the hierarchy of needs of the
majority people in a country is directly related to the country’s level of economic development,
scientific and technological development, culture, and people’s level of education. In underde-
veloped countries, the proportion of people with physiological needs and safety needs is large,
while the proportion of people with advanced needs is comparatively small. In the developed
world, the opposite is true. https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/maslow.html.
Resource document. Accessed 15 Sep 2020.
© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 31
W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_3
32 3 Security

many government functions, such as ensuring basic living conditions, health care,
prevention of violent crimes, theft, robbery, etc. The government and any other
political group will put the above security issues under their jurisdiction as the most
important to establish their legitimacy.
For societies and states, the occurrence of large-scale violence or wars (including
civil wars and international wars) is a loss of security. Therefore, peace is a pre-
requisite for security. Stopping violence and preventing war are the eternal themes
of politics. Since ancient times, countries and other political groups have taken
“upholding peace” as their banners. “Peace” is sometimes equated with “security.”
In fact, however, peace and security are in some cases contradictory to each other.
Nations, groups, and individuals sometimes have to resort to war or other violent
means to maintain their own security. It is common to hear comments about wars in
history like this: “Winning this war will bring us peace for decades.” During the
Second World War, many people thought that “this is the last war to eliminate all
wars.” In a society, violence is used to curb violence. In the world, war is said to be
launched to maintain peace between countries. This is not only a frequent occur-
rence in world history, but also a fixed pattern in the mindset of human beings.
There are various definitions of security, including different subjective and
objective dimensions from personal security to international security (Tan 2016).2
The two-character word anquan (security) did not exist in the ancient Chinese
language. The single Chinese character an carries multiple meanings like safety,
tranquility, calm, good health, and satisfaction. “A gentleman should not forget the
possibility of risks when he is safe (an), the possibility of death when he is alive,
and the possibility of chaos and disasters when the country is well managed, so that
one can be safe and the country can be protected.” (Zhou Yi)3 In this context, an
was the opposite of “danger,” meaning “safety and security” and referred to the
state of being free from danger and fear. There was a saying in Zuo Zhuan (Legend
of Spring and Autumn Century)4 that advised people to “think of danger in times of
peace” (ju an si wei), it went as “thinking makes you prepared against adverse
events.” A reference to national security appears in Zhan Guo Ce (Policies of The
Warring States)5: “The country is now settled, and the society is secured.” The
Modern Chinese Dictionary (Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social
Science 2002) defines anquan (security) as “no danger, no threat, and no accident”.
There are numerous definitions and related discussions of security in China and
abroad, and many of them are complicated. I appreciate the concise definition of
security by Arnold Wolfers, an American political scientist: “security, in an
objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquire values, in a subjective
sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.” (Wolfers 1952). In

2
For recent analysis of the concepts of security and international security, see Tan (2016).
3
Zhou yi (the book of changes), as known as I ching.
4
Zuo, Q. Zuo zhuan: xiang gong shi yi nian.
5
Liu, X. (Han Dynasty). Zhan Guo Ce: Qi Ce Liu (Policies of the Warring States: Policy No.6 of
Qi).
3.1 On Security and the “Sense of Security” 33

other words, security is not only a state of affairs, but also a state of mind. People of
different ages and social classes perceive different levels of security. In China,
elderly people who have experienced hunger and unrest in the past, in particular
during the Cultural Revolution, often fear that the days of material deprivation and
social unrest may return. They tend to live frugally and are sensitive to political
changes. On the other hand, these people are used to “communal feeding,” and
always rely on their “work units” (state-owned companies, Community Party
branches, neighborhood committees, etc.) when they encounter difficulties. In other
words, they tend to attain a sense of security in the collective. In contrast, con-
temporary youth in China who live in a relatively prosperous and peaceful social
environment may feel more secure in terms of food, clothing, housing and trans-
portation than their parents, while their perception of security is not as strong in
their workplace, marriage, and family life. It is easier to understand that people with
stable jobs, higher incomes and urban hukou (registered residence) feel more secure
than seasonal workers from the rural area.
Similar to different groups of people, the sense of security in different countries
varies tremendously due to different national conditions, cultures and histories.
Let’s take the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as an example.
Objectively speaking, no country today seems to have the intention to launch a
military attack on the DPRK (North Korea). It will be sufficient for an ordinary
country to safeguard its national security by maintaining an armed force corre-
sponding to its size and population. However, North Korea has had a peculiar sense
of insecurity. Since the 1990s, the DPRK has always adhered to the Songun
(Army-first) policy, to strengthen its military capabilities at the expense of eco-
nomic development. Despite the unanimous opposition of the international com-
munity, the DPRK has been determined to develop nuclear weapons and their
delivery vehicles. It is reasonable to conclude that North Korea’s uniquely strong
sense of insecurity is not directly related to the magnitude of external threats, but is
more likely the result of its political structure and pressures at home.
More than 90% of the countries in the world today, including massive powers
like Germany and Brazil, have neither nuclear weapons nor formidable conven-
tional military capabilities, but most countries possess a greater sense of security
than North Korea. More than 20 countries in the world do not have their own
military forces. For example, Costa Rica, a country in Central America, does not
have a regular army according to its constitution. It only owns the National Guard
and the police to maintain internal security. Costa Rica turns to the International
Court of Justice to resolve territorial disputes with its neighbors. In December 2015,
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a final verdict on two litigation cases
between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, ruling that Nicaragua lost the case. The ICJ
recognized Costa Rica’s sovereignty over the disputed territory and demanded
Nicaragua pay compensation for the damages caused by its illegal activities on the
Costa Rican territory (Sina News Center 2015). Another example is the Nordic
island of Iceland, which has not had a standing army since 1869. The present-day
Iceland maintains cooperation with Norway, Denmark, and other NATO countries
in national defense. From a global perspective, countries with developed economies
34 3 Security

and higher degrees of democracy and the rule of law tend to have a greater sense of
security, while economically less-developed and authoritarian countries usually
have a lower sense of security.
There is no denying that safeguarding national security is one of the main
functions of national governments. Countries in the contemporary world have
different understandings of the meaning of national security. The American scholar
John Collins believes that the most important national security interest is survival,
that is, the survival of the country. A certain degree of independence, territorial
integrity, traditional ways of life, basic institutions, social norms and honor must be
ensured (Huang 2007). Barry Buzan, a British international relations scholar,
divides security into five dimensions: military security, political security, economic
security, societal security, and environmental security. Among them, he regards
military security as the enduring primacy because the use of force can quickly bring
about major changes that people do not want to see. Military threats have always
been placed at the top of national security consideration (Buzan et al. 1998).
Liu Yuejin, an expert on Chinese security issues, pointed out that in terms of the
components of national security, political security, especially regime security of the
rulers, was always the top priority in ancient Chinese dynasties, and everything was
at the service of safeguarding the security of the rulers, that is, the security of the
regime (Liu 2013). During the pre-Qin period, Qi Huangong (Duke Huan of Qi)
proposed “revere the emperor, expel the barbarians” (zun wang rang yi), which was
a strategy of “managing internal security” (an nei) before “dealing with external
security issues” (rang wai). In the early days of China’s War of Resistance against
Japan, President Chiang Kai-Shek of the Republic of China put forward the slogan
that “resisting foreign aggression must go after stabilizing the country internally,”
which was the continuation of the same strategy. Throughout the dynasties, both
internal and external concerns were raised, but internal concerns were the main
consideration. “Since ancient times, China has been unified while the surrounding
ranks have been small and barbarous. We are concerned about internal problems
only, but not external aggression.” (Liang 1984).
In April 2014, President Xi Jinping put forward the overall concept of national
security for the first time at the first meeting of the Central National Security
Council, “With people’s security as the purpose, political security as the foundation,
economic security as the basis, military, cultural and social security as the guar-
antee, and the promotion of international security as the basis, we should walk a
path of national security with Chinese characteristics” (Xi 2014). President Xi also
pointed out that to implement the overall national security concept, we must attach
importance to both external and internal security, both homeland security and
national security, both traditional and nontraditional security, both self-security and
common security; we will build a national security system that integrates political
security, homeland security, military security, economic security, cultural security,
social security, scientific and technological security, information security,
3.1 On Security and the “Sense of Security” 35

ecological security, resource security, and nuclear security (Xi 2014).6 It can be
seen that the most important security issues in contemporary China focus on the
field of political security. Political security, the core element of national security,
refers to the inviolability of state sovereignty and stability in domestic politics and
political regime. In January 2017. Xi further elaborated at the Central Conference
on Political and Legal Affairs: “safeguarding national political security, especially
regime security and institutional security, should be given top priority.” (Xi 2017).
In April 2014, President Xi Jinping put forward the overall concept of national
security for the first time at the first meeting of China’s Central National Security
Council, “With people’s security as the purpose, political security as the foundation,
economic security as the basis, military, cultural and social security as the guar-
antee, and the promotion of international security as the basis, we should walk a
path of national security with Chinese characteristics” (Xi 2014). President Xi also
pointed out that to implement the overall national security concept China must
attach importance to both external and internal security, both homeland security and
national security, both traditional and nontraditional security, both self-security and
common security. China will build a national security system that integrates
political security, homeland security, military security, economic security, cultural
security, social security, scientific and technological security, information security,
ecological security, resource security, and nuclear security (Xi 2014).7 It can be
seen that the most important security issues in contemporary China focus on the
field of political security. Political security, the core element of national security in
China, refers to the inviolability of state sovereignty and stability in domestic
politics, and political regime. In January 2017. Xi further elaborated at the Central
Conference on Political and Legal Affairs: “safeguarding national political security,
especially regime security and system security, should be given top priority.” (Xi
2017).

3.2 Traditional Security: Domestic Stability

and International Peace

The term “traditional security” generally refers to internal political security and
external military security of a country. “Nontraditional security”, the opposite of
“traditional security,” has become popular since the end of the Cold War.
Nontraditional security refers to a series of problems, such as international terror-
ism, deterioration of the ecological environment, and infectious diseases, that have
become increasingly protuberant in the context of a relatively stable international
order. In reality, however, the distinction between traditional security and

6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
36 3 Security

nontraditional security is becoming increasingly blurred. For example, nontradi-

tional security issues such as cyber security and terrorism involve national political
security, military security and national sovereignty. Still, the distinction between the
two types of security makes sense in understanding the political implications of
security issues.
National political security refers to the state of national sovereignty, political
power, political system, ideology and other aspects free from invasion and threats.
In China, this state of affairs is manifested in preventing foreign forces from
interfering in China’s internal affairs, consolidating the ruling position of the
Communist Party of China and its absolute leadership over the armed forces,
consolidating the people’s democratic dictatorship and the fundamental system of
socialism, safeguarding the status of Marxism as the mainstream ideology,
thwarting efforts to split the country, and maintaining social stability. Since China’s
reform and opening up, maintaining stability has always been a top priority for the
CPC and the state.
Based on political security considerations, the Chinese government has
responded with a vigilant attitude to the “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine,
Kyrgyzstan, and other countries that attempted to overthrow the current regime
after the Cold War, and to the “Arab Spring” that endangered social stability in
Egypt and other countries in 2011, and will never allow such incidents to occur in
China. At the same time, China understands the measures taken by other socialist
countries and some developing countries to resist Western infiltration and safeguard
the security of their domestic political regimes.
Western democracies attach great importance to political security as well, but in
different forms. At the beginning of the Cold War, the anti-Soviet and
anti-Communist McCarthyism emerged in the United States, fearing that commu-
nist ideology would infiltrate into the United States and erode its capitalist system
and way of life. In the last 20–30 years, with the diversification of race, ethnicity,
and religion in American society, multiculturalism in the United States has been on
the rise, which has impacted the WASP tradition (i.e., the White Anglo-Saxon
Protestant culture), and aroused the concern and criticism of traditional conserva-
tives in the United States. Radicalization and terrorism in the world have only
deepened these concerns, which in turn have affected U.S. political security. To
some extent, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016
reflected such concerns. In 2017, American politicians expressed a deep suspicion
about Russia's interference in US politics before and after the 2016 US presidential
election, which led to serious domestic divisions and a series of personnel changes
in the U.S. government, as well as a deterioration in US–Russia relations. Internal
ethnic separatism and refugee crises facing a number of European countries are also
impacting their internal political stability.
In recent years, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and other republics in the Middle East
continue to experience turmoil, and regime stability of Saudi Arabia and other
monarchies has been put to test, while Turkey, Egypt and other countries have
significantly strengthened their domestic political control. In Southeast Asia,
countries like Thailand and Myanmar have yet to shake off the danger of political
3.2 Traditional Security: Domestic Stability and International Peace 37

rivalry at home. In South Asia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, among some others,
remain politically divided. In Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the
post-cold war political transitions are far from complete, or might even be reversed
to the old patterns. In Latin America, countries such as Venezuela and Cuba have
uncertain political outlook, and countries like Brazil and Argentina have yet to step
out of the “middle-income trap.” All this shows that safeguarding political security
remains one of the core concerns in the politics of almost all countries and the world
at large.
In the contemporary world, the state is the only organization that can legiti-
mately use violence, and this has been widely recognized by the international
community. Any groups or organizations that attempt to overthrow the government
or to achieve other political objectives by violent means would likely be considered
“illegitimate” or “terrorist organizations” regardless of their declared reasons or
motives. For example, while the West does not endorse the policies of the Syrian
government under Bashar al-Assad and even questions the legitimacy of its regime,
it has a lot of concerns about supporting the violence of Syrian rebel groups in
recent years.
However, in modern world history, armed uprisings, violent revolutions, or
armed struggles against the rulers, such as the American War of Independence, the
French Revolution in 1789, the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, the Chinese
Revolution in the first half of the 20th century, the Algerian National Liberation
War during the 1950s and 1960s, and so on, are widely considered as just or
reasonable armed actions.8 After the 1970s, the wave of national independence
against colonial rules generally ended, and the rationality of political struggles by
means of violence was gradually questioned. Socialist countries like China and the
Soviet Union no longer openly supported violent Communist revolutions. As for
governments, the use of violent means to resolve non-violent domestic political
disputes or to harm civilians in international wars has also been increasingly con-
demned. It is an irreversible world trend that, other than in exceptional circum-
stances, domestic issues of political security need to be resolved by political and
legal measures rather than by military means. For example, the Egyptian military
intervened in politics in 2013, the Thai military took over power in 2014, and the
Zimbabwe military took Robert Mugabe, then-president under house arrest in 2017.
None of the leaders taking those actions was willing to admit they had initiated a
“military coup.” Instead, they all promised to restore popular elections and
democratic procedures afterwards as soon as possible.
Consistent with the evolving trend of national political security is the mainte-
nance of international peace. After World War II, wars between great powers rarely
occurred, and their frequency and intensity decreased. Since the end of the Cold
War, the danger of war between major powers has declined further. In the

8
Of course, the rationality and legitimacy of the historical process mentioned above are contro-
versial on the stage of world politics and in the historical circle.
38 3 Security

contemporary arena of world politics, advocating the settlement of international

disputes by means of war is no longer acceptable to the international community.
Looking back at history, from ancient times to the first half of the 20th century, it
is notable that many politicians and strategists believed that war was a reasonable
and legitimate option to safeguard national security and international peace.
According to Western theories on the origin of the state, out of concerns for security
individuals and groups in ancient societies entered into contracts for coexistence,
transferred part of their rights, and founded a state through contracts. The state
establishes violent or forcible institutions, including the army, police, prison and
court, so as to ensure order at home and resist aggression from abroad for national
security. But the birth of states, in return, causes struggles between them. British
philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that in the natural state of man, some people
might be stronger in body or of quicker mind than the others, but none would be
strong or smart enough not to be afraid of death by violence. When threatened with
death, a person in the nature state would certainly do everything in his power to
protect himself. Hobbes considered it the highest human necessity to protect oneself
from violent death. The jungle society he described was a war “where every man is
enemy to every man,” “which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent
death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1998).
The logic of wars between states in history is similar to that of violence between
men. One of the purposes of the existence of a state is to safeguard national
security, but from an international perspective, the state is often the main source of
international insecurity (David 2011).9 In order to ensure its own security, a country
may increase its sense of security by expanding its military and seeking allies. As a
result, other countries may feel insecure and take precautions by strengthening their
military strength and forming countering alliances. Such mutual suspicions and
mutual prevention aggravate the danger of arms race and risk of war, which may, in
the end, lead to war. This is the so-called “security dilemma” in the study of
international relations. The earliest description of security dilemma dated back to
the Peloponnesian war in ancient Greece. According to Greek historian Thucydides,
“What made the war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this
caused in Sparta” (Nye 2007). The “Thucydides’ Trap” debated by scholars refers
to the situation where a rising power challenges the existing hegemonic power,
which will certainly respond to the challenge, thus making armed conflict between
the two countries hardly avoidable (Wang 2015).10
The ancient Romans had a famous motto: “If you want peace, prepare for war
(Latin: gitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum).” This coincides with the
ancient Chinese saying that “though the world is in peace, forgetting war is dan-
gerous.” These words were recorded in the famous Chinese military book Si Ma Fa

9
See the 2004 report by the Senior Celebrity Group on Threats, Challenges and Change, quoted
from David (2011).
10
For interpretation and analysis of the “Thucydides Trap” and “Security Dilemma”, see Wang
(2015).
3.2 Traditional Security: Domestic Stability and International Peace 39

(Methods of the Minister of War) printed during the Spring and Autumn Period and
the Warring States Period. Even in modern times, war is still one of the most
important ways for a country to expand its territory and maintain its security.
Countries have waged countless wars in the name of security. But making war has
not brought peace. Years of war have brought great suffering to mankind.
According to some statistics, in the 5500 years from 3600 BC to the 1980s, human
society as a whole was in peace for only 292 years. There were more than 14,500
wars in world history, resulting in the death of approximately 3.5 billion people
(Beer 1981; Li 2002).11 This shows that war was once normality in human society.
For the vast majority of people in the contemporary world, it is gratifying that we
live in a peaceful environment and do not need to worry about a constant threat of
war. Stephen Pinker (2011), an American scholar, says: “Believe it or not—and I
know that most people do not—violence has declined over long stretches of time,
and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence. The
decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero;
and it is not guaranteed to continue. But it is an unmistakable development, visible
on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars to the spanking of
children.” Pinker offers a complex psychological and historical explanation of the
general trend toward less violence. If you take into account small-scale conflicts,
domestic violence, abuse of children and the elderly, cruelty to animals, religious
sacrifice, slavery and violent crime, then human beings are becoming less violent
and more kind, he argues. Countries are becoming more legal, women are entitled
to more rights, and international treaties are making it easier for people to live a
more peaceful life (Pinker 2011).
American commentator Zakaria (2011) also noted: “It seems that we are living in
crazily violent times. But don’t believe everything you see on television. Our
anecdotal impression turns out to be wrong. War and organized violence have
declined dramatically over the last 2 decades.” Similarly, British scholar Alan Ryan
(2012) makes it clear that “… everywhere the danger of death from a terrorist attack
is much lower than that of death in an accident, or indeed from common or garden
variety murder.”
In his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind, Harari’s statistics show that
violence in modern societies has fallen sharply compared with pre-modern soci-
eties, in terms of the proportion of victims in the world’s population (equivalent to
1/5). Since the end of the Cold War, wars have been reduced and the proportion of
the population affected has dropped significantly. In 2002, after the “9.11” terrorist
attack, out of the 57 million deaths in the whole world, only 172,000 died in wars,
569,000 died of violent crimes (i.e., 741,000 deaths due to human violence in total),
while the number of suicides worldwide was 873,000 in the same year (Harari

The figures are from Beer (1981). Quoted from Li (2002).

11
40 3 Security

2015).12 A statistics from the German statistics company Statista shows that the
number of deaths from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014 was 32,727 (2019).13
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, about 33,000 people are killed by
guns every year in the US in recent years, of which 60% are suicides and 3% are
accidental killings (2020).14 In other words, gun deaths in the United States each
year are equivalent to the number of people killed in terrorist attacks around the
world. The high number of gun deaths has much to do with ineffective gun control
measures in that country.
The statistics done by the Association for Safe International Road Travel
(ASIRT) show that, for years, the number of people died in road traffic accidents in
the world has been more than 1.35 million every year, with an average of about
3700 people per day (ASIRT 2020); the number of people who died of AIDS
globally exceeded 1.2 million in 2014 (Avert 2020). In other words, the number of
people who die from suicide, car accidents, and AIDS around the world today is
much higher than the number of people who die from war and violent attacks
(China Safety Organization 2017).15 These figures are basically consistent with
those given by Harari.
Why are wars and the danger of war significantly reduced in today’s world? I
hereby offer five rational explanations.
First, the price and costs that great powers might have to pay by waging a war
would be much higher than the possible benefits.
American scholar Francis A. Beer believes that the increasing destructiveness of
modern wars has led to a decline in the frequency of wars and the expansion of

12
Harari (2015). According to statistics, the number of suicides worldwide has increased from
712,000 in 1990 to 842,000 in 2013, see suicide data from World Health Organization, https://
www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicideprevent/en/. Resource document. Accessed
16 Sep 2020.
13
Number of fatalities due to terrorist attacks worldwide between 2006 and 2018. (2019). Resource
document. Statista Research Department. https://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-
fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/. Accessed 18 Sep 2020. The statistics show that the
number of deaths worldwide from terrorist attacks decreased from 2006 to 2012, but increased
significantly from 2012 to 2014.
14
Gun deaths by state 2020. (2020). Resource document. World Population Review. https://
worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-by-state. Accessed 16 Sep 2020.
15
In the past, the number of deaths caused by production safety accidents in China each year was
higher than the number of deaths caused by violent terrorist attacks in the world each year.
According to the 2014 National Economic and Social Development Statistical Bulletin of the
People’s Republic of China issued by the National Bureau of Statistics, 68,061 people were killed
in production safety accidents during the year 2014 (see People’s Daily on February 27, 2015).
The good news is that the number of deaths in China’s production safety accidents has dropped
significantly since 2005. According to statistics from the State Administration of Production Safety
in China, in the first half of the year 2017, the total number of various types of accidents across the
country showed a sharp decline. In the first half of the year, 22,400 production safety accidents and
16,200 death from these accidents were reported in the country. See article from China Safety
Organization (2017).
3.2 Traditional Security: Domestic Stability and International Peace 41

peace (Beer 1981; Li 2002). Prior to the First World War, war was considered a
glory and a healthy test of men and institutions, a promoter of civilization, and a
source of progress. The outbreak of the World War I was greeted with “ecstasy” in
many quarters of Europe, but the massive destruction and carnage of the war made
this kind of perspective disappear (Rosecrance & Miller 2014). Canadian political
scientist Amitav Acharya points out, “In the European system of balance of power
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, war was still considered necessary, even
glorious. Because war was useful for maintaining the balance of power in Europe as
the cornerstone of the security order, especially at a time in which economic
interdependence between European countries is still very limited and the European
coordination system is in decline. However, few people today see war as a glorious
way and a respectable solution to maintain international order (Acharya 2017).
Nuclear weapons are tremendously lethal. Nuclear weapons in the whole world
are already enough to wipe out humanity as a species. Meanwhile, it is the emer-
gence of nuclear weapons that has also effectively restricted the outbreak of war.
According to American scholar David Richards, nuclear weapons have greatly
increased the risk and potential cost of war. As he argues, nuclear arsenals “in-
troduce the specter of truly disastrous outcomes for all concerned,” which should “
‘curb aggressive instincts’ and increase the value of avoiding conflict” (Rosecrance
& Miller 2014). Joseph Nye, another U.S. scholar, contends that the emergence of
nuclear weapons has pushed military power to its limits as a means of maintaining
security, even to its opposite. There would be no winners in a nuclear war, and
nuclear weapons may put the entire human race at risk. During the Cold War,
nuclear weapons of the United States and the Soviet Union were capable of
destroying human beings of the whole world dozens of times. The “Mutually
Assured Destruction” (MAD) strategy of the United States and the Soviet Union
made it difficult for anyone to go to war (Nye 2007). Nuclear deterrence and the
emergence of new forms of warfare, such as cyberwarfare and space weapons, has
made it increasingly impossible for major powers to afford the high cost of war
between them. The benefits of war in human history, such as the conquest of enemy
countries’ territory and the plundering of wealth and human resources, could hardly
compensate for the costs and risks of a high-tech war.
Second, states can use non-war means to obtain the benefits that they could have
gained through war in the past.
With the rapid development of globalization, the global economy has become
more and more interdependent among major players. Strategic games, manifested
by geopolitical and geoeconomic competitions between countries, still persist. In
the past, wars were initiated because countries competed with one another for likely
profits such as grasp of natural resources, occupation of strategically important
locations and channels, and increase in labor forces. These profits or advantages are
now easier to obtain through advancement of trade, overseas investment, mergers
and acquisitions of companies, financial transactions, technological innovation, etc.
42 3 Security

For most countries in the world, the top priority on their government agenda is no
longer military affairs but economic and social issues. Germany and Japan were
once known for their “belligerence,” which caused huge disasters in Europe and
Asia. After World War II, however, they both entered the world community
through peaceful means and joined the club of the richest countries. The drastic
change was not caused by the transformation of the “national character” of either
Germany or Japan. Rather, the reason for this positive change was that they made
right, rational strategic choices that were corresponding to a more stable interna-
tional environment under globalization. As a leading power, the United States in
certain periods tried to reduce the cost of maintaining its hegemony by consoli-
dating international security alliances and networks and encouraging other powers
to sharing global responsibilities. After reform and opening up, China has effec-
tively strengthened and used its economic and military strength as well as political
influence to launch a long-term peaceful competition with the United States. Any
potential enemy country would lose more than it could gain by waging a war
against China.
Third, decision-making capacities of many countries have been strengthened,
mutual understanding among nations has increased, and mechanisms for crisis
prevention and crisis management have been generally established between coun-
tries in potential conflict.
Wars between great powers in history have often been triggered by errors or
failures of strategic intelligence, the loss of control over the military by the civilian
government, or an intransigent, dictatorial leadership. Major powers today,
regardless of their political system, emphasize rationalization and institutionaliza-
tion of domestic decision-making, coordination of various government agencies on
major diplomatic and national security issues, and consultation with think tanks and
experts. Major powers conduct frequent interchanges, from leaders’ summits to
communication at operational government levels, and to informal “track II” dia-
logues. Mechanisms for crisis prevention and crisis management (like “military
hotlines”) involving diplomatic, defense, intelligence and paramilitary services
have been established and gradually improved. With these specialized mechanisms,
it is possible to avoid strategic miscalculation and escalation of an accidental crisis
into a total war, although serious divergence of interests between major powers
might not be alleviated for the time being.
Fourth, with the coordination of major powers in the world, the non-proliferation
regimes for weapons of massive destruction, the U.N. peacekeeping mechanism,
and the nuclear arms control agreements have been established. These mechanisms
have played a positive role in curbing international conflicts or reducing their
intensity, and in preventing civil wars in certain countries.
Fifth, peace as an ethical value has become increasingly popular around the
world. The two World Wars and several contemporary wars have taught the world a
very painful lesson. The wars launched by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq
after the September 11 terrorist attacks have not brought stability and economic
development to the relevant countries. The use of war as a mean to resolve domestic
3.2 Traditional Security: Domestic Stability and International Peace 43

and international political conflicts has become increasingly unpopular in the

contemporary world. At the same time, economic globalization and social
informatization have stimulated people’s material needs, and changed people’s
spiritual needs and hobbies to a certain extent. The flow and connectivity of pop-
ulation, information, commodities and money have increased unprecedentedly. The
idea of a “global village” has emerged. The younger generation’s social identity,
self-centeredness and patterns of social interaction are distancing themselves from
the older generations. He Huaihong, a Chinese philosopher, makes this comment:
“for the fight against war and violence, I think that the most fundamental and urgent
matter is an education on the moral principle of putting human life first and
supreme” (He 2017).16 It should be noted that radical nationalism still echoes
loudly among many citizens in all countries. But people other than terrorists tend to
see nationalism as a catharsis rather than a guide to action. Those who advocate war
on social media do not actually want to put themselves or their family members on
the battlefield; instead, they assume and wish that other people would act as the
“death squads”.
I point out here that the risks of war between great powers have decreased. But
this does not in any way mean that I think China should slow down its efforts to
build strong national defense. President Xi advises that “the world is far from
stable, and peace needs to be safeguarded.” (Xi 2017). History has never developed
linearly. While there is a general decline in human violence, we must not ignore the
trend of increasing violence within a certain period of time or in some parts of the
world. We must not ignore the real possibility of the return of geopolitical com-
petition and arms race that might trigger a war or bring back the threat of war. We
must not ignore the challenges faced by the international nuclear non-proliferation
mechanism (Jiang et al. 2016). Once violent terrorists with extremist ideas possess
weapons of massive destruction, the calamity to mankind will be incalculable.

3.3 Prominence of Nontraditional Security Issues

Causes that bring threats to human security can be broadly divided into three
categories. Those fall into the first category are man-made and caused by society,
including war, violence, political or religious persecution, criminal deeds, traffic
accidents, medical accidents, work safety accidents, environmental pollution, food
safety incidents, and so on. These threats can be avoided or mitigated through
subjective efforts by individuals and groups. The second category are threats caused
by nature, including earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, droughts, snowstorms, volcanic

16
He (2017). For ethics of war and Chinese attitudes and its changes towards war, see pages 135–
160 of the book.
44 3 Security

eruptions, and other natural disasters that are unavoidable or difficult to forecast and
control. The third category is diseases, especially infectious diseases. AIDS kills
millions of people every year. From 1347 to 1353, a plague—the “Black Death”
pandemic—ravaged Europe, causing the death of roughly 25 million people,
equivalent to one-third of the entire population of Europe at that time (in contrast,
the death toll of World War II in Europe accounted for 5% of the total population).
With the development of modern technology, the accumulation of wealth and
enhanced capacity of social governance, the boundaries of these three types of
security threats become increasingly blurred. Some of the natural disasters can be
forecast, prevented, or better managed. After the occurrence of natural disasters,
disaster reduction and relief effort, the prevention and control of infectious diseases,
the prohibition of smuggling and drug trafficking, are responsibilities of the gov-
ernments and social organizations.
The two World Wars and other large-scale armed conflicts of the 20th century
have left people with a lasting impression on war. Since the beginning of the 21st
century, a series of nontraditional security issues have attracted people’s attention.
From live television broadcast and online videos, people witnessed the “9
11”
terrorist attacks in 2001, the 2003 SARS crisis in China, the 2011 Fukushima
nuclear leak in Japan, The NSA “PRISM” incident in 2013, the 2014 Ebola out-
break in Africa, the refugee crisis that swept Europe in 2015, terrorist killings by the
extreme ISIS forces in recent years. Cyberattacks and information fraud could
happen at any time. With the decline of the threat of war, governments and
international public opinion have paid much more attention to nontraditional
security issues.
U.S. strategist Henry Kissinger noted the importance of nontraditional security
issues as early as the 1970s. “The problems of energy, resources, environment,
population, the uses of space and the seas now rank with questions of military
security, ideology and territorial rivalry which have traditionally made up the
diplomatic agenda,” as he noted (Keohane & Nye 2011).
It is Richard Ullman, an international relations scholar at Princeton University of
the United States, who first proposed the concept of “nontraditional security.”
“Redefining Security,” the article he published in the journal International Security
in 1983, clearly put forward that the concepts of national security and international
security should be expanded so that they may embrace non-military global issues,
and include issues such as human poverty, disease, natural disasters and environ-
mental degradation in security studies (Ullman 1983; Wang & Lu 2010).
Some scholars have divided nontraditional security into five categories: first,
security issues that human society must face in order to achieve sustainable
development, such as natural disasters, ecological deterioration, lack of resources,
energy crisis, and epidemic of infectious diseases; second, social problems within a
country that may affect other countries, regions and even the entire international
community, such as economic crisis, refugee problems, social crisis, and ethnic and
3.3 Prominence of Nontraditional Security Issues 45

religious conflicts; third, organized transnational criminal activities, such as

transnational drug trafficking, international money laundering, piracy, human traf-
ficking, illegal immigration, etc.; fourth, the impact of international terrorist orga-
nizations on the international community; fifth, negative impacts brought about by
globalization and the expansion of international exchanges, such as economic
security issues caused by the financial crisis, information security issues caused by
computer viruses and hackers, and nuclear security problems caused by nuclear
power plant accidents etc. (Li 2015).
The biggest difference between traditional and nontraditional security issues is
that the former may generally be secured by strengthening domestic governance
and preventing inter-state wars, while the latter often transcend traditional national
boundaries and no country can successfully deal with it alone. Traditionally, mil-
itary security is a kind of “zero-sum game,” that is, one side’s gains equal the other
side’s losses. In traditional security issues, the strengthening of military strength in
one country may cause fear and preparedness in another country. Traditional
national security needs to be obtained through self-help methods of increasing
military strength.
Nontraditional security doctrine, in contrast, breaks the traditional international
relations thinking of zero-sum game and the state-centered approach, advocating
cooperation as the way for the international community to achieve security. In the
nontraditional security mindset, cooperation between governments and transna-
tional NGOs is needed to address such global challenges as violent and terrorist
activities, environmental pollution, climate change, infectious diseases, illegal
migration, smuggling, and drug trafficking. Concepts and forms of cooperation such
as “cooperative security” and “common security” have come into being. In 1982,
The Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security, chaired by former
Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, drafted Common Security: A Blueprint for
Survival, a report stating that common security is based on the understanding that
the best guarantee of security is obtained through cooperation rather than com-
petitive power politics (Wang & Lu 2010).17
Among the various nontraditional security issues, terrorism is regarded by many
people as the most compelling threat today, and the most politically controversial.
The Counterterrorism Law of the People’s Republic of China defines terrorism as
“any proposition or activity that, by means of violence, sabotage or threat, generates
social panic, undermines public security, infringes upon personal and property

17
See Wang and Lu (2010). Olof Palme (1927–1986) is a famous Swedish politician. In September
1980, on his initiative, “The Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security” (also known
as the “Palme Commission”) was established and chaired by Palme. In 1986, Palme was assas-
sinated and killed as Prime Minister of Sweden.
46 3 Security

rights, or menaces state authorities and international organizations, with the aim to
realize political, ideological and other purposes.”18 On the one hand, according to
this definition, terrorism is highly related to national political security and should be
regarded as a traditional security issue. The United States used to list Iran, Syria and
other countries as “State Sponsors of Terrorism,” and treated the issue of terrorism
as a military and security matter. On the other hand, terrorism poses a transnational
threat, and many related issues require solutions by international cooperation, hence
it can also be classified as a nontraditional security issue.
Generally speaking, terrorism in the modern history of the world began in the
1960s. Before Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden initiated large-scale activities, the
Irish Republic Army (IRA) in Britain and Ireland, the Red Brigades in Italy, Aum
Shinrikyo in Japan, and some other groups were all regarded as notorious terrorist
organizations. Around the time the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 mas-
terminded by Osama bin Laden, terrorism was widely seen as linked to a form of
religious extremism. On November 12, 2001, the UN Security Council adopted the
Declaration on the Global Effort to Combat Terrorism in the form of Resolution
1377, which clearly declares that “acts of international terrorism constitute one of
the most serious threats to international peace and security in the 21st century,” and
that “acts of international terrorism constitute a challenge to all States and to all of
humanity.” (Yu 2015).19 China’s Counterterrorism Law stipulates that “The state
opposes all forms of using distorted religious teachings or other means to incite
hatred or discrimination, to advocate violence and other extremism; eliminating
terrorism's ideological basis.” The reference to terrorism in this Law is very clearly
linked to certain religious groups.
Since the early 1990s, “human security” has become an important theme in
world politics. In the eyes of the advocates of human security, the object of security
concerns in the international community has been, or should be, shifted from the
state to the individual or the whole human society, and “human security” should
replace national security or international security as the primary value (Shi 2014).
In the 1993 Human Development Report, the United Nations formally proposed the
concept of “human security,” emphasizing the realization of security through
“human development.” According to the report, the concept of security must be
changed with a greater emphasis on human security, and human security must be
achieved through “human development.” The 1994 Human Development Report
for the first time introduces a new concept of human security, which equates
security with people rather than territories, with development rather than arms.

18
Anti-Terrorism law of the people’s republic of china (adopted at the 18th meeting of the standing
committee of the twelfth national people’s congress on december 27, 2015). (2015). Resource
document. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/
2015-12/28/content_5029899.htm. Accessed 12 Sep 2020.
19
Declaration of global efforts to combat terrorism. United Nations document S/RES/1377(2001).
Quoted from Yu (2015).
3.3 Prominence of Nontraditional Security Issues 47

It examines both the national and the global concerns of human security. The
Report seeks to deal with these concerns through a new paradigm of sustainable
human development, capturing the potential peace dividend, a new form of
development co-operation and a restructured system of global institutions “there
have always been two major components of human security: one is to avoid
long-term threats such as hunger, disease, and psychological depression; and the
other is to protect people from sudden and harmful effects in daily life.” Thus,
“human security” is clearly defined as the subject of United Nations security ref-
erence (UN 1994).
“Human security” is a challenging and “rebellious” concept. It challenges the
consensus reached by the international community since the signing of the
Westphalian peace treaty—the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of
other countries, that is, the basic principle of international law. Since the end of the
Cold War, there has been a trend of thought that emphasizes human rights over
sovereignty. After NATO launched the Kosovo War in June 1999, Kofi Annan, UN
Secretary-General, wrote in the French newspaper Le Monde that people are the
core of everything, that the very concept of state sovereignty is designed to protect
individuals. Kofi Annan remarked that individuals are the reason for the existence
of the state, not the other way around; we can no longer accept governments of
some countries using sovereignty as an excuse to disregard civil rights (David
2011).
This idea expressed by Annan has become the ideological backing of “hu-
manitarian intervention.” Since the end of the Cold War, UN peacekeeping forces
have repeatedly intervened in regional conflicts, especially internal conflicts in
some countries, and exercised a “responsibility to protect” to avoid genocide and
indiscriminate killings of innocent people. But humanitarian intervention has also
aroused suspicion and dissatisfaction among many developing countries, for whom
the preservation of sovereignty has always been the most important national
security value. They believe that nontraditional security issues should not trump
national political security. Yang Chengxu, Director of the China Institute of
International Studies, contends that the relationship between human rights and
sovereignty has increasingly become the focus of heated international debates since
the end of the Cold War. Abdelaziz Bouteflika, President of Algeria, speaking on
behalf of African countries at the 54th Session of the United Nations General
Assembly in 1999, denounced the tendency to intervene in other countries’ internal
conflicts in the name of upholding human rights. President Bouteflika stressed that
African countries “remain extremely sensitive to any erosion of their sovereignty,”
which is their “bottom-line of defense against an unequal world system” (Yang
2001).
The concept of human security also involves relatively “soft” and “low-politics”
issues such as environmental protection, public health, counter-piracy,
anti-smuggling and anti-drug trafficking. Due to different types and degrees of
48 3 Security

nontraditional security threats facing different countries, it is difficult for all

countries to reach a full consensus on any certain issue. At the same time, many
nontraditional security issues are rooted in the deep soil of cultural, social and
economic backgrounds of each country, and they all have their own limitations in
the use of resources, social mobilization and response mechanisms. In this regard,
one of the typical issues is global climate change. Countries around the world
recognize the seriousness of the climate change challenge. The European Union, the
United States, and Japan should not shirk their responsibility to reduce emissions.
The “Four Basic Countries” (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), as represen-
tatives of developing countries, stress their “common but differentiated responsi-
bilities” and pledge to do their utmost to reduce emissions. Less developed
countries claim to be victims of climate change and need damage compensation and
financial as well as technological support. Small island states are on their own,
making a radical demand for all developed and developing countries to force
emission cuts as soon as possible, because the sea level rise caused by climate
change will one day drown small island states in the ocean.

References

Acharya, A. (2017). The end of the American world order and the new “multiplex world.” World
Economy and Politics, 2017(6), 24.
Association for Safe International Road Travel. (2020). Road safety facts. Resource document.
https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/. Accessed 14 Sep 2020.
Avert. (2020). Global HIV and Aids Statistics. Resource document. https://www.avert.org/
professionals/hiv-around-world/global-statistics. Accessed 17 Sep 2020.
Beer, F. A. (1981). Peace against war: The ecology of international violence (p. 20). San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Beer, F. A. (1981). Peace against war: The ecology of international violence (pp. 42–49). San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Buzan, B., et al. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis (introduction, pp. 5–11). London:
Lynne Rienner.
China Safety Organization. (2017). Resource document. https://www.china-safety.org.cn/caws/
Contents/Channel_20189/2017/0728/291642/content_291642.htm, Accessed 13 Sep 2020.
David, C. (2011). An quan yu zhan lue (Security and strategy, pp. 33–34; 85, Wang, Z, Trans).
Beijing: Social Science Academic Press.
Harari, J. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind (p. 436). New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.
He, H. (2017). Zheng yi: Li shi de yu xian shi de (p. 160). Beijing: Beijing Press.
Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan (pp. 82–84). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, J. (2007). Quan qiu hua shi dai da guo de an quan (The national security of the great
powers in globalization times, preface, p. 3). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Science. (2002). Modern Chinese dictionary
(Chinese-English bilingual supplement 2002) (p. 9). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Jiang, L. et al. (2016). Beware of the coming back of war crisis. Tsinghua national strategic
research report, no. 1. Beijing: National Strategic Research Institute of Tsinghua University.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2011). Power and interdependence (p. 22). New York: Pearson.
References 49

Li, S. (2002). Guo ji zheng zhi xue gai lun (International politics, pp. 184–185). Shanghai:
Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
Li, S. (2002). Guo Ji Zheng Zhi Xue Gai Lun (Eng. Title: International Politics, p. 190). Shanghai:
Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
Li, X. (Ed.). (2015). Xian dai guo ji an quan li lun jing yao (Essence of contemporary
international security theories (pp. 11–12). Beijing: Military Science Press.
Liang, Q. (1984). On the harm of the invariant law. Collected works of Liang Qichao: book i.
Quoted from Selected papers on Liang Qichao’s philosophical thoughts (p. 6). Beijing: Peking
University Press.
Liu, Y. (2013). Ancient Chinese national security thoughts from the perspective of contemporary
national security theory. Journal of Chinese People’s Public Security University, 3.
Nye, J. S., Jr. (2007). Understanding international conflicts: An introduction to theory and history
(p. 15). New York: Pearson.
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has reduced (preface, p. 1).
London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Rosecrance, R. N., & Miller, S. E. (Eds.). (2014). The next great war? The roots of World War I
and the risk of U.S.-China conflict (p. xi). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Ryan, A. (2012). On politics: A history of political thought from herodotus to the present
(p. 1305). New York/London: Liveright Publishing Crop.
Shi, B. (2014). Ren de an quan yu guo jia an quan (“human security” and national security). World
Economy and Politics, 2014(2), 86.
Sina News Center (2015). The International Court of Justice has ruled Nicaragua for compensation
for its illegal activities in disputed territory with Costa Rica. https://news.sina.com.cn/o/2015-
12-17/doc-ifxmpxnx5247645.shtml. Accessed 15 Sep. 2020.
Tan, X, (Ed.) (2016). International security situation awareness index (pp. 1–4). Beijing:
International Security Research Editorial Department, School of International Relations, and
Big Data International Relations Research Center, University of International Business and
Economics (jointly released)
Ullman, R. (1983). Redefining security. International Security, 8(1), 133.
United Nations. (1994). Human development report. Resource document. https://hdr.undp.org/
sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2020.
Wang, F & Lu, J. (Eds). (2010). Guo ji an quan gai lun (An introduction to international security,
p. 345). Beijing: World Knowledge Press.
Wang, F & Lu, J. (Eds). (2010). Guo ji an quan gai lun (An introduction to international security,
preface, p. 5). Beijing: World Knowledge Press.
Wang, J. (Ed). (2015). Da guo guan xi (Chap. 2, pp. 45–77). This chapter was contributed by Xu
Qiyu. Beijing: CITIC Press.
Wolfers, A. (1952). National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly, 67
(4), 485.
Xi, J. (2014). Adhere to the general concept of National Security and follow the Road of National
Security with Chinese characteristics. People’s Daily, p. 1.
Xi, J. (2017). Xi Jinping: Putting the first priority on safeguarding national political security,
especially political security and institutional security. Resource document. China Today Club.
https://www.chinatodayclub.com/news/shishi/15876.html. Accessed 20 Sep. 2020.
Xi, J. (2017). Xi Jinping’s speech at the parade to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Chinese
people’s liberation army. Resource document. Xinhua News Agency. https://news.china.com.
cn/2017-08/01/content_41329415_2.htm. Accessed 13 Sep 2020.
Yang, C. (2001). Sovereignty as the last barrier for developing countries. International Studies
(CIIS), 2001(2), 1–3
Yu, J. (2015) Kong bu zhu yi de li shi yan bian (The historical evolution of terrorism, Introduction,
p. 1). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
Zakaria, F. (2011). The post-American world release 2.0 (p. 8). New York: W.W. Norton.
Chapter 4
Wealth

4.1 Wealth as Political Objective

Like “security,” there is no conceivable opposition to listing “wealth” as an ultimate

goal in world politics. In China’s statement that “peace and development are the
major themes of the present era,” “development” here mainly refers to economic
development, which is a process of wealth accumulation.
“Wealth” has many definitions, but its basic meaning does not need much
explanation. In Nicomachean Ethics, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle sug-
gested that wealth is a form of value, and this value could be measured by currency
(Xi 2016). Generally speaking, everything that can be bought by money is
“wealth.” In general, wealth includes material goods and labor. Material goods refer
to production factors, like land and minerals. Labor includes health and lifespan of
workers. In the 17th century, William Petty, a British economist, found that labor
productivity is not affected not only by the skills, proficiency, and general judgment
of laborers, but also by the endowment of natural resources, mainly land. Petty
pointed out that “land is the mother of wealth and labor is the father of wealth”
(Wang 2012). However, Adam Smith believed that abundance or deficiency of the
supplies depends more on the latter element, which include laborers’ skill, profi-
ciency and judgment. He also held that currency itself is not wealth, and the
richness of a country does not depend on the amount of currency in circulation but
on the abundance of the necessities of life. Only the goods and labor that can meet
people’s needs should be regarded as real wealth.1
Wealth discussed in this book refers only to the material wealth that can be
measured by currency, which is composed of material goods and labor that can meet
the demands of human beings’ living. We often hear in China the saying of “spiritual
wealth”, and some people say that spiritual resources should also be regarded as
wealth. I think that some particular spiritual resources and spiritual products, such as

1
See Smith (1776a).
© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 51
W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_4
52 4 Wealth

films, artworks, and technological achievements protected by intellectual property

rights, could be contained in “labor” defined above, and are certainly wealth.
Although certain things in the spiritual realm, such as religion and faith, could also
be viewed as “spiritual wealth,” they are difficult to be measured by currency.
Wealth has two forms—physical form and value form. Value form means that
the price of currency can measure the value of wealth. During the two to three
million-year Paleolithic Age, the early Homo sapiens relied on hunting and gath-
ering to survive, and had no stored property. The division of labor boosted the
productivity in various sectors, and then agriculture civilization emerged. In order
to save the remaining wealth, people constructed fixed residences near the place
where they stocked their surplus. At this historical stage of bartering, the form of
wealth was the goods that could be directly used for human life.
With the gradual enrichment of material resources and increased demands for
trade, people hoped to find some kind of goods that were both useful and easy to
exchange. These goods were intermediaries for buying and selling the surplus
goods, and buying the goods that people needed. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam
Smith wrote that “when the society was in the uncivilized period, it is said that the
livestock was used as a general commercial medium. Although livestock was a very
inconvenient medium of exchange, the value of some particular items in ancient
times were determined by the number of animals that exchanged. Homer once said
that Diomyd’s armor is worth only nine cattle, while Grocas’s armor is worth 100
cattle. It is said that Abyssinia used salt as a medium of commerce and exchange; in
some littoral areas of India, the shell was used as a medium; Virginia used tobacco;
Newfoundland used dried cod; the British colonies in West Indies used sugar; and
several countries used animal skins or leather. As far as I know, until today, the
workers in a Scottish village still use iron nails rather than currency to exchange the
bread with the bakers or exchange beer with brewery” (Smith 1776b). From the
perspective of etymology, both “capital” and “cattle” originated from the Latin
word of “caput”, which meant “the head of ox”. The amount of a person’s wealth
was represented by the number of the head of ox that the person owned. In the
ancient Roman Republic, the soldiers would receive salt as reward, and this salt is
called “salarium”, which is the origin of “salary.” In the 18th century, buckskin was
circulated as a currency in the frontiers of the United States, so Americans today
still call the U.S. dollar as “buck” (Sehgal 2015).
Later, people found that gold, silver, copper, iron, and other similar metal materials
were more likely to meet the requirements of exchange intermediaries, as they were
widely applicable and portable. Therefore, the precious metal currencies made by
gold, silver, copper, and other materials emerged. It is believed that the earliest ban-
knotes in the world was jiaozi, which emerged in China’s Song Dynasty (960–1279 C.
E.). In modern times, many countries issue banknotes and use national credit as a
guarantee. With the expansion of economic sphere, stocks, bonds, futures, and other
financial instruments were created and traded. Due to its scarcity, corrosion-resistance,
and dazzling decorative functions, gold old became a special currency used in the
fields of trade, reserve, and investment. Gold is also an important material in today’s
electronic, modern communication, aerospace, and some other industries.
4.1 Wealth as Political Objective 53

It can be said that most people in the world desire for wealth during their whole
life. The lust for wealth is one of the powerful motivations of political activities.
The Chinese sayings that “people die in pursuit of wealth; birds die in pursuit of
food” and that “money will make the devil turn millstones” reflect the social and
political functions of wealth. The English colloquial saying “money talks” means
the same thing.
In Lun Yu (The Analects), Confucius said “if even riches might properly be
sought, I would surely make them my aim, even if it meant being a fellow carrying
a whip,” which means that so long as having high reward, even whipping a horse
and driving a gharry for other people are acceptable. “Money is a good soldier, sir,
and will on,” said the British literary giant William Shakespeare. The French ide-
ologist Jean-Jacques Rousseau says “the money you have gives you freedom”.2
According to The Bible, Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for thirty silver coins,
which incurred more than 2000 years of infamy.
The progression of creating wealth is the development course of world politics.
Families became tribes, tribes became villages and cities, and up to the formation of
early states, all of these courses began with the accumulation of wealth. In the
agricultural era, the accumulation of wealth mainly depended on plundering
through force. With the gradual institutionalization of plunder, tax systems
emerged. According to archaeologist findings, in all regions, characters first
appeared as a technique of recording and tracing where wealth went. Even in
ancient Inca, a country which had no complete writing system, the rulers invented a
method similar to knotting notes for financial management (Christian 2008).
From 1096 to 1291, under the call of Roman Catholicism, the feudatory lords,
knights, and disciples discontinuously launched eight wars against the Islamic
countries along the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea, purportedly to recapture
Jerusalem, the former Roman Catholic holy land which was occupied by Muslims.
These military operations lasted for nearly 200 years and they were called
“Crusade.” According to some historians, the passion of Crusade continued for so
long mainly because of two strong motivations: religion and the desire for wealth
and land. The legend about gold in the East and the desire for riches drove many
Europeans to participate in the wars (Crossen 2000a).
In the Middle Ages, the Christian Church in Europe exerted absolute control
over ideology. The thoughts in Europe were rigid and its society was in stagnation.
The Church seized a great amount of wealth by using the divinity power, and the
Roman Catholic Church seized more wealth from people than any other organi-
zations in history. People in the whole Europe, including Iceland and Greenland,
must pay taxes to Popes. Everyone had to pay 10% of the annual income, and this
was called tithe. The clergies must pay 50% of their first year’s income to Popes,
and they should also pay a variety of additional taxes (Crossen 2000b). Every
Pope’s life was as extravagant as monarchs.

2
Quoted from the main production team of the documentary (Bi 2012).
54 4 Wealth

The huge amount of tax incomes still could not afford the Popes’ expenditure.
Therefore, churches sold their priesthoods with clearly marked prices. Bribery,
extortion, and buying and selling priesthoods became the main activities in clergies’
lives. “Everything of the churches, no matter the hats of Cardinal or the remains of
pilgrims, would all be sold” (Bernstein 2004a). For the ordinary people who could
not afford the priesthood, purchasing indulgence was the only origin of comfort. In
1476, Pope Sixtus IV announced that indulgence was also applied to the souls that
are suffering torture in purgatory. This announcement made some poor farmers die
from starvation to save their loved ones from suffering. Thus, a proverb emerged:
“As soon as the cash box rings, the soul is released from prison” (Crossen 2000c).
The funding activities through selling indulgences reached its peak during the reign
of Pope Alexander VI. The greed and immorality of church aroused people’s
dissatisfaction and revolt. Fourteen years after Pope Alexander VI’s death, Martin
Luther, a protestant, took an indulgence incident as a chance to launch the
Protestant Reformation. This reformation denied the indubitable authority of the
Christian Church, and people gradually got rid of the constraint of the absolute
divine thoughts.
Following the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance and the Great Navigation
pushed Europe to the center stage of world politics and economy. At the turn of the
15th and 16th centuries, the New Route between Europe and America and the
Western-dominated world order in the following 400 years were all motivated by
obtaining wealth. As Friedrich Engels remarked, “What Portuguese looked for in
African coast, India and the whole Far East was gold; ‘gold’ was the spell that
motivated the Spanish to sail across the Atlantic Ocean and get America; gold was
the first thing that required by the white people when they set foot in a newly found
coast” (Engel 1884). The navigation and adventures were costly, but the royal
families and private investors of Spain and Portugal had considerable motivations
of investing in sailing activities. Their primary motive was to find a new trade route
to Asia and other regions. The Italian navigator Christopher Columbus, who found
the “new continent” in 1492, presented his clear desire for gold by writing from
Jamaica in 1503 to his friend: “Gold is the most precious of all commodities; gold
constitutes treasure, and he who possesses it has all he needs in this world, as also
the means of rescuing souls from Purgatory and restoring them to the enjoyment of
Paradise” (Robertson 2008). The New Route had indeed given huge amount of
wealth to relevant countries. During three centuries, Spain had gotten 2.55 million
kilograms of gold and 100 million kilograms of silver from Latin America. The
value of these were about 6 billion U.S. dollars. Spain established the world’s first
hegemonic power on the basis of its overseas territories and continued inflow of
gold (Wang 2015a). More important, the global expansion of capital and the
maritime transportation routes linked the fragmented agricultural areas and turned
them into an organic whole.
From ancient times to the modern world, countless dynasties and empires
launched wars for wealth, and collapsed due to wars. In the 20th century, Arthur
Cecil Pigou, a British economist, pointed out that many factors, including some
small events like the assassination of officials or the tricky diplomats sending fake
4.1 Wealth as Political Objective 55

telegrams, would result in the outbreak of wars. But these were just like matches in
ammunition depots, not the real reasons behind wars. “The real reasons were the
desire for dominance and interests” (Li 2015a).
Both the American Revolutionary War in the 18th century and the American
Civil War in the 19th century were driven by wealth. In 1763, the Seven Years’
War between France and Britain ended. In order to reduce domestic financial
burden, the British government considerably increased the taxes from its colonies in
North America. The heavy taxes aroused strong indignation among the people in
the North American colonies. When America declared its independence in The
United States Declaration of Independence, the representatives of North American
colonies denounced Britain’s “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent,” and
insisted that people had their rights to “throw off such government” (Wang 2015b).
There is no doubt that wealth has always played a decisive role in military
affairs. Guan Zhong (Kuan Chung), a famous chancellor in the Spring and Autumn
period of China, said that richness brought a powerful military, and the powerful
military brought victory. Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian military strategist, wrote
in On War that war plans should be made up on the basis of the economic con-
ditions of both the enemy’s side and one’s own side, and the full power of all
governments were represented in their national treasuries. Therefore, Clausewitz
listed economic conditions like “money, wealth and credit loans” as the funda-
mental basis for war planning (Li 2015b). There is a famous saying in Europe that
in a war the victorious side has always been the side that owns the last coin. Paul
Kennedy, a historian based at Yale University, believes that in a long-drawn-out
great power war, victory has repeatedly gone to the side with the more flourishing
productive base or, to him, who has the last escudo (Kennedy 1989a). The finan-
cially sound America’s participation in World War II greatly changed the balance of
power between the two blocs in the war and decisively influenced its outcome.
It should be clarified that although wealth is an important driving force of
political and military struggles, it is not the only driving force. And sometimes it is
not even the main driving force. The relations between wealth and political com-
petitions, and the relations between wealth and military strengths, are complex and
interactive. It is a common belief that the origins of the two World Wars in the 20th
century were competitions over wealth, like territories, colonies, and labor forces
that could generate wealth. For Germany and Japan, the two resource-insufficient
countries, it was very tempting to try to conquer their neighboring countries.
However, it is over simplistic to attribute the reasons of empires’ expansions and
wars only to the despoiling of wealth (Snyder 1991). In an academic monograph
that studies Germany’s motives of launching World War I, Mei Ran, a Chinese
scholar, tries to eradicate the errors of some Western scholars who simply use the
economic imperialism theory to explain Germany’s motives behind the war. As Mei
discovers, “for a long time, Chinese scholars have also viewed the economic
competitions between great imperialist powers as the main cause of World War I,
and the contention for economic resources (markets, original places of raw mate-
rials, and investment opportunities) as the main motives for Germany to launch the
war in 1914.” However, through detailed analyses of historic documents, Mei
56 4 Wealth

concludes that “launching a preventive war for political-military objectives was the
main motives behind Germany’s decision to initiate the war. Even if they also
expected to gain economic interests through the war, this element was subordinate
and random” (Mei 2016).
The following conclusions can be made following observing and studying the
relationship between wealth and politics.
First, wealth is one of the purposes for people to participate in political activities
and obtain political power; obtaining political power is one of the goals for people
to acquire wealth. Wealth and politics are thus of reciprocal causation. None of the
other ultimate goals of politics, like “security” in the previous chapter, has this kind
of reciprocal causation relationship with political activities.
Second, the accumulation and distribution of wealth are the main measurable
parts in political activities. According to David Easton’s definition, cited in Chap. 1
of this volume, politics is “authoritative allocation of values.” Obviously, wealth is
the most commonly pursued value. Besides, in a variety of values like freedom,
morality, technique, knowledge etc., wealth is the only one that could be measured
by numbers. Rulers, ruling groups, and other power hunters, like popes and clergies
at all levels in the Medieval Europe, would calculate how much they needed to pay,
how big risks they needed to endure, how much power they needed to obtain, and
how high positions they needed to pursue in order to have a certain amount of
wealth. This was so-called “buying and selling official positions,” and the positions
could be clearly marked by price. Under conditions where the rule of law is not
sound, the so-called “democratic elections” follow the same principle: the expen-
diture of canvass at the grassroots level could be made up by the donations from
supporters and corruption after the election. The so-called “political brokers” are the
intermediaries of money-power transactions. In Shi Ji (Records of the Grand
Historian), the ancient Chinese historian Sima Qian wrote that “Jostling and joyous,
the whole world comes after profit; racing and rioting, after profit the whole world
goes.” This description vividly presented the true image of political brokers (Sima
2006).
Third, being the continuation of politics, wars also have close relations with
wealth. Clausewitz pointed out that “[a] march that is not part of an engagement is
thus a tool of strategy, but it is not a matter of strategy exclusively. Since the forces
undertaking it may at any time become involved in an engagement, the execution of
the march is subject to the laws of both tactics and strategy” (Clausewitz 1832). The
amount of wealth they are holding is one of the main considerations that political
groups should weigh before they decide to launch, or participate in, a war or a
violent revolution, because they must take the potential costs and benefits into
account. However, the causality between wealth and violence should not be
exaggerated. For many extremists and terrorists, wealth is not their direct or main
objective.
Fourth, labor creates wealth while politics distributes wealth. For individuals,
groups and nations, wealth is a good thing. The question is whether the means of
acquiring and using the wealth is fair. Without a well-functioning political insti-
tution and fair distribution principle, no matter how much wealth is created by
4.1 Wealth as Political Objective 57

labor, it cannot meet the needs of the laborers. Marxism acknowledges the positive
role that economic development has played in human history. Meanwhile, it also
reveals the cruelty of class exploitation and political struggles during the process of
wealth accumulating. In Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederic Engels
pointed out that “the bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has
created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding
generations together (Marx and Engels 1848). On the other hand, they also con-
demned capitalism for pursuing the maximization of surplus value insatiably. In
Das Kapital (The Capital), Marx demonstrated that “capital comes dripping from
head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt” (Marx 1867).

4.2 “The Great Enrichment” of the Contemporary World

In discussing the issue of wealth in today’s world politics, a simple fact is

noticeable: for decades, the wealth accumulated in the world has increased dra-
matically, and humanity’s living standards measured by wealth have reached the
highest level in world history.
According to Deirdre McCloskey, a British economic historian, the per capita
daily income of the world two centuries ago—if converted into current price—was 3
U.S. dollars, and it had been maintained at this level since the begin of human
society. However, this number has increased more than 10 times and reached 33 U.
S. dollars today. This “Great Enrichment” is unprecedented. But she discovers that
the fold increase of wealth was not rare in history. Ancient Greece, ancient Roman,
China’s Northern Song Dynasty, and India’s Moghul Empire, respectively, also
experienced fold increase of wealth. However, in those periods of history, the
large-scale increase in income was not sustained, and people’s living standards
would fall to today’s level of Afghanistan, where the daily income is no more than 3
U.S. dollars per capita. Fortunately, the accumulation of wealth in today’s world as a
whole will not experience such great fluctuations. McCloskey thinks that the sig-
nificance of the Great Enrichment today is comparable with that of people growing
cereal and raising livestock when the agricultural era began. The importance of the
Great Enrichment, as defined by McCloskey, will surpass wars and various social
changes, create a new history, and terminate poverty (McCloskey 2016).
A report publicized by the World Bank in October 2015 conveyed delightful
information. Measured by the international poverty line, adopted in 2011 by the
World Bank, of US$1.9 income per day, the number of people who lived in
extremely poverty decreased to 702 million in 2015, and their percentage in the
total population of the world fell to 9.6%. This was the first time that the impov-
erished people accounted for less than 10% of the whole world population.
Measured by the same poverty standard, in 1990, the year after the end of the Cold
War, the extremely impoverished people took 40% of the world population. By
comparison, the progress was conspicuous. This report of the World Bank also
showed that in the past decades, 95% of the impoverished people were located in
58 4 Wealth

East Asia, the Pacific islands, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. However, at
present, 50% of the world’s impoverished people live in Sub-Saharan Africa, while
only 12% in East Asia (Sohu News 2015). China contributed remarkably to the
decrease in impoverished people in East Asia.3 The development of humankind and
the accumulation of wealth are indefinite, but the problem of absolute poverty is
expected to be generally resolved in the not-too-distant future.
How has the Great Enrichment of today happened? To answer this question, we
need to take a brief review of the economic history of the world.
In the era of farming, the major means of production were land and population.
The labor productivity was low, and the total amount of people’s wealth increased
slowly. Most people struggled for maintaining a rather primitive life, and countries
acquired wealth mainly through military force and pillage. Eurasian empires like
Roman and Mongolia, the Moghul Empire in Asia, and the Inca Empire in America
all accumulated massive wealth through expansion. But once the empires were
defeated or ceased expansion, their massive wealth soon vanished. As discovered
by Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist, in this time period “tech-
nological change occurred, but so slowly that per capita increases in output were
quickly dissipated by population increase. With few opportunities for productive
investment, political activity centered around one group organizing itself to extract
agricultural surpluses from another group” (Fukuyama 2014a).
Commercial trade was also a significant way of accumulating wealth in the era of
farming. However, only very few countries, like the Republic of Venice at the coast
of Mediterranean Sea, became powerful countries through trade. In the 12th cen-
tury, the Republic of Venice declared its allegiance to the Byzantine Empire and got
the trade privilege, and became a transfer station of the silk and spice from the East.
The astute Venetian merchants created the earliest “financing,” “credit mechanism,”
and “joint ventures” in the world. They also created the first bank in the world,
stimulated the circulation of capital, and became an international creditor. After the
beginning of the Great Navigation, Venice, which was not located at the important
maritime route, inevitably declined. Venice’s place was substituted by the
Netherlands. The Netherlands, a country that was dubbed as “Coachman on the
Sea,” had long worked on maritime trade and established a set of efficient and
well-constructed financial system. These elements laid a foundation for the
Netherlands to become the global economic hegemon in the 17th century.
What really brought major breakthroughs to the prosperity and growth of human-
ity’s wealth were technological revolutions and innovations. In the mid-18th century,
Britain established three pillar industries—coal, textile and metallurgy—through
Industrial Revolution and became the “World Factory,” exceeding the Netherlands as
the world’s industrial hegemon (Bao 2014). Started in Britain, the Industrial Revolution
spread across the whole European continent and then to North America in the19th
century. The world was transformed from the farming era to the industrial era.

3
For the decline of poverty rates in China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil, and their con-
tributions to the world’s poverty alleviation, see Wang and Hu (2017).
4.2 “The Great Enrichment” of the Contemporary World 59

The Scottish economist Angus Maddison compiled a database of economic

growth from the year of 1 C.E. to 1992 C.E. He discovered that until the years around
1820, the world economic growth per capita—the most accurate indicator of human’s
material progress—had been close to zero. Not very long after the climax of the
Industrial Revolution in 1820, prosperity emerged irresistibly. For the later genera-
tions, the younger generation has always led more comfortable lives, attained more
knowledge, and had more foresights than their elders (Bernstein 2004b). American
scholar William Bernstein believes that property rights, scientific rationality, capital
market, efficient transportation, and the progress of communication techniques are the
fundamental elements that maintain the economic growth and human development
(Bernstein 2004c). The economies of Europe and North America entered a virtuous
circle in the 19th century: technical development led to the advancement of pro-
ductivity; the advancement of productivity accumulated more wealth; in turn,
increased capital provided more powerful stimuli to further progress of techniques.
As the industrial economies continually adopt high productivity, capital, and
knowledge, the growth has become self-sustainable and unstoppable.
There are several explanations why human wealth at modern times can enjoy a
considerable and continuous growth and stabilize it at a high level. The first
explanation stresses technical progress. According to some common understanding,
there were three rounds of technical revolution in the modern era. The first round
happened in the 1780s, which was symbolized by steam engine as well as its
applications; the second round started in the 1870s with the mark of electrification;
the third round, marked by the innovation and application of microelectronic
techniques, began in the 1950s.
The fourth round of technological revolution, which started from the end of the
20th century, has been flourished until today. It is marked by Internet industrial-
ization, industrial intelligentization, and industrial integration. It has features like
artificial intelligence, clean energy, unmanned-control technology, quantum infor-
mation technology, virtual reality, biological technology, Internet of Things, 3D
printing, block chain, big data, and smart city. This round of technological revo-
lution is forming a highly flexible, humane, and digitized production and service
model, and it organically integrates digital, physical, and biological technologies
and bursts out powerful influence. In the trend of intellectual economy, the
expansion of service industry is much faster than that of manufacturing. The service
industry demands less land and labor while requiring more capital and knowledge.
The capital-intensive and knowledge-intensive industries have maintained the most
stable growth and stimulated economic prosperity.
The second explanation emphasizes the factor of capital accumulation. The
Western classical school of economics, represented by Adam Smith, views the
labor productivity as an important element of wealth growth, and believes that
division of labor in ancient times eventually resulted in efficiency and the increase
in labor productivity. The invention and improvement of machinery and tools
required an accumulation of capital. The increase in capital led to the growth of
demand of labor and the surge in salary, which brought an expansion of market
capacity. This has become a virtuous circle.
60 4 Wealth

Marxist theories point out that surplus value is the source of capital accumula-
tion. The scale of capital accumulation is in direct proportion to the amount of
surplus value, and the more surplus value the capitalists have, the larger the scale of
capital accumulation will be. The essence of capital accumulation is that the cap-
italists convert some parts of the surplus value owned by them freely into capital,
and use the capital to purchase more means of production and labor force, expand
the scale of production, and occupy more surplus value freely.
In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the French scholar Thomas Piketty
divides the world economy into two fundamental elements: capital and labor force.
Both capital and labor force are used for production while sharing the profits. The
capital could be bought, sold, occupied, and, theoretically speaking, accumulated
unlimitedly. The labor force is the use of personal capabilities, and it can be
remunerated but cannot be owned by others. The return on invested capital always
tends to be higher than the economic growth rate (Piketty 2007).
However, the relevant classical works of Marxism as well as the research by
Piketty do not attempt to answer why there is massive accumulation of wealth.
Instead, they want to criticize the widened gap between the rich and the poor
brought by modern capitalism—the increase in wealth in per capita terms does not
suggest that all people are going to have more wealth simultaneously.
The third explanation highlights the role of institutions. Some economists
demonstrate that efficient economic organizations are the key elements of economic
growth. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Netherlands, a small country, and
Britain, an island country, became leading economic powers due to the optimization
of the structure of economic ownership. This optimization paved the way for the
Industrial Revolution and contributed to the rapid progress of total economic vol-
ume and economic quality (North and Thomas 1973). James Hargreaves, the
inventor of the spinning jenny, was a carpenter in a remote village in Scotland;
Thomas Edison, the inventor of light bulb, was a newspaper delivery boy and a
telegraph transmitter; Bill Gates is a genius in computer who nonetheless always
skipped classes when he was a student. Their inventions with abundant imagination
became explosive technological breakthroughs only when they went through effi-
cient economic organizations and information communications as well as the
intercourse with other technologies. Without the institutions that helped apply these
inventions to production, little profit would have been made by these smart
individuals.
Meanwhile, technological innovation and wealth accumulation need to rely on
the political and economic institutions that encourage personal freedom and fair
competition. It turns out that the most innovative individuals are those who are able
to get rid of the restraints imposed on them. In other words, the most creative people
would not come from slaves, serfs, women in subordinate positions, or those who
are restrained by a hierarchical system or a tightly controlled bureaucracy. Only in
market economies that encourage individual enrichment and follow a vigorous rule
of law can entrepreneurs fully release their potential talents and accumulate wealth
via various channels. In The Birth of Plenty, the American scholar William
Bernstein observes that the governments’ influences on the growth of wealth are
4.2 “The Great Enrichment” of the Contemporary World 61

mostly negative. Especially in countries where a sound rule of law is lacking,

rent-seeking and corruption of government officials impede the accumulation of
wealth and impair fair distribution of wealth.
The fourth explanation underscores the impact of globalization. The developed
countries use globalization to greatly expand markets and amass capital, and the
developing countries and regions have strived to catch up in recent decades.
According to the World Bank’s accounts, after World War II, 13 economic entities,
including the Four Asian Tigers (Singapore, South Kora, Taiwan, and Hong Kong),
have “graduated” and become high-income economies. The successes of these
emerging countries and areas can be simply attributed to three common features:
export-oriented economic policies, protection of property rights, and a generally
stable macroeconomic environment (Xu 2017). The “economic miracle” achieved
by China during the last 40 years of reform and opening-up is a result of actively
participating in economic globalization, and China has contributed significantly to
the growth of global wealth.
The fifth explanation relates to the progress in international politics, especially
the long-lasting general peace and the end of the Cold War. In history, wars were
the main impediment that interrupted the accretion of wealth. So long as the world
enjoys general peace, economic development will not be stopped or fall into
recession. Zhu Wenli, a Chinese scholar of political economy, makes the comment
that “the collapse of the Soviet Union and the political changes in Eastern European
countries not only marked the end of East-West military standoff, but also meant
that market economies have achieved an overwhelming victory in their competition
with planned economies through these dramatic transformations in the international
political arena. …If the technological revolution helped economic activities over-
come geographical boundaries, it is the transformation in international relations that
have broken the political fences and pushed different countries rapidly to adopt
similar rules and systems. These countries’ paths have converged and developed
models in favor of building up a global market” (Zhu 2009).
In sum, a synthesis of the factors of technology, capital, institution, globaliza-
tion, and international politics will give us a rational and comprehensive interpre-
tation of the causes of the Great Enrichment.

4.3 The Role of Wealth in Contemporary World Politics

Wealth is omnipresent and all-pervasive in all countries’ politics and international

relations. Here I pick only a few salient perspectives to illustrate the role of wealth
in contemporary world politics.
On the positive side, in the wave of globalization, economies of all nations are
increasingly interdependent. Wealth, in the form of finance, flows globally, which
has greatly reduced the likelihood of wars among rich countries as well as wars
between rich countries and developing countries participating in globalization.
A research report shows that, from the economic perspective, the higher the level of
62 4 Wealth

mutual trade, the lower the potentiality of wars between the trading nations. The
high degree of interdependence between countries discourages military conflict
between them (Rourke 1986). In 2016, Japan’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in
America was about 5.73 trillion Yen (about 52.7 billion U.S. dollars), (Resource
Document 2017) which was equivalent to the sum total of every Japanese citizen
investing 500 U.S. dollars in America within one year. If Japan launched a war with
the United States by bombing Pearl Harbor again, as it did in 1941, a big part of the
destroyed assets would be Japan’s assets. During the two World Wars, Germany
and France fought fiercely for the coal and steel in Alsace-Lorraine. After World
War II, the European countries including Germany and France established the
European Coal and Steel Community. Germany and France, a pair of old enemies
in history, buried the hatchet, and a war between them became unimaginable.
In recent years, American international relations scholar Graham Allison has
repeatedly talked about the “Thucydides Trap,” which means that the United States
and China, just like Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece, may well fall into a tragic
trap by going to war due to their mutual strategic distrust. In both the U.S. and
China, some people believe that a China–U.S. war is inevitable. Being the two
countries that possess more wealth than any other single country in the world, a
China–U.S. major war would be one of the most devastating calamities in human
history. A basic fact is that in a long period after 1979 when the two countries
established diplomatic relations and China began to embark on reform and opening,
the bilateral trade and economic relations used to be the “ballast” and “dashpot” of
China–U.S. relations. In 2016, the bilateral trade volume of China and America was
more than 600 billion U.S. dollars, and China’s FDI in America reached 45.6
billion U.S. dollars. From 2000 to 2016, China’s investment in America reached
109 billion U.S. dollars, and the Chinese enterprises created more than 100,000
employments in America (Sohu News 2017). Not even the most severe trade
frictions could be solved by war. One of the results of the increase in the assets
possessed by Chinese is that many Chinese citizens are now able to travel abroad.
More than 3 million Chinese travelled in America in 2016.
The economic exchanges between China and the United States have generated
considerable benefits and wealth for their people and dramatically reduced the risks
of war between the two countries. By comparison, being two powerful countries,
the United States and Russia only had 20 billion U.S. dollars of bilateral trade
volume in 2016, Sina News (2017) which was 1/30 of the China–US trade volume
in the same year. After the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, America could afford to impose
harsh sanctions on Russia, and the two countries frequently accused each other and
even went to the brink of war. One of the reasons why the relationship worsened so
fast was the lack of strong bilateral economic relations between America and
Russia.
Economic development and increased wealth tend to reduce the possibilities of
violent revolutions and domestic wars. In 1917, Lenin led the Bolsheviks to launch
the October Revolution in Russia. The first problem the revolutionaries had to solve
was the shortage of bread for workers and farmers. However, in the contemporary
world, the basic motivations of solving the problems of food and clothing for the
4.3 The Role of Wealth in Contemporary World Politics 63

working masses through armed revolutions no longer exist. Compared with the
miserable lives described by Engels in The Condition of the Working Class in
England in the 19th century, the living standards and welfare enjoyed by
present-day workers in Europe have been dramatically improved. Of course,
Marxist theories are still relevant and applicable in interpreting the laws of
capitalism.
It should be pointed out that for many people in the world, the problem of
meeting people’s minimum living demands of clothing, food, housing, and trans-
portation are still far from being solved. On December 17, 2010, in Tunisia, a North
African country, a 26-year-old young man named Mohamed Bouazizi failed to find
a job due to the economic downturn in his country. Under the financial burden of
his family, he had no choice but became a vendor. Being treated brutally by the
local police, Bouazizi chose the death of self-immolation in protest. The tragedy of
this young man aroused a lot of sympathy in Tunisia and public indignation towards
long-lasting high unemployment rate, rising prices of food and daily necessities,
and official corruption. The local residents in fury clashed with the national guards
of Tunisia, and the conflict spread to many places in Tunisia and turned to be
nationwide social turmoil, causing the death of many. Some other Arabian coun-
tries, including Algeria, Egypt, Libya, and Syria, have cultural, social and political
backgrounds similar to Tunisia. The disturbances in Tunisia ignited large-scale
protests in these Arabian countries in 2011, which were later named the movement
of the “Arab Spring.”
The series of social turmoil in the Arab world, as well as the political instabilities in
some other regions of the world in recent years, are mostly related to material
shortages, poverty, and unemployment. However, the most important reasons lie in
political dimensions, especially the dimension of income distribution. In today’s
world, the production capacity of food, clothing, and other daily necessities is greater
than the basic needs of mankind, and there is still a large amount of surplus capacity to
be digested. In spite of this, large-scale famines have occurred from time to time in the
past decades. In April 2017, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) and some other agencies jointly publicized the Global Report on Food
Crises 2017. This report states that the number of people who are in severe food
insecurities is climbing fast, and this phenomenon is mainly caused by civil turmoil
and clashes. Those countries which need a great amount of food aids, including South
Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Malawi, and Zimbabwe, are generally
trapped in domestic wars and political turbulence (Zuo 2017).
In some developing countries, the rulers’ corruption and arbitrariness are one of
the main causes of their people’s poverty and frequent social instabilities. A number
of leaders of contemporary developing countries, such as Ferdinand Marcos of the
Philippines, Suharto of Indonesia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Zine El Abidine Ben
Ali of Tunisia, and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, all stepped down in their scandals
of long-term monopoly of power and corruption. They abused their political
authority and unscrupulously sought large amounts of national properties for
themselves, their families, relatives, and friends. Money infiltrating and manipu-
lating politics is a cancer that harms many developing countries.
64 4 Wealth

Since its independence in 1971, regardless of their political party affiliation or

military background, the rulers of Bangladesh have kept the feature of high-level
individualization of the ruling class. The entanglement of partisan conflicts and
family politics has formed a political constellation of binary opposition. Two family
groups have been dominating Bangladesh in decades. One is the People’s Coalition
led by Sheikh Hasina (the current Prime Minister), the daughter of the “Father of
the Country,” the first president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The other one is the
Bangladesh Nationalist Party led by Khaleda Zia, widow of Ziaur Rahman, a
former president from the military background. These two ladies have been the
prime minister three times respectively and formed a bifurcated political structure.
Neither of the two groups will likely be able to wipe out the other party. When one
party rules, its government will put the main protagonists of other party into prison
in the name of combatting corruption.
More than half of the Bangladeshi population now live below the poverty line.
The daily living cost of 70 million people out of the total population of 144 million
is less than 1 U.S. dollar. In recent years, Bangladesh has experienced a relatively
fast economic growth, but the ordinary people have not benefited much from the
growth. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and social conflicts are
becoming increasingly fierce. The miserable economic situation, lack of the rule of
law, and widespread corruption give the poor a strong feeling of being exploited
and oppressed.
Poverty often breeds extremism. In the past, Bangladesh was mostly regarded as
a secular, moderate Islamic state. However, in recent years, the devout but poor
Muslims in Bangladesh have been “woken up” by extremist organizations like
Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (or Jihadist Party), and have been supported and manip-
ulated by overseas extremist forces. Some religious extremist organizations in the
Middle East directly provide financial support to the revolting armed organizations
in Bangladesh through the so-called “charity foundations.”
Similar political and economic situations are displayed in other developing
countries, in different ways, and to varying degrees. In these countries, party pol-
itics and parliamentary politics are just a public show. Bribery and political cheating
frequently happen in elections. In countries where poverty, backwardness, and
trading power for money are commonplace, it is difficult for people to get rich
through being diligent and intelligent. As Fukuyama comments, “those able young
people who want to be rich would choose to engage in politics, organize militias or
turn to other ways rather than set up their own business” (Fukuyama 2014b).
In the process of exploiting the wealth of their people and embezzling national
assets, some corrupt rulers sell a considerable amount of their illegal income and
converted them into gold, real estates, or hard currencies like US dollar and Euro,
and then transfer them to the developed countries in Europe and North America.
The combination of these assets is a huge sum of wealth, and this behavior further
exacerbates the unbalanced distribution of global wealth.
In the early days of capitalism, money politics in Western countries adopted bare
approaches. It was common that politicians used money to seek more votes from
their constituencies, and then abused their power and corrupted after they were
4.3 The Role of Wealth in Contemporary World Politics 65

elected. Take the 19th century United States as an example, according to

Fukuyama, “[p]oliticians mobilized voters to go to the polls by making promises of
individualized benefits, sometimes in the form of small favors or outright cash
payments, but most often through offers of jobs in government bureaucracies on a
federal, state, and municipal level. This easy ability to distribute patronage had big
spillover effects in terms of official corruption, in which political bosses and
members of Congress would skim off benefits for themselves out of the resources
they controlled” (Fukuyama 2014c).
This historical form of corruption has almost disappeared in present-day Western
countries. After a long process of governance, the developed countries have
gradually stepped out of the period of frequent and blatant corruption, and estab-
lished a relatively effective system of power restriction and supervision. The
Western developed countries have strict rules of preventing officials’ corruption.
These rules even look very trivial and can deter people who desire for getting rich
through taking political positions. In spite of this process, severe corruption cases
still occur from time to time. For example, quite a few high-ranking officials,
including Jacques Chirac, former president of France, and Ehud Olmert, former
prime minister of Israel, were sentenced or indicted for corruption.
In today’s Western countries, the problem of money manipulating politics
continue to exist, but in a more covert form. In particular, institutionalized cor-
ruptions such as political party funding, lobbying transactions, and “revolving
doors” between think tank staffs and government officials are common under the
protection of legal surface. Fukuyama mentions that the number of interest groups
and lobbying groups in Washington DC increased from 175 to 2500 in the 10 years
after 1971; in 2013, 12,000 lobbyists registered in Washington and their spending
was more than 3.2 billion U.S. dollars. Of course, these lobbying activities are
neither eating the bread of idleness nor attempting to directly influence elections.
Rather, their impacts on public policies are reflected in the formulation of tax laws
and some other areas, or in the attempts of preventing the introduction of policies
and laws that go contrary to their interests. For example, by influencing tax laws,
the lobbyists could help enterprises obtain special exemptions and other benefits
(Fukuyama 2014d).
The influence of wealth on international politics is reflected, first and foremost,
in the reality that countries use wealth as a policy tool to influence other countries’
policies in pursuing their own national interests. Economic measures taken by
governments can be either positive-going or negative-going. While foreign aid
serves as an instrument to draw support from other countries, threatening or
imposing economic sanctions are supposed to punish foreign governments, orga-
nizations, or individuals for their harmful actions. After World War II, the United
States designed and implemented the Marshall Plan to provide economic assistance
to Europe. On one hand, the Marshall Plan helped expand the European markets for
American goods; on the other hand, through the assistance, the US considerably
enhanced its political weight in Europe, which greatly helped it establish an
advantageous position in the competition with the Soviet Union.
66 4 Wealth

One example of international sanctions is that the UN Security Council (UNSC)

imposed sanctions on North Korea due to this country’s continued nuclear weapon
program and intercontinental ballistic missile tests. On August 5, 2017, the UNSC
passed the 7th round of sanctions on North Korea, which could reduce North
Korea’s foreign currency earnings by at least 1 billion U.S. dollars per year, or
about 1/3 of North Korea’s annual foreign currency earnings. As to the effective-
ness of punitive sanctions, such as those imposed on North Korea, there are sub-
stantial controversies in the international community.
The greatest role of wealth in international politics is economic and financial
competitions between countries. Paul Kennedy, a history professor at Yale
University, analyzes the economic changes of the major powers that dominated the
world from 1500 to 2000, as well as the interactions between these changes and the
military conflicts among the powers. He finds that from a long-term point of view,
there is an obvious relationship between the rise and fall of each major power’s
economy and its rise and fall as a global empire. Kennedy’s conclusion is that
comparative advantages always belong to those countries which have more pow-
erful material creation capabilities, and technological breakthroughs and organi-
zational changes are the foundation of material creation (Kennedy 1989b).
Today’s cooperation and competition among major powers are more about the
economic issues discussed in international institutions such as the Group of Twenty
(G20). In 2016, Britain decided to exit from the European Union (EU) after a
nationwide referendum. Many British believed that the policies of the EU had
hindered Britain’s ability to exercise its economic sovereignty and protect its
economic interests. With the slogan of “make America great again,” Donald Trump
won the 2016 presidential election. After his inauguration, Trump adhered to the
policies of economic nationalism and intensified the U.S.’s competition with other
major powers. In the last few years, India has accelerated its economic reform and
efforts to realize its “dream of becoming a great power.” Wealth is becoming
increasingly powerful as a driving force of global politics and international
competition.
Achieving national prosperity was the unremitting pursuit of the founders of the
PRC. In the 24-character principle of “Core Values of Socialism” pronounced in
China, fuqiang (prosperous and strong) ranks number one. Being prosperous and
strong means that both the country and its people should be rich and strong, and this
is what a socialist society should achieve. This is also the material foundation of
national prosperity and people’s happiness and stable lives. In the Mao Zedong
years, the PRC used to “hold class struggle as the key link,” and getting rich was a
political taboo at all levels of society, from personal to national. After the reform
and opening-up, China adjusted its policies and focused on economic development.
Deng Xiaoping emphasized that “poverty is not socialism, and socialism aims to
eliminate poverty” (Deng 1987). Wealth, therefore, has become the major criteria
for China’s success.
References 67

References

Bao, H. (2014). Fan rong de zhen xiang (the facts of prosperity) (p. 10). Beijing: Economic
Publishing House.
Bernstein, W. (2004a). The birth of plenty: How the prosperity of the modern world was created
(p. 25). Chinese edition: (trans.) Yi, H., et al. (2007). Beijing: China Financial & Economic
Publishing House.
Bernstein, W. (2004b). The birth of plenty: How the prosperity of the modern world was created
(pp. 3–4). Chinese edition: (trans.) Yi, H., et al. (2007). Beijing: China Financial & Economic
Publishing House.
Bernstein, W. (2004c). The birth of plenty: How the prosperity of the modern world was created
(p. 9). Chinese edition: (trans.) Yi, H., et al. (2007). Beijing: China Financial & Economic
Publishing House.
Bi, H. (Money). (2012). Huobi (p. 4). Beijing: CITIC Press.
Christian, D. (2008). This fleeting world: A short history of humanity (p. 110). Chinese edition:
Christian, D. (trans.) Wang, R. (2016). Beijing: CITIC Press.
Clausewitz, C. (1832). Vom kriege (p. 880). Chinese edition: Clausewitz, C. (2008). (trans.) Shi,
Y. (2016). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Crossen, C. (2000a). The rich and how they got that way (p. 74). Chinese edition: Crossen, C.
(2004). (trans.) Zhao, H. Beijing: China CITIC Press.
Crossen, C. (2000b). The rich and how they got that way (p. 65). Chinese edition: (trans). Zhao, H.
(2004). Beijing: China CITIC Press.
Crossen, C. (2000c). The rich and how they got that way (p. 77). Chinese edition: (trans). Zhao, H.
(2004). Beijing: China CITIC Press.
Deng, X. (1987). To uphold socialism we must eliminate poverty. In English edition (2015):
Selected works of deng xiaoping (1982–1992). Boston: Intercultural Press.
Engel, F. (1884). The decline of feudalism and the rise of the Bourgeoisie. Marx/engels collected
works (p. 217). Chinese edition: (trans.) Central Compilation and Translation Bureau. (2009).
Beijing: People’s Publishing House.
Fukuyama, F. (2014a). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the
globalization of democracy (p. 553). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fukuyama, F. (2014b). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the
globalization of democracy (p. 481). Chinese edition: (trans.) Mao, J. (2015). Guilin: Guangxi
Normal University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2014c). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the
globalization of democracy (p. 434). Chinese edition: (trans.) Mao, J. (2015). Guilin: Guangxi
Normal University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2014d). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the
globalization of democracy (pp. 436–437). Chinese edition: (trans.) Mao, J. (2015). Guilin:
Guangxi Normal University Press.
Kennedy, P. (1989a). The rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict
from 1500 to 2000. New York: Vintage Books.
Kennedy, P. (1989b). The rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict
from 1500 to 2000 (pp. 41–43). New York: Vintage Books.
Li, X. (2015a). Xian dai guo ji an quan li lun jing yao (Essence of contemporary international
security theories) (p. 541). Beijing: Military Science Publishing House.
Li, X. (2015b). Xian dai guo ji an quan li lun jing yao (Essence of contemporary international
security theories) (p. 537). Beijing: Military Science Publishing House.
Marx, K. (1867). The secret of primitive accumulation. Das kapital (Vol. 1, p. 871). Chinese
edition: (trans.) Central Compilation and Translation Bureau. Beijing: People’s Publishing
House.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). Communist manifesto (p. 29). Chinese edition. Beijing: People’s
Publishing House.
68 4 Wealth

McCloskey, D. N. (2016). How the west (and the rest) got rich: The great enrichment of the past
two centuries has one primary source: The liberation of ordinary people to pursue their dreams
of economic betterment. Resource document. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 14,
2020, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-west-and-the-rest-got-rich-1463754427;
McCloskey D. N. (2016). Bourgeois equality: How ideas, not capital or institutions, enriched
the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mei, R. (2016). De yi zhi di guo de da zhan lue (Eng. Title: The grand strategy of the german
empire: Germany and the coming of world war i) (pp. 98, 100). Beijing: Peking University
Press.
North, D. & Thomas, R. (1973). The rise of the western world: A new economic history (p. 3).
Chinese edition: (trans.) Li, Y. & Cai, L. (2017). Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House.
Piketty, T. (2007). Capital in the twenty first century. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Resource Document. (2017). Nikkei Chinese website. Retrieved August 10, 2017, from http://cn.
nikkei.com/politicsaeconomy/epolitics/23633-2017-02-09-09-03-31.html.
Robertson, D. (2008). Christopher Columbus’s lust for gold alive in new world. Resource
document. The Times. Retrieved October 10, 2020, from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/
christopher-columbuss-lust-for-gold-alive-in-new-world-db7l7s7zz9z.
Rourke, J. (1986). International politics on the world stage (p. 511). Chinese edition: (trans.)
Song, W., et al. (2005). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Sehgal, K. (2015). Coined: The rich life of money and how its history has shaped us (p. 112).
Chinese edition: Sehgal, K. (2016). (trans.) Luan, L. Beijing: China CITIC Press.
Sima, Q. (2006). Shi ji (records of the grand historian). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.
Sina News. (2017). What are the impacts of a “comprehensive trade war” between America and
Russia. Resource document. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from http://news.sina.com.cn/w/zx/
2017-08-03/doc-ifyiswpt5185070.shtml.
Smith, A. (1776a). The wealth of nations (pp. 3–10, 19–24). Chinese edition: Smith, A. (2014).
(trans.) Guo, D. & Wang, Y. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Smith, A. (1776b). The wealth of nations (p. 57). Chinese edition: Smith, A. (2014). (trans.) Guo,
D. & Wang, Y. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Snyder, J. (1991). Myths of empire: Domestic politics and international ambition (pp. 1–22).
Chinese edition: (trans.) Yu, T., et al. (2007). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Sohu News. (2015). The World Bank’s Estimate: the poor in the world will fall to 700 million in
2015 and occupies less than 10% for the first time. Resource document. Retrieved May 14,
2020, fromhttp://news.sohu.com/20151006/n422616105.shtml. Also see the website of World
Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty.
Sohu News. (2017). China’s fdi in the u.s. last year was 45.6 billion U.S. dollars, which was three
time of 2015. Resource document. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from https://www.sohu.com/a/
123344340_532049.
Wang, D. (2012). Jing ji xue si xiang shi jiang yi (Lecture notes on the history of economic
thought, p. 201). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press.
Wang, W. (2015a). Jin rong ke yi dian fu lishi (Finance can subvert history) (Vol. 2, p. 7). Beijing:
China Youyi Publishing Corporation.
Wang, W. (2015b). Jin rong ke yi dian fu li shi (Finance can subvert history) (Vol. 2, pp. 46–48).
Beijing: China Youyi Publishing Corporation.
Wang, H., & Hu, A. (2017). Inclusive growth and international comparison: A perspective of
economic growth and human development. International Economic Review, 4, 48–50.
Xi, J. (2016). Xi Jinping’s remarks on the celebration of the 95th anniversary of the foundation of
the Communist Party of China. Resource document. Ren Min Wang (People.cn). Retrieved
May 14, 2020, from http://cpc.people.com.cn/n1/2016/0702/c64093-28517655.html; Aristotle
(2009). Nicomachen ethics. (trans.) Ross, D. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Xu, J. (2017). What factors caused the great enrichment of human. Economic Review. Resource
document. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from http://jer.whu.edu.cn/jjgc/18/2017-01-05/3718.html.
References 69

Zhu, W. (2009). Guo ji zheng zhi jing ji xue (English title: International Political Economy)
(p. 246). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Zuo, S. (Ed.) (2017). Report points out that over 100 million people in the world face serious food
security problem. Resource document. China News. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from http://
www.chinanews.com/cj/2017/04-11/8196549.shtml.
Chapter 5
Faith

5.1 Categories of Faith

Listing “faith” as one of the ultimate goals of world politics may trigger confusion
and disapproval among Chinese scholars. Some may question that, if the essence of
politics is the struggle for power and specific interests, does it have anything to do
with faith? Others may argue that, according to the definition adopted in this book
—“politics is the authoritative allocation of scarce resources”—faith is not a scarce
resource and, therefore, does not belong among the ultimate goals of politics.
My answer is that faith is indeed a kind of resource, and it has always been a
spiritual resource that political forces and political activities compete to obtain.
A common viewpoint in Chinese textbooks on politics is that hostile forces at home
and abroad attempt to corrupt our cadres and members of the Communist Party of
China (CPC) through bourgeois thinking and lifestyle, leading them to abandon the
communist belief. It is easy to find the consistent theme of consolidating belief in
socialism and patriotism throughout Xi Jinping’s speeches. The Constitution of the
Communist Party of China points out that “the realization of communism is the
highest ideal and ultimate goal of the Party.” The CPC has always prioritized the
belief in Communism as the guiding ideology and long-term objective. Therefore,
even in the Chinese context, there is no doubt that faith should be listed as one of
the ultimate goals of politics.
Faith, used in a context similar to that of belief or trust, is a firm identification,
conviction, respect, and worship of a certain theory or concept. Faith is constructed
on the basis of human beings’ subjective consciousness, not necessarily on the basis
of objective facts. Any conscious person can hold faith as spiritual sustenance and a
guide for action. Faith could generally be divided into three categories. The first is
political faith, which can also be called ideological faith. The second is religious
faith. The third is nationalist faith, which may also be regarded as cultural faith if
the nation maintains a mainstream culture. These categories often overlap. Some
observers put religion and nationalism into the scope of ideology.

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 71

W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_5
72 5 Faith

1. Political Faith
Political faith and ideological faith are generally unified, both aiming to transform,
establish, and safeguard a particular political institution. Political and ideological
faiths include Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, anar-
chism, racism, fascism, and so on. Since the late 19th century and early 20th
century, the most influential and most clearly defined political faith in the world is,
arguably, communism. Communism is based on the theories founded by Marx and
Engels. Communism was systematically applied to revolutions and practices in
Russia by the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Stalin and in China by the CPC led by
Mao Zedong and his comrades.
The communist faith is an ideology. It reveals the inherent contradictions of the
capitalist means of production on the basis of explaining the law of development in
nature, society, and human thought. It is intended to prove the historical trend that
capitalism is doomed to collapse, and communism will inevitably prevail. It points
out the essence and conditions of proletarian liberation movements and the bright
prospect of achieving communism globally. The communist faith reflects the
yearning and pursuit of the leaders of proletarian revolutions and becomes their
spiritual pillar. Once the communist faith is established, achieving communism for
mankind should be the ideal; the world, society, and human life should be observed
from the perspective of the communist belief system. Communists advocate for the
ultimate elimination of private property rights, the establishment of an institution
that “takes from each according to his ability and gives to each according to his
need,” and the realization of a society without currencies, classes, political parties,
governments, and states.
The Constitution of the Communist Party of China, amended and passed by the
19th National Congress of the CPC, stipulates that “the Party’s highest ideal, and
the ultimate goal is the realization of communism,” and that “[t]he highest ideal of
Communism pursued by the Chinese Communists can be realized only when the
socialist society is fully developed and highly advanced. The development and
improvement of the socialist system is a long historical process”.1
The communist faith at one time was spreading globally. The end of the Cold
War meant that the global communist movement began to ebb. However, in
addition to China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba are still regarded as socialist countries
that believe in Communism. The communist parties of the Russian Federation and
some other countries continue to strive for the communist ideal. Being the symbol
of its communist faith, the emblem of the CPC comprises of a hammer (symbolling
workers)and a sickle (symbolling farmers), which has some minor differences from
that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and those of some other
communist parties.

1
Constitution of the Communist Party of China, Revised and Adopted at the 19th National
Congress of the Communist Party of China on October 24, 2017. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from
http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/download/Constitution_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China.
pdf.
5.1 Categories of Faith 73

Many people in China assume that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(DPRK or North Korea) is a socialist country guided by Marxism–Leninism and
that it holds the communist faith just as China does. However, this is a dubious and
controversial issue in reality. As a matter of fact, the present-day DPRK holds a
political faith that is unique in the world. The guiding thought of the Workers’ Party
of Korea (WPK) is “Juche” (self-reliance), and it advocates “Songun” (army-first or
military-first policy). An amendment of the charter of the WPK, passed on April 11,
2012, proclaims: “The Workers’ Party of Korea takes Kimilsungism–
Kimjongilismas its sole guiding thoughts, and insists that shaping the whole society
with Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism should be the highest program of the Party.
Under the leadership of Comrade Kim Jong-un, the Party struggles for the victory
of the cause of Comrade Kim Il-sung, Comrade Kim Jong-il, and the Juche
revolution”.2
In 2014, Wang Hongguang, a former deputy commander of the Nanjing Military
Region of the People’s Liberation Army of China, remarked sharply in an article:
North Korea has abandoned Marxism-Leninism as its guiding thoughts. North Korea’s
ideology is totally different from that of China. The Workers’ Party of Korea is not a real
proletarian political party, and North Korea is not a real socialist country. Article 4 of the
1972 Socialist Constitution of the DPRK stated that the country “… is guided in its activity
by the Juche idea of the Worker’s Party of Korea, which is a creative application of
Marxism-Leninism to our country’s reality…” However, in 1980, the 6th National
Congress of Workers’ Party of Korea stated that “Comrade Kim Il-sung’s revolutionary
thoughts and Juche thought are the sole guiding principle of the Party,” and ‘the leaders are
benefactors and fatherly figures who give birth to the people.” By that time, North Korea
already abandoned Marxism-Leninism. In 2013, the Ten Principles for the Establishment of
a Monolithic Ideological System, which has a higher position than the Charter of the WPK,
clearly speculates that under the guide of Juche thought, the Party’s monolithic leading
system should be deeply established and be continued from generation to generation.” In
addition, it states that ‘Mount Paektu Bloodiness (Kim’s bloodiness), the bloodiness of the
WPK and revolution, should be passed on forever, and the definite purity of this bloodiness
should be firmly kept.” Is there any element of Marxism left there?” (Wang 2014)

No matter how we evaluate the political institutions and ideology of North

Korea, there is no doubt that this country does not believe in Marxism or com-
munism any longer. Instead, it only believes in “Juche Thought” developed by Kim
Il-sung. An interesting detail is that the design of the WPK emblem is very different
from those of the CPSU and the CPC, and this reflects the central position of “Juche
Thought,” deviating from traditional communist thoughts. However, the DPRK
does promote socialism as a tenet. The CPC and communist parties of Cuba,
Vietnam, and Laos refer to North Korean leaders as “comrades” and keep a close
affiliation with the WKP as if the North Koreans still keep faith in Communism and
Marxism–Leninism.

2
Charter of the Workers’ Party of Korea. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Charter_of_the_Workers%27_Party_of_Korea.
74 5 Faith

In addition to communism, two major ideologies—fascism and liberalism—that

have been influential since the early 20th century deserve some discussion here, as
each of them has served as a faith that has guided political behavior.
Fascism, initiated by Benito Mussolini in Italy, first emerged after World War I
as a political theory, movement, and regime that agitated racism, despotism, and
national expansion. The word “fascism” originates from Latin, meaning a bundle of
sticks. It symbolizes the public surrounding the leader and forming an overpow-
ering force. Fascism repudiates democracy, and places national interests, state
interests, and the will of leaders in the supreme position. It combines racist con-
ception of history with the philosophy of autocracy. It not only opposes the com-
munist worldview but also objects to Western democratic ideas. Fascist thinkers
advocate the establishment of a powerful empire centered on the will of its supreme
leader and call for the implementation of policies in favor of expansion and war.
The word “fascism” is sometimes generalized to apply to militarist states or
autocratic regimes, such as the Japanese Empire under the rule of Prime Minister
Hideki Tojo, and Spain under the rule of General Francisco Franco. The regimes
that truly believed in fascism were represented by Mussolini’s Italy and Adolf
Hitler’s Nazi Germany.3 It is generally believed that Nazism was a branch of
fascism. The spirit of Nazism was affiliated peculiarly with the German nation and
did not contain universal values.
As a faith, Nazism held some basic theories. The first was “racial superiority
theory.” Nazis believed that the “master race” of Germany had the right to enslave
and even exterminate the “inferior race,” which is how they considered Jews.
Second, Nazism propagandized that Adolf Hitler, being the “Führer” (leader or
guide), represented the whole nation’s will, and that power should be held by him
exclusively. Third, Nazism advocated Social Darwinism, and supported seizing the
living space and establishing global hegemony by waging wars. Nazism opposed
communist thought and socialist institutions as well as Western democratic ideas
and liberalism.
The main difference between Nazism and fascism is that Nazism attempted to
achieve the German nation’s prosperity at the costs of all other races, but
Mussolini’s fascism believed that the country did not need to serve specific races.
The political objective of fascism was to put the state at the highest position; it also
stressed the importance of centralized authority. Besides authoritarianism, Nazism
also emphasized the supremacy of German “Volk” (people) and their “national
community.” Therefore, Nazism had significant limitations in application.
However, its “tailor-made” gestures, marks, and uniforms are sometimes used by
contemporary people. This phenomenon indicates that the core of fascism,
including racism, Social Darwinism, and deification of dictators, are still alive today
and deserve even more attention and should cause more alarm than militarism.

3
“Nazi” is the abbreviation of “Nationalsozialismus” in German, which means “National
Socialist.”
5.1 Categories of Faith 75

Liberalism is a system of political faith. No country can be a “template” that is

widely recognized by the followers of liberalism, and there is also no “leader”
widely accepted by liberalism’s followers.4
2. Religious Faith
Religious faith is the most common faith in the world. Engels points out that
“among all the spiritual means that can influence the masses, the first and the most
significant one is religion” (Engels 1880). The American writer Nicholas Wade
states in his book, The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures,
that religions have existed for 50,000 years or perhaps even longer. The instinct of
religious faith is deeply rooted in human nature. In early human societies, religions
played the role of law and government, and were pivotal in uniting a parish or an
entire civilization. Even in modern societies, as the rise of secular institutions has
replaced many of the former roles of religion, religious faiths still contribute to the
unity of society (Wade 2009).
Regarding the proportion of religious believers in the world population, statistics
vary. The lowest estimate is 59% while the highest one is 85% of people.
According to some statistical data, the number of religious believers in the world in
2005 was 5.452 billion, and it accounted for 84% of the whole population at that
time (6.49 billion people). Among them, the Christian population (including
Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians, etc.) was about 2.1 billion, which
accounted for roughly 33% of the whole population; there were 1.5 billion
Muslims, accounting for 23% of the world population; 900 million Hindus,
accounting for about around 14% of the world population; and 376 million
Buddhists, who comprised 6% of the total population.
The total number of believers in these four major religions accounted for 88% of
all the religious believers worldwide (Diversity Resources 2020). Based on another
set of statistics produced by Chinese researchers in 2008, the number of religious
believers in the world had reached 5 billion, which made up 85% of the world
population. Among them, there were 2.2 billion Christians, comprising one-third of
the world’s population; 1.3 billion Muslims accounting for one-fifth of the popu-
lation; and there were more than 300 million Buddhists, and their influence is
growing (Jin and Qiu 2008). The results of the two sets of statistics cited above are
very similar. In mainland China, the proportion of religious believers is roughly 11–
14%. However, opinions about this vary. It is very difficult to define what it means
to “believe in a religion.” Some people claim that they are believers, but they
seldom attend religious activities. Meanwhile, for different reasons, some people
may hide or deny the fact that they are believers and attend religious activities.
Concerning the two sets of statistics about religious believers in the world, I
think the numbers may be exaggerated. These numbers include babies and juveniles
whose belief system is not yet shaped. Further, Europe is often associated with the
early development of Christianity, and the cultural legacies of the Roman Empire—

4
See Chap. 7 for a detailed discussion of liberalism.
76 5 Faith

a caesaropapism polity—have a long and deep influence. However, except for East
Asia, today’s Europe has the highest degree of secularization in the world.
According to a survey conducted by the European Commission in 2010, in
European Union countries, only 51% of people admit the existence of God (or
Allah); 26% believe the existence of certain “deities”; 20% deny the existence of
God or deities. Among these countries, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Sweden,
Britain, the eastern part of Germany, and France are the most secularized regions
where less than 30% of the population consider religion to have an important
influence on their lives. People who believe that “religion is important to their own
lives” are more often found in Italy, Portugal, Poland (these three being Catholic
countries) and Romania (Orthodox), among other countries. The people who have
the strongest belief in religion are in Kosovo, a self-governed area of former
Yugoslavia. In Kosovo, more than 90% of the population are Muslims (European
Commission 2010).
Religious faith is transcendent, and the passion the believers hold and the
content they worship are not necessarily the accumulation of their rational under-
standing or perceptual experience. The influence of religious faith on politics has
changed. In early human history, religions were the core of politics in theocracies.
Later, some religious groups tried to escape from the secular world and separate
from politics. After the Enlightenment, in early modern Europe, the status of reli-
gions declined and societies went through a process of secularization.
In the 19th century, German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche fiercely
exposed and criticized traditional Christian morals. He pointed out that the spiritual
life of European people in the past two thousand years had been centered on faith in
God and, in that sense, humans were just a creation and subsidiary of God.
Nietzsche was strongly dissatisfied with this. His famous saying, “God is Dead,”
was a relentless and fearless criticism of God. Nietzsche argued that Christianity
had transformed from the religion of the oppressed to the religion of oppressors,
and thus its decline would be historically inevitable (Josephson-Storm 2017).
In the late 19th and early 20th century, German sociologist Max Weber studied
the process of rationalization in Western societies. Weber believed that the key to
this process was “disenchantment,” which means using scientific measures to
remove the deific or demonized aura placed on various phenomena in human
society. Later, Weber also noticed that in the non-Western regions, such as China
and India, rationalization also existed (Tribe 2019). At that time, many people
believed that “science and reason could solve all problems,” and the thought of
“science and technology advancing humanity” was globally cherished. Meanwhile,
many people began to feel indifferent to, or even alienated from, religions. In most
parts of the 20th century, war, revolution, national liberation, Cold War, and ide-
ological competition were keywords in the political realm, and religious elements
were continually marginalized in the system of nation-states. Not until Samuel
Huntington put forward “the clash of civilizations” thesis in 1993 and the Kosovo
War broke out in 1999 did more international relations scholars and researchers
begin to pay attention to religious influence again.
5.1 Categories of Faith 77

In the first year of the 21st century, people unexpectedly encountered a shock
from the revival of religion. On September 11, 2001, people witnessed the madness
of religious extremists through the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in
New York. Meanwhile, many people around the world, except for those in Western
Europe, turned to religious faith for comfort, guidance, and identity. As can be seen
in Huntington’s book, “the revenge of God” was everywhere (Huntington 2005).
A report compiled by Harvard University’s Weatherhead Center for International
Affairs in August 2003 offered a detailed quantitative analysis of religions world-
wide at the end of the 20th century. This report clearly illustrates that “most
countries, with the majority of the world’s population, are in the process of a
religious renaissance. The strongest influence of this renaissance can be seen in
former communist countries in East Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Latin
America, the Middle East, Africa, China, and Southeast Asia…” (Huntington
2005). The reported global renaissance of religions has two manifestations. One is
the growing number of religious organizations and believers. The other is the
increasing status of religion in political and public realms, along with the politi-
cization of religion. Religions moved from recession to center stage of global
politics and became transnational.
In the past decade or so, the trend of religions’ global development is that the
proportion of believers from developed countries decreased, whereas the proportion
of believers from developing countries increased. The proportion of Protestants and
Catholics in the United States is higher than that in Europe. Due to the spread of
Christianity in developing countries, the proportion of non-white Christians may
exceed that of white Christians very soon. Christians comprise 30% of the whole
population of South Korea, and this proportion is higher than that of Buddhism,
which traditionally has had a profound influence in Korea. The number of South
Korea’s overseas missionaries ranks only second to that of the US. However, Japan,
Korea’s close neighbor, has seen no similar trend. While Islam has spread suc-
cessfully in sub-Saharan Africa in recent years, Catholicism has been remarkably
popular in Latin America.5
A research report written by the Chinese religious researcher Jia Runguo in 2015
includes a comprehensive description of the global trend of religions:
The basic features of the current international situation of religions include the following:
the acceleration of secularization, the rise of fundamentalism, the spiteful expansion of
religious extremism, the unstoppable trend of network-based religion, and the increased
activities of religious non-government organizations (NGOs). The regional characteristics
of the global trend of religions include: the acceleration of secularization vis-à-vis
Islamophobia in Europe, the rise of neo-atheism in the US, the decline of the New Christian
Right, the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church, the rise of Islamism, the strong clout of
Catholicism and increasing number of Protestants in Latin America, the decline of tradi-
tional religions in Africa, the competition between Christianity and Islam, the rise of
extremism and religious conflicts in the Middle East, and the resurgence of the ‘Three

5
For the discussion about the reasons for the revival of religions in the 20th century, see Ren
(2014).
78 5 Faith

Evils’6 and its challenges to the capabilities of secular governments in Central Asia, the
growing influence of Hinduism and intensification of religious conflicts in South Asia, the
growing activity of Buddhism and the consolidation of Islamic blocs in Southeast Asia, and
the rise of religious nationalism and overseas missionaries in East Asia (Jia 2015).

Since ancient times, there have been a variety of cults (or pseudo-religions) in
the world. Compared with the major religions, cult members are not as numerous,
and these cults are mostly short-lived. However, these cults may do serious harm to
the soul of their followers. Cult organizations try to hide their spiritual manipulation
and economic exploitation of believers by claiming to preach religion, diffuse
scientific knowledge, or share medicine, or by alleging to save humankind. They
usually have a hierarch who self-proclaims to have supernatural power, controls the
believers through secretive associations, and thereby obtains their unconditional
loyalty and obedience. These actions may make the believers abandon other social
identities and common values, and impair social coherence, public security, indi-
vidual freedom, and physical and mental health, among other things.
3. Nationalist faith
The concepts of nation and nationalism are very complex.7 The American scholar
Benedict Anderson believes that the nation is an “imagined community” in politics.
It is not a combination of numerous objective social realities but an imaginary
creation; it is not nations that create nationalism; it is nationalism that creates
nations (Anderson 1983). Nationalist faith hereby refers broadly to individuals’
identity, worship, and loyalty to a country which is dominated by their own ethnic
group or nation. The ancient Chinese proverb that “those who are not our kin are
sure to have a different mind” became known in the Spring and Autumn period
(approximately 771–476 BC) as well as the Warring States period (approximately
475–221 BC) in China. Similar perceptions also exist in other nations’ historical
narratives.
When individuals’ self-esteem, self-respect, self-reliance, self-protection, and
different types of self-consciousness expand and link with blood relatives, home-
lands, ethnic groups, and countries, national consciousness emerges. Race is gen-
erally perceived as the biological features formed by the same color skin and similar
looks; culture is the social characteristics formed by the same language and similar
customs. People are relatively closer to or marry those who come from the same
race and culture; and are relatively alienated from or even hostile to those who
come from different races and cultures. These are common phenomena in human
history.
If one regards nationalism as an ideology, it is much more sustainable and
powerful than any other ideologies. Different from political faiths and most reli-
gious faiths, nationalist faiths are limited to individuals’ beliefs in their own nation
and culture. Therefore, different nationalist faiths are heterogeneous or even in

The “Three Evils” in China refer to terrorism, secessionism, and extremism.

6

7
For the concepts of nation and nationalism, see Wang (2017a).
5.1 Categories of Faith 79

conflict. Nations with large populations, long histories, and abundant cultural
heritages usually have much stronger nationalist faiths.
For China, a country where most citizens are non-religious today, the nationalist
faith needs to be consistent with China’s cultural traditions. One of the features of
Chinese culture is the eternal pursuit of national unity.8 “Ru-Shi-Dao”
(Confucianism-Buddhism-Taoism) is a summary of Chinese people’s cultural faith.
Ru refers to Confucianism, a school of thought founded by Confucius; Shi refers to
Buddhism, which was founded by Shakyamuni of ancient India; Dao is a Chinese
indigenous religion that evolved on the basis of Lao-Tze’s Tao Te Ching.
Although the United States has a history of just over 200 years, it claims to have
established an “American nation.” Its nationalist faith is the “American Creed” and
America’s mainstream values, in which the most important content is individual
freedom, and the consequent respect for democracy and the rule of law. Deriving
from the faith of Christianity, the American Creed states that America is “a city
upon a hill,” and American people are God’s “chosen people,” and thus the United
States should take the responsibility for “leading the world” by promoting the value
of freedom. However, since the latter part of the 20th century, the composition of
America’s population, ethnicity, and religion has become increasingly complex.
The Civil Rights Movement bred the belief in “multiculturalism” (Wang 2006). In
recent years, right-wing conservatives have rebounded, racism is on the rise, and
these phenomena have injected new elements of instability into America’s
nationalist faith.
The nationalist faith of Russia relates to Slavism and the Eastern Orthodox
Church. On the one hand, it emphasizes the bond between Russia and Europe; on
the other hand, it stresses Russia’s unique historical positioning that is different
from the West. Russian people believe in the superiority of their national culture,
and they have a certain consciousness of being the “chosen people” and savior as
well. This consciousness requires maintaining a broad, august, and centralized state.
Modern and contemporary Russian thinkers have published many profound writ-
ings about their nation’s special missions and development paths, and they are still
influential now.9
On the surface, Japan does not have a faith that worships their own nation, but it
instead has a unique cultural tradition. The Japanese nation is courageous in and
good at absorbing foreign cultures, and the Japanese culture is a mixed culture or
“hybrid culture” after absorbing, selecting, and integrating foreign cultures,
including ancient Chinese culture, modern European culture, and contemporary
American culture. Since ancient times, Japanese people have believed in polytheism
and thought that everything in the world has a soul. On occasions such as childbirth
and other jubilant moments, contemporary Japanese people often celebrate in their
indigenous Shinto rituals. When encountering misfortunes, Japanese people dispel
them through Buddhism rituals. Many Japanese people host their wedding

8
See Chap. 2 of this book for a description of this feature.
9
For the origin and characteristics of Russian nationalism, see Wang (2017b).
80 5 Faith

ceremony in Christian churches, without necessarily believing in Christianity.

However, Japanese people have maintained their traditional and conservative cul-
ture by wholly preserving and inheriting the traditional forms like the tea ceremony,
Sumo, and Kabuki. This diversified way of thinking brings great inclusiveness and
practicality to Japanese culture without it losing its independence.
Most of the medium-sized and small countries in the world, such as Denmark,
Kuwait, and Costa Rica, do not have strong nationalist or cultural faiths, but Israel
is an exception. Israel is a country dominated by the Jewish nation. Judaism is one
of the oldest monotheisms in the world, and it also carries the lifestyle and faith of
the Jewish nation. Different from Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, the Jews do
not welcome or encourage foreigners to believe in Judaism; they do not preach
among foreigners. People who insist on converting to Judaism are subject to strict
evaluations. In legal terms, Israel does not list Judaism as its state’s religion, and
about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabians (mainly Palestinians). However, Israel is
a country established by Jews, and it is the only country in the world that put
Judaism as its nationalist faith. Meanwhile, Israel is the only Western-style
democratic country in the Middle East that adopts a multi-party system. As far as
culture is concerned, Israel is similar to Japan; it firmly adheres to its own traditions
despite the fact that conservative and orthodox Judaists are not the majority in
Israel.

5.2 Political Functions of Faith

In the contemporary world, all politicians, political groups, political parties, and
nations proclaim faith as their ultimate objective of activity. During the presidential
election campaign from 2015 to 2016, Donald Trump, as a Republican candidate,
attracted voters by combining the restoration of the traditional Christian faith with
the nationalist faith of “Make America Great Again” (Trump 2015). In another case,
religious extremists like DAESH (ISIS) believe that they are responsible for
launching a “jihad” to transform the world and make a unified Islamic world.
“Purity, not stability, is the guiding principle of this conception of world order,” as
Henry Kissinger depicts of their belief (Kissinger 2014). Some people argue that
many political forces and personalities use their professed faith only as a tool to
obtain power and to further their interests, but not as a genuine objective. This is
true. On the other hand, however, the faiths proclaimed by religious extremists and
some Western politicians do respectively represent the aspirations and ideals pur-
sued by their believers and constituencies, and that is why they can bewitch and
instigate the believers and constituencies.
In addition to being an ultimate objective in politics, faith has some other
political functions. First, faith is based on morals, and it has moral appeals and acts
as a social constraining force. No matter what kind of faith it is—political, religious,
or nationalist—it represents its followers’ standards of good and evil as well as
guiding principles for behavior. Faith also exerts a powerful influence on morality.
5.2 Political Functions of Faith 81

For example, the communists condemn class exploitation and repression, and call
on the working masses to be their own masters. The great inspiration of Marxism–
Leninism was fully reflected by the victory of Russia’s October Revolution in 1917.
All of the world’s three major religions—Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism—
claim that the doctrines of their religion praise virtues, punish evil, love peace,
support noble ethics, advocate freedom, equality, justice and tolerance, consolidate
social unity, stimulate integration of different races and nations, and lead the pro-
gress of humankind. For most people in the world, if someone said, “I have no
faith,” or “I don’t believe in anything,” it would basically mean that this person has
no moral bottom line. The believers in national culture believe that their own
nation’s prophets and saints are the finest examples of morality, and their own
nation’s classic cultural works, including music and paintings, sublimate people’s
spirits. Faiths do provide moral standards, behavioral patterns, and ultimate
concerns.
Many Westerners believe that religions (mainly referring to Christianity) pro-
mote people’s morality. American historians Will and Ariel Durant argue that
“Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery, and
violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a
millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political disor-
ganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of the
Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying
ritual” (Durant and Durant 2012a). He also claimed that “There is no significant
example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life
without the aid of religion. France, the United States, and some other nations have
divorced their governments from all churches, but they have had the help of religion
in keeping social order” (Durant and Durant 2012b). The American political sci-
entist John Rourke states that religion has often been regarded as the source of
global instabilities, but in essence, no matter whether in the past or at present,
religion is a source of peace, humanitarian spirits, and pacifism (Rourke 2004).
In China, the doctrines of Christianity and Buddhism are relatively better known
than that of Islam. Here I cite a book about Islam written by Zhang Wenjian to
illustrate how Islam teaches people to be virtuous. “The tenet of Islam advocates
peace, love, and creativity. It instructs people to understand each other, respect each
other, care for each other, love each other, and make a practical contribution to
achieving global peace, human happiness, and dignity.” This author goes on to state
that, “Freedom is human beings’ natural right, spiritual right, as well as a religious
responsibility” and “The tenet of Islam contains deep humanitarianism, and it
admits the existence of human conscience. The humanitarian conscience of Islam
has moral concepts such as no killing, no hatred, no jealousy, and philanthropism.”
Furthermore, “For Allah, all of the people—regardless of their ethnicity, class, or
faith, are equal in rights and duties, and has no hierarchical differences;” “Being
filial to parents and respecting the elders are the basic virtues;” “People should be
self-restraint and persistent;” “People should follow the Doctrine of the Mean”
(Zhang 1999). There are more doctrines like these in that book. In the above
82 5 Faith

descriptions, except for worshiping Allah, no obvious differences can be found

between the values held by Islam and traditional virtues of Chinese culture.
The social functions of religion are two-fold—to give meaning to life and to
provide inner restraint on human behavior. In Japan, Shinto and Buddhism have
become significant spiritual pillars of ordinary people and have constituted an
important part of the public ethical system of Japanese society, the cultural edu-
cation system and the society’s regulatory mechanism. In a society like Japan, with
a highly developed market economy, extraordinarily fierce social competitions, and
a frequently fluctuating economic situation, religion plays a pivotal role in stabi-
lizing society and soothing people’s sentiments. A subtle influence of religious
morality is one of the many reasons why Japan remains one of the few countries in
the world with relatively good public security. Meanwhile, religion in Japan also
has exercised the function of preserving, inheriting, and developing national culture
and consolidating social institutions (Xu 2015)
Second, faith is one of the foundations of political identity. It has a role to play in
both social cohesion and social fragmentation.
“Political identity” is an emotion of consciousness and a sense of belonging in
people’s social and political activities. Individuals confirm their own identities
through certain social connections, and consciously or unconsciously regulate their
political activities based on the requirements of these identities. Political identity
relates to a certain region, country, race, nation, and culture that people feel they
belong to, and their faith plays a key role in it.
Except for blatant racism and fascism, which have been disdained and rejected
by the contemporary international community, there are no major differences in
moral standards in the major faiths in the world. All faiths respect worship to their
belief system, honesty, friendliness, loving and assisting each other, unity, etc.
Many rituals related to faith, like singing, reading scriptures, praying, taking oaths,
running schools, training, etc., take similar forms. The rituals distinguish associa-
tions of faith from other social groups and businesses. Meanwhile, religious groups
and other faith groups have their secular side. They usually try to own and use their
assets (such as raising donations from their members and followers) to carry out
their activities, and thus become part of economic life. Religions and their groups
are social systems that combine holiness with secularity and combine faith with
action. Therefore, the groups of faith not only have loyal followers but also have
wealth and other material interests, and they are naturally members of political
society.
Not many people would live and sacrifice merely for faith. A combination of
spiritual faith and material interests may generate great political energy. After being
refracted by the lens of faith, the interests could be enlarged to an indefinite degree.
For example, to people who believe in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, Jerusalem is
an extremely sacred and irreplaceable holy place; but for others, Jerusalem only has
the significance of containing civilized monuments and historical sites. From the
perspective of exploiting economic resources, the Diaoyu Islands (disputed between
China and Japan), South China Sea islands, and Doklam region (on the borders of
China and Bhutan) are not very much related to the livelihoods of the 1.4 billion
5.2 Political Functions of Faith 83

Chinese people. However, through the lens of nationalist faith, they are holy and
inseparable territories of China, and are of extreme political significance to the
Chinese people.
Faith plays the role of uniting people, groups, and countries that share the same
belief system and developing a joint political force or political organization. Under
the banner of the communist faith, Lenin led the establishment of the Third
International (also known as the Communist International) in 1919. The
Communist International was an international organization whose members were
the communist parties and organizations of different countries. The aims of
Communist International, as its documents showed, were to unite the working class
and working masses, overthrow the reign of capitalism and imperialism, establish a
worldwide proletarian dictatorship, create a global Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, eradicate the classes, and achieve socialism and communism. The
Communist International used to have communist organizations from more than 70
countries, including China, and that was the highest level of its members. It held
seven congresses and thirteen plenaries of the Executive Committee. The alleged
reason for dissolving this organization in June 1943 was “in order to effectively
organize the anti-fascist war.” It is true that without the organizational and financial
support of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) and the Soviet Union, the
Communist International would not have been as active, but the common faith its
members shared was an indispensable bond that unified this organization.
Shared political and cultural values are the ideological basis and essential con-
dition for European countries to give up part of their sovereignty to create the
European Union (EU), a transnational organization. At the request of the European
Commission, an investigating agency focused on “the value of European people”
issued a detailed investigative report in 2012. According to this report, most people
within the 27 EU-member countries10 at that time believed that the values shared by
the EU members were more similar than those between the EU and non-EU
members. Among the latecomers to the European community, like the Slovak
Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic, the proportion of people who
thought that the European people had shared values was higher than that in “old
European” countries like France and Spain. Compared with older citizens, a higher
proportion of teenagers embraced the European values. In the sequence of the
degree of acceptance, the values shared by Europeans, in turn, were human rights,
respect for human life, peace, democracy, individual freedom, the rule of law,
equality, unity, helping others, tolerance, achieving individual goals, and respecting
other cultures and religions.
The Europeans supposed, as the report records, that the best-shown values of the
EU, in turn, were peace, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, respecting other
cultures, unity, helping others, respecting for human life, individual freedom,
equality, tolerance, achieving individual goals, and religion. In economic and social
spheres, most Europeans supported free competition, and thought that the

10
EU now has 28 member states. After this survey, Croatia joined the EU in 2013.
84 5 Faith

government interfered too much in individuals’ lives (European Commission 2012)

The results of the report indicate that Europeans’ faith system has not only inherited
many concepts of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, but also has been deeply
influenced by the tenets of Christianity (including Protestantism, Catholicism, and
Eastern Orthodoxy). Generally speaking, the foundation of European values is
modern liberalism.
In today’s world, Muslims have established many big political organizations on
the basis of their common faith. An important but not well-known fact is that except
for the UN, the intergovernmental organization that has the largest number of
members is not the EU, but the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Formerly known as the Organization of Islamic Conference, the OIC is a permanent
agency of the UN. The OIC currently has 57 members in Asia, Africa, Europe, and
South America, encompassing a population of about 1.3 billion. The OIC calls itself
the “collective voice of the Islamic world, and it attempts to defend and safeguard
the interests of the Islamic world under the spirit of promoting international peace
and the harmony of people of all kinds in the world.” This organization regularly
holds a summit meeting of the member states’ heads and foreign ministers, and it
has a secretariat and six standing committees to manage cultural, economic, science
and technology, and other issues. In addition, it also has 17 affiliated, auxiliary and
specialized agencies, including banks and financial agencies, merchants, universi-
ties, forums, etc. All of these agencies are named after “Islam,” and these agencies’
functions cover almost all areas of society.11
In addition, the Muslim World League (MWL) also claims that it “represents all
of the Muslims in the world.” This organization is an international, pan-Islamic,
non-governmental organization and enjoys the status of a non-governmental
advisory body in the UN. MWL “fulfills the obligation of propagandizing Islam to
the world, interpreting the tenets and principles of Islam to refute the distortions to
Islam, safeguarding and promoting the Muslim minorities’ rights in religion, edu-
cation and culture, assisting the educational activities of Muslim groups around the
world in promoting their internal unity, supporting international peace, harmony,
and cooperation based on justice and equality.” This organization advocates pro-
mulgating unified Islamic laws and encourages Muslim groups in the world to
strictly abide by Islamic laws and lifestyles on the basis of the Koran and stimulates
the establishment of the world Muslim community. Some people suspect that MWL
tends to favor extremism and has supported terrorist activities (Encyclopedia
Britannica 2020).
Nationalist faith is manifested as nationalism on the basis of cultural and ethnic
interests, and it is viewed as a positive and progressive power in modern world
history. Nationalism originated in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. In its early
phase, nationalism played positive roles in opposing power politics, cultivating the
consciousness of democracy and equality, and promoting social cohesion. In the

11
The official website of Organization of Islamic Cooperation is: Retrieved October 6, 2020, from
https://www.oic-oci.org/home/?lan=en.
5.2 Political Functions of Faith 85

name of revolution, nationalism aroused people’s passion and encouraged people to

fight for the ideals of their nation-states. The British scholar Alan Ryan said that
“the economic foundation of modern countries is very complex, and it is necessary
to have a cohesive principle to unite people and forbid the individuals to autono-
mously decide which laws they should or should not abide by… Nationalism makes
people’s loyalty go beyond their families and tribes. In this sense, its consequences
are precious… Only when political unity is achieved can a society move forward to
modernization” (Ryan 2012).
Nationalism in its early stage was in parallel with the liberal ideas of pursuing
individual liberty and participating in public affairs. Both the American Revolution
and the French Revolution inspired nationalist faith, but their connotations were
different. The nationalist faith in America was triggered by opposition to British
colonial rule, and its core content was not only independent political rights but also
tightly related to the freedom of personality and the diversity of religious faith.
America’s nationalist faith is full of religious elements like “Manifest Destiny.” In
France, revolting against domestic tyranny had the same goals as resisting foreign
interference, and the two movements inspired huge nationalist passion. But when
the French nationalism turned to expansion, national consciousness of other
European countries was awakened. In the European Revolution of 1848, nation-
alism as a movement reached an unprecedented climax. Otto von Bismarck, a
German statesman, carried out a “Blood and Iron policy” that cast a dense shadow
of militarism on Germany’s nationalism. Later, with the expansion of colonialism
and imperialism, the influence of nationalism spread to Asia, Africa, and Latin
America, and became the main ideological weapon of opposing Europe’s and
America’s national repression. As the historian Hans Kohn said, referring to the
mid-20th century, “in the beginning, nationalism broke the traditional, fossil, out-
dated and restrained social order, filled the hearts of followers with a sense of
human dignity, pride, and satisfaction in participating in history and managing their
own affairs. This emotion liberated people, and it was characteristic of early
European nationalism in the 19th century, just as they are in today’s Asia and
Africa” (Kohn 1968a).
Nationalism has three basic objectives. The first objective is to achieve the
autonomy and political independence of cultural nations; that is, the establishment
of a state for a nation. This objective was the primary goal of modern national
liberation movements. What is worthy of mentioning is that under most circum-
stances, the so-called “national” liberation and independence is not the indepen-
dence of cultural nations. Instead, it was on the basis of colonies, and within the
historical and naturally formed boundaries, that a multiethnic society became a
country. Most of the newly independent countries after the Cold War were detached
from the former multiethnic countries. If the objective of nationalism was for each
ethnic group to establish its sovereign state, this process would not only be full of
misery and disaster but also would never end.
The second objective of nationalism is to cultivate the dominant nation’s
national consciousness and to develop national economy and culture in independent
countries. This objective is more complex and tougher than the objective of national
86 5 Faith

independence. Modern nationalism mainly emphasizes the individuals’ and groups’

loyalty to their nation, also known as the cohesion of nationalist faith. With the
establishment of sovereign states, contemporary nationalism requires not only the
individuals’ loyalty to their own nations, but also their identity with the dominant
ethnic group of their country and loyalty to the state agencies controlled by the
dominant ethnic group. Meanwhile, such nationalism rejects individuals’ sense of
belonging to non-ethnic entities such as multinational organizations, from the EU to
multinational corporations. This endeavor is called “nation-building.”
In contemporary multiethnic countries, nation-building has brought some
internal cohesion, but the efforts of building the country into a nation with a unified
culture have also brought many inherent tensions and contradictions. In multiethnic
countries, different languages, cultures, and religious faiths of different ethnicities
generate different interests, and in general there is always a bigger ethnic group with
greater political power than the other ethnic groups. As a result, national policies are
tilted toward the interests of this bigger ethnic group. At the moment, the call of
patriotism means that the bigger ethnic group requires the other groups to be loyal
to it. As for the groups in inferior positions, when their feelings are hurt and their
interests are damaged, the ultimate solution they may seek is the political inde-
pendence of their own ethnic groups. If a minority group has a powerful neighbor
that is akin to its ethnicity, it may ask for external assistance or unite with the akin
group overseas to establish a new country. This is the main reason for continuous
national division (in fact, state division). After the Cold War, Yugoslavia disinte-
grated, the Sudan was divided into the Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan. The
Kurds in Turkey, the Catalonians in Spain, and Corsicans in France, among other
ethnic groups, all have similar scenarios of seeking independence.
The third goal of nationalism is to safeguard its own nation’s rights and interests.
In this regard, nationalism has always had greater cohesion than other ideologies
and religious faiths. In an early stage of the Cold War, the ideological bond of the
common political faith shared by China and the Soviet Union was once described as
“unbreakable” and “eternal.” However, in the early 1960s their ideological quarrels
went public and then developed into local military conflicts. The root cause of this
conflict was the differing interests of the two states rather than conflict of their
beliefs. Both China and Vietnam are socialist countries and believers in Marxism,
but they were engaged in a large-scale military conflict in the late 1970s and early
1980s. The religious faith bond between Islamic countries has never stopped ten-
sions and competitions between some states and ethnic groups.
Third, different kinds of faith may overlap, but almost all faiths are mutually
exclusive, and that is why they often cause conflicts. For individuals and groups,
the three kinds of faith—political, religious, and nationalist—may be coincident,
consistent, overlapping, crossed, or contradictory. For instance, most Israelis accept
Western democracy and freedom, believe in Judaism, and are loyal to the Jewish
nation and Israel. Their political, religious, and national identities are completely
consistent with each other. A member of the Communist Party of China should
firmly believe in communism, recognize the traditional Chinese culture and be an
atheist, which meets the basic demands of Chinese politics.
5.2 Political Functions of Faith 87

However, if a person of Iranian origin has obtained U.S. citizenship and accepts
America’s mainstream political values, he may still keep his Islamic faith and feel it
difficult to be assimilated into American culture, which is dominated by white
people and Christianity. He may sometimes feel embarrassed in social activities.
A man born in Pakistan could be a devout Muslim, and he may have long been a
British citizen and finished his university studies in Britain. Politically, he should be
identified with the UK, but he might feel antipathetic to the mainstream culture of
Britain and be disgusted with the values advocated by the British media. Therefore,
it is possible that he could be attracted to participating in religious extremist groups,
becoming a brutal terrorist. These examples could be real cases, and they
demonstrate the complex relationships between political identity, religious identity,
and national identity.
As a proverb goes, “birds of a feather flock together.” No matter whether it is
political faith, religious faith or nationalist and cultural faith, its political function is
to distinguish between “us” and “them.” Some people even explicitly or implicitly
say that “we” are superior in morality and civilization than “they,” and this leads to
the “political identity” question of “who are we?”.12 In China, “we,” the Marxists,
should believe that Marxism is verity, and it has irreplaceable functions in under-
standing and transforming the world as well as promoting social progress. To make
Marxism dominate the ideological field, it should be necessary to fight against
“them,” or their non-Marxist and anti-Marxist tendencies of thought. In this case,
therefore, the differences between “us” and “them” become the differences between
truth and fallacies.
Not long after the end of the Cold War, Samuel Huntington put forward the
controversial theory of the “clash of civilizations.” He believed that the major
theme of world politics competition during the Cold War was the ideological
struggle and conflicting interests between America and the Soviet Union. But after
the Cold War, Huntington thought, the most common, important, and dangerous
clashes were not between social classes, the rich and the poor, and other groups
divided by economic elements. Rather, major clashes would occur between people
belonging to different civilizations and cultural entities. While dealing with identity
problems, more significant elements were blood, faith, loyalty, and family. People
gathered with those who have similar ancestors, religion, language, values, and
institutions, and alienate those who were different in these aspects (Huntington
1997). Huntington noted that people had a sense of identity in tribes, racial groups,
religious communities, nations, and, at the broadest level, civilizations. Based on
these, people make a distinction between friends and enemies (Huntington 1997).
Huntington’s “civilizations” referred to religions. Huntington said that global pol-
itics was restructuring along civilizational boundaries. The struggles along regional
fault lines were largely the result of tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims
(Huntington 1997).

12
For the identity crisis of “who we are” in America caused by the diversity of ethnicity and culture
of America, see Huntington (2005).
88 5 Faith

The realities of world politics after the Cold War have proved that Huntington’s
theory of the “clash of civilizations” is insightful and predictive. The 9–11 terrorist
attacks and countless other violent terrorist incidents caused by religious extremists,
the rise of Al-Qaeda and DAESH, and the revival of religious right-wing forces in
the U.S. and Hinduist extremists in India all make a strong impact on global and
regional security. However, the “clash of civilizations” theory also has considerable
one-sidedness. First, although the world’s religious and sectarian clashes come one
after another, they have not become the mainstream feature of world politics, which
is different from Huntington’s prediction.13 Huntington worried that China and the
Islamic world would get together to confront the West, but this has not happened.
Second, in today’s Middle East, the sectarian conflicts are not focused on the
conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims. Instead, the conflicts have happened
between the Sunni and the Shia, the two major sects of Islam. Especially, the
confrontation between Iran (after the Khomeini-led Islamic revolution) and Saudi
Arabia, a country adhering to kingship, appears beyond Huntington’s imagination.
Huntington correctly attached importance to the position and function of faith in
global politics. But he focused on religious faith and did not pay enough attention to
the power of nationalist faith and the joint force of religious faith, nationalist faith,
and racism. Once the demands of nationalist faith become extreme and join with
violence, they become a significant source of the world’s turmoil and chaos.
Nationalism in many countries has obtained the “highest legitimacy.” Once a war is
justified by nationalist faith, it will be described as a righteous action of “liberation”
or “safeguarding the nation’s core interests” by its initiator. Rabindranath Tagore,
India’s famous poet, noted that the concept of nationalism was the strongest
anesthetic invented by human beings. He pointed out that “influenced by this
anesthetic, the whole nation would implement a set of the most malicious and
egoistic plans without any recognition of their moral degeneration” (Xu 2005).
Many researchers pay attention to the ways nationalism damages freedom and
notice the contradictions between nationalism and liberalism. In an early phase of
nationalism, John Stuart Mill realized the violent tendency of nationalism. He
evaluated the European Revolution of 1848 by writing that “the national sentiments
far exceed the love of freedom, and people are willing to instigate their rulers to
smash the freedom and independence of foreign nations that speak different lan-
guages” (Kohn 1968b). The American scholar Steven Grosby also noticed this.
After comparing the characteristics of nationalism, he concluded that “nationalism
believes that the nation is the only objective worthy of pursuing; this allegation
always leads to a belief that the nation requires loyalty without any doubt and any
compromise. Once this belief about the nation becomes dominant, it will impair
individual freedom. In addition, nationalism always claims that the other nations are
bitter enemies; nationalism plants hatred of foreign objects, no matter whether they
are another nation, an immigrant, or a person who may believe in another religion
or speak another language” (Grosby 2005).

13
For the reevaluation of Huntington’s theory, see Wang (2003).
5.2 Political Functions of Faith 89

China has put forward the grand objective of building “a community of shared
future for mankind.” It is self-evident that such a community of shared future for
mankind needs to be supported by shared ideas and common ideals. Narrow reli-
gious ideas and narrow nationalism are obviously not helpful to the shaping of
mankind’s common ideal and faith. Some idealistic researchers hope that nation-
alism will become milder and more rational by absorbing liberal ideas. The Israeli
scholar Yael Tamir points out that “a problem remaining unsolved is whether
nationalism would be a certain form of harmful ethnocentrism or a rational form
guided by the respect for the value of freedom” (Tamir 1995). This problem is one
of the core problems that will decide the prospective direction of world politics.

References

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.
Chinese edition: (trans.) Wu, R. (2016). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
Diversity Resources. Major religions of the world: ranked by number of adherents. Resource
document. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from https://www.diversityresources.com/religious-
adherents-united-states-and-global/.
Durant, W., & Durant, A. (2012a). The lessons of history (p. 44). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Durant, W., & Durant, A. (2012b). The lessons of history (p. 51). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Engels, F. (1880). Socialism: utopian and scientific. Marx/Engels selected works (Vol. 3).
Resource document. Marx & Engels Internet Archive. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from https://
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm.
European Commission. (2010). Special Eurobarometer 341 (p. 204). Resource document.
Retrieved October 10, 2020, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.
pdf.
European Commission. (2012). The values of Europeans. Resource document. Retrieved October
6, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb77/eb77_
value_en.pdf.
Grosby, S. (2005). Nationalism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huntington, S. (1997). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. London: Simon
& Schuster UK Ltd.
Huntington, S. (2005). Who are we: The challenges to America’s national identity. London: Simon
& Schuster.
Jia, R. (2015). The data of global religious believers: mainland China has the lowest percentage of
religious believers. Chine Ethnic News.
Jin, Z., & Qiu, Y. (2008). Zhong guo zong jiao bao gao 2008 (Annual Report of Religions in
China 2008) (p. 2). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
Josephson-Storm, J. (2017). The myth of disenchantment: Magic, modernity, and the birth of the
human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kissinger, H. (2014). World order. New York: Penguin Press.
Kohn, H. (1968a). Age of nationalism: First era of global history (p. 12). New York: Harper
Torchbooks. Quoted from Kedourie, E. (1961). Nationalism. London: Hutchinson & Co.
Publishers Ltd. Chinese edition: (trans.) Zhang, M. (2002). Min zu zhu yi (Eng. Title:
Nationalism) (pp. 4–5). Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press. Preface.
Kohn, H. (1968b). Age of nationalism: First era of global history (pp. 11–12). New York: Harper
Torchbooks. Quoted from Kedourie, E. (1961). Nationalism. London: Hutchinson & Co.
Publishers Ltd. Chinese edition: (trans.) Zhang, M. (2002). Min zu zhu yi (Eng. Title:
Nationalism) (p. 19). Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press. Preface.
90 5 Faith

Ren, J. (2014). Bai ye zhu shen (Eng. Title: Worship of Deities: The Trail of Western Political
Theories and Approaches) (pp. 215–224). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
Rourke, J. (2004). International politics on the world stage (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
Ryan, A. (2012). On politics: A history of political thought: From herodotus to the present (Vol.
2). New York: Penguin Books.
Tamir, Y. (1995). Liberal nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
The editors of encyclopedia Britannica. Muslim World League. Resource document. Retrieved
October 6, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Muslim-World-League.
Tribe, K. (2019). Economy and society by max weber: A new translation. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Trump, D. J. (2015). Crippled America: How to make America great again. New York:
Threashold Editions.
Wade, N. (2009). The faith instinct: How religion evolved and why it endures (pp. 2–17). Chinese
edition: (trans.) Chen, H. (2017). Beijing: Publishing House of Electronic Industry.
Wang, J. (2003). The enlightenments and fallacies of Huntington’s theory. World Affairs, 2, 8–12;
Wang, J. (2009). The controversies initiated by Huntington will go beyond time and space.
World Affairs, 2, 30–32.
Wang, J. (2006). Mei guo yi shi xing tai de xin qu shi (The new tendencies of American
ideologies). In J. Wang (Ed.), Guo ji zheng zhi de li xing si kao (Rational Reflections on
International Politics (pp. 86–100). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Wang, H. (2014). China does not have the problem of “abandoning North Korea.” Huanqiu
Shibao, (Global Times). Retrieved December 1, 2014; Kim, C., & Kearley, T. G. (1976). The
1972 socialist constitution of North Korea. Texas International Law Journal, 11(1), 115.
Wang, L. (2017a). Shi jie min zu zhu yi lun (Eng. Title: On Nationalism) (2nd ed., pp. 1–19).
Beijing: Peking University Press.
Wang, L. (2017b). Shi jie min zu zhu yi lun (Eng. Title: On Nationalism) (2nd ed., pp. 75–79).
Beijing: Peking University Press.
Xu, X. (2005). Min zu zhu yi (Nationalism) (p. 65). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Xu, Y. (2015). Japanese religions observation: Simultaneous growth of religious believer and
economic level. Resource document. Retrieved May 2, 2020, from http://fo.ifeng.com/a/
20151117/41508136_0.shtml.
Zhang, W. (1999). Xin zhu du yi: yi si lan jiao (Islam: a monotheism) ( pp. 391–421). Beijing:
World Affairs Press.
Chapter 6
Justice

6.1 What Is Justice?

In the Chinese language today, “justice” (gong zheng) is a concept akin to “fair-
ness” (gong ping) and “righteousness” (zheng yi). Trying to distinguish these three
Chinese concepts semantically is an exercise in futility. This book mainly uses the
concept of “justice” (gong zheng) to mean fairness, appropriateness, and righ-
teousness. In the Chinese translation of A Theory of Justice, written by the
American political scientist John Rawls, “justice” is translated as zheng yi (righ-
teousness). Yet, in the Chinese translation of American scholar Michael Sandel’s
famous work, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, “justice” is translated as
gong ping (fairness). The different translations of the same word indicate that in
contemporary Chinese language, gong ping (fairness) and zheng yi (righteousness)
carry very similar meanings. As to the differences between “fairness” and “justice”
in English, one may want to read Justice as Fairness, another book by Rawls
(1971).
In Chinese, “justice” means impartiality, righteousness, appropriateness, and the
like. From ancient China to contemporary China, justice has always been an
important virtue. It is one of the Core Socialist Values advocated by the CPC in
present-day China. In ancient China, justice was mainly used to evaluate people’s
morality and social conduct. It meant to do “just” things according to certain
standards. In the ancient Chinese language, “gong” and “zheng” were always used
separately. Generally speaking, “gong” (public) corresponds to “si” (private), and
gong surpasses individuality and encompasses public space. Jia Yi, a high minister
and famous writer in the Han Dynasty, wrote that “caring for the public without
selfishness is gong (impartiality); integrity without flattery is zheng (justice) (Jia
2000)”. Zhu Xi, a neo-Confucianist in the Song Dynasty, pointed out that “gong is
broad and without selfishness,” which was also public-oriented (Li 1986).
Zheng refers to the qualities of fairness, integrity, and impartiality. When Ji Kang
Zi asked Confucius about governance, Confucius replied that “to govern means to

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 91

W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_6
92 6 Justice

correct. If you take the lead by being correct, who will dare not to be corrected
(Muller 2018)”? This means that rulers should be an example of integrity and
abiding by standards, thus, the people would naturally follow the rituals and
standards. Mencius said that “when the prince is dutiful, everyone else is dutiful;
when the prince is correct, everyone else is correct (Muller 2019)”. All of these
sayings emphasize the function of the prince’s integrity as a model.
Confucius said: “The gentleman is familiar with what is right, just as the vile
man is familiar with profit (Muller 2018)“. Master Xun (Xun Kuang) said that, “The
man who is refusing to learn, having no righteousness and being proud of being rich
is a vulgar man (Hutton 2016)”. This shows that in ancient times, justice was also
used to refer to people’s individual behavior. For example, Zhan Guo Ce (author of
Strategies of the Warring State) stated that “Shang Yang governs the state of Qin
effectively, fairly, and impartially by strict laws,” indicating the impartial and
selfless attitude and behavior of Shang Yang, a governor of the kingdom of Qin.
“Justice” in ancient China mainly referred to individuals’ morality, especially the
morality of the rulers. In other words, justice had little to do with rationality and
fairness in public order or institutions.
In contrast, from ancient Greece to the contemporary Western world, justice has
been deliberated as a value criterion of institutional arrangements in society. In The
Republic, Plato pointed out that justice was initially a quality of the city-states. Plato
regarded unity and prosperity of the city-states as the most important goal, and
viewed citizens’ contributions to states as the highest morality. Plato saw the good
of society as a whole—the city-state—as the only objective; individuals were
instruments that served society. In Plato’s eyes, the value of individuals was as an
organic part of the whole and was completely absorbed by the whole. He believed
that “the justice of country lies in the three kinds of people doing their own things in
the country;” “When businessmen, Lord Assisters, and Lord Protectors do their
own things and do not interfere with each other, there is justice, and the country
becomes a country of justice” (Plato 2007). Plato viewed justice as a state in which
the social strata are performing their own tasks and individuals have their own
positions; men were created unequal; everyone should accept his or her fate and
behave oneself. Of course, this obsession with hierarchy is unacceptable in modern
society.
Aristotle’s concept of justice was different from his mentor Plato. On one hand,
like Plato, Aristotle also understood the city-state as an organic whole, and justice
was based on public interests. “For city-states, justice is principle. The etiquette and
law derived from justice could be used to distinguish what is right and what is wrong
in human’s world. Justice is the foundation of establishing social order” (Aristotle
1995). On the other hand, Aristotle emphasized the concept of equality, and he
noticeably stated that “injustice is inequality, and justice is equality” (Sartori 1987).
Aristotle argued that justice inhabited in certain kind of equality, and justice
required that the same people be treated the same way based on the principle of
equality. “Justice is the concept of ‘equality’ (equalization) of some certain
things… Justice has two elements—things and the people who should accept the
things; everyone thinks that the equal people should be assigned equal things.”
6.1 What Is Justice? 93

Aristotle divided equality into two categories, “one is equal in number, the other is
equal in ratio… the proper way should be the principle of being equal in number
and equal in ratio in some aspects relatively” (Aristotle 1995). He also said that
justice was to assign honors and positions according to different groups’ contri-
bution to the interests of city-states. Based on this, Aristotle thought that “justice
lies in proportion, and injustice lies in disproportion. Injustice is either too much or
too little” (Aristotle 2009).
What made Aristotle wiser than Plato was Aristotle’s assertion that the rule of
law was superior to the rule of man. Aristotle thought good public order needed to
be guaranteed by law, and a good political institution should make legal and
institutional arrangements to achieve justice. Aristotle was the first one to propose
the two major elements of the rule of law—the governance and maintenance of
good law and the supremacy of law. He remarked that the rule of law should have
two meanings: established laws should be universally observed; and laws abided by
the people should be well-designed and well-developed. In reality, these are also the
two basic attributes of the rule of law in modern times; that is, the laws under the
rule of law should be good laws, and the laws should have supreme authority.
Aristotle insisted on Plato’s proposition that “bad law is not law,” and believed
that a law made by an autocratic regime was an “evil law,” and abiding by the “evil
law” could not be considered the rule of law. He thought that the rule of law should
be reflected in all aspects of legislation, law enforcement, and observance of law. It
was necessary to reinforce in the education and cultivation of people’s con-
sciousness the importance of observing laws. Aristotle believed that people’s
compliance with laws was their compliance with justice, and the fundamental
objective of legislation was to promote the achievement of justice. More impor-
tantly, Aristotle pointed out that the rulers should also be restrained by law, and this
constitutes the core of modern thoughts on the rule of law.
There is a huge reservoir of deliberations about justice. Regarding “what is
justice,” I would like to make the following three observations.
First, justice is a social and historical phenomenon, and the standard of justice
has evolved with historical developments. In politics, there is no unified and
unchanged standard of justice that is suitable to all eras and in all social institutions.
For example, in Western Europe, the reign of the pope and churches was viewed as
holy and justified in the farming era, but this holiness was gradually suspected after
the beginning of Renaissance. Caesaropapism was then considered unjust. At the
time of the West’s expansion, plunder in colonies was rarely condemned as
immoral. However, since the mid-20th century, national suppression and ethnic
cleansing have become a symbol of injustice. Around the time of the American
Revolution, the trafficking of black slaves from Africa was commonly conducted.
However, over the roughly one hundred years from the American Civil War to the
American Civil Rights Movement in the mid-20th century, racial discrimination
was increasingly condemned as unethical, and American society has finally
endorsed the principle of racial equality. In the West’s democratization process, the
right to vote was initially limited to citizens who had personal assets or to men, but
it was gradually rectified and became equal to men and women.
94 6 Justice

In the contemporary world, even in countries that have considerable religious

power and authority like Iran and Saudi Arabia, forcing every citizen to believe in
the same religion is no longer viewed as just.
In China, since the beginning of the reform and opening-up era in the late 1970s,
people’s opinions on social justice have changed dramatically. The official History
of the Communist Party of China, published in 2011, indicates: “for a long time,
following some imaginations of Marx and Engels about the future society, Mao
Zedong always believed that the commodity economy, distribution according to
work, and the eight-level wage system were unequal ‘bourgeois right’ that was
tightly linked to capitalism. …Therefore, Mao always attempted to solve some
problems he thought to be important, such as the hierarchical system of income
distribution and the ideas of privileges, in order to avoid social polarization caused
by the gap between the rich and the poor” (Center of the CPC Central Committee
2011).
In the Mao era, the eight-level wage system 1 that was regarded as “bourgeois
right” in fact made only marginal differences in laborers’ incomes, as these dif-
ferences were based mainly on features like their age, types of work and geo-
graphical area, rather than on the laborers’ skills or performance. This income
distribution system resulted in egalitarianism and the practice of “sharing food from
the same big pot,” and therefore was not conducive to economic development. At
that time, people generally received the same amount of income, regardless of their
individual contribution, attitude toward work, ability, and performance. It was very
unfair to those capable and diligent laborers who made bigger contributions to
productivity.
The Chinese understanding of justice and equality has changed significantly in
the era of reform and opening-up. Today, honors, ranks, and levels of income are
determined based on the principle of “doing more, gaining more.” Wages or salary
depend largely on work performance and contribution to business. This has become
a widely accepted way of judging what is just and fair.
The changes in the standards of justice are not only caused by social develop-
ment but also sometimes artificially promoted for certain political objectives. As the
British scholar of politics Kenneth Minogue observes, “[t]hat is why political life is
full of people demanding justice on some point or other. With new ideas or changed
circumstances, conditions which previously seemed natural come to provoke
demands for reform, and justice is the formula for demanding reform… Available
to everybody with a demand or a grievance, it can focus passions which lead to a
descent into civil disorder. Whole societies can collapse into civil war because two
sides whistle up the idea of justice to support their contentions” (Minogue 2000).

1
The Eight-Level Wage System was a wage system implemented by some of China’s state-owned
enterprises. It divides workers into eight levels according to their ages and skills and gives them
different wages based on their level. This system was in place for nearly 40 years starting in 1956
and was gradually abolished by the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in
1992.
6.1 What Is Justice? 95

Many historical events have confirmed Minogue’s observation. For instance,

during the American Civil War, both the North and the South upheld what they
each believed to be justice. The Union of the North led by President Abraham
Lincoln held high the banner of banning slavery in all the U.S. territories and
keeping the nation united under the federal government. This theory is widely
endorsed in China, since the vast majority of Chinese denounce slavery and support
national unity.
But not many Chinese scholars understand the reasons why the Southern states
also thought their cause represented justice. The Tenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec-
tively, or to the people.” The Southern states that demanded secession from the
federation believed that according to this amendment, they reserved the right to
independence, and the states where “sovereignty belongs to the people” represented
democratic principles safeguarding autonomy. Therefore, the Southern states
insisted that separating from the Union and continuing slavery were legal, and the
North’s attacks on the independent Southern states were “unconstitutional” acts and
considered “aggression.” The resistance of the South to the North therefore was
righteous. In addition, both parties cited some tenets of Christianity to defend their
stances.
The result of the Civil War was the permanent abolishment of slavery and the
maintenance of the unity of the United States. The victory of the North seems to
have confirmed the justification of these objectives in American history.
However, since the end of the Civil War, some people in the United States have
been trying to reverse this verdict. In 1940, the American movie Gone with the
Wind made the case that the Civil War was probably not a righteous war, and it
focused more on the cruelty of war. In this movie, many black slaves in the South
were loyal to the planters. In August 2017, some liberal-minded people dismantled
the statue of General Robert Lee, a commander of the Confederate States Army, in
Charlottesville, Virginia, stating that they were “eliminating the relic of racial
oppression.” The action triggered a round of violent attacks launched by white
supremacists. This struggle, among other similar events, showed that the contro-
versy over whether the Northern army was a “righteous army” in the Civil War are
far from over.
Similar to the American Civil War, in ancient and modern China and in foreign
countries, the opposing parties in wars or political struggles claim that they are the
just and righteous party. They simply rely on different standards of justice. If the
opposing parties are representing the rulers and the ruled, then the rulers always
insist that the principles of justice should be loyalty to the country, unity, social
stability, and conformity to law. The ruled (or rebels, revolutionaries), on the other
side, advocate another set of moral principles, such as opposing tyranny and corrupt
government, and promoting democracy, freedom, equality, and dignity. Of course,
all of these principles of justice held by different parties aim to gain moral ground
for themselves. All of them are also motivated by the political and economic
96 6 Justice

interests behind them, which they refer to as justice, as in the case of the American
Civil War.
Second, the standard of justice may be either macroscopic or very specific.
Standards of justice vary in different social strata, trades, and fields. There are
numerous specific standards of fairness and justice. For example, in the field of
education, a field I am engaged in, the issue of fairness is very specific. Supposing a
Ph.D. candidate presents an acceptable doctoral dissertation but has done some
morally improper things when pursuing his or her Ph.D. studies, should this student
be awarded a Ph.D. degree? In China’s education system, lying about government
officials’ education qualifications is considered corruption, which not only impairs
the reputation of universities, but also damages society’s foundation of fairness and
integrity. However, if we focus on a specific case, what can be judged as “quali-
fication fraud”? Who is authorized to make such a judgement? If confirmed, should
the fraud be made public? Will the fraud itself or its public revelation be more
detrimental to the image of government officials? These issues easily generate
controversies.
Some seemingly clear and operable principles of justice become complex when
combined with politics. Take, for example, the rules in place in the world of sports
—no fraud, no doping, etc. But if an athlete was found to be taking stimulants
during international tournaments by some staff of his or her own country after this
athlete had become a world champion and won great honor for the country, should
this scandal be disclosed to safeguard the fairness of sports, or should people hide
the case to keep the athlete, the team, and the country away from shame? As for the
people who reveal this fraud, should they be praised and rewarded for safeguarding
justice in sports, or should they be condemned for “treason” for disgracing the
country? Some people may argue that taking stimulants is a “hidden rule” in
international sports, and it is very common among athletes of many countries.
Therefore, this argument goes, it is “hypocritical” to make a fair judgment of such
behavior. In reality, such scandals and relevant disputes emerged on Russia’s sport
fields from 2015 to 2016.
Similar to taking stimulants by athletes, there are other immoral behaviors
violating rules and laws, such as cheating by students, plagiarism by scholars,
lip-synching by singers, fraudulent conduct by businesspeople, and fake products
made by manufacturers. However, there are various pretenses in society in defense
of these actions. Dealing with this phenomenon involves enacting and imple-
menting laws and policies and may generate serious political issues.
Third, the global issue of justice influences global politics. In the international
community, “justice” is a key issue in debates. From the viewpoint of sovereignty,
it is right to claim that “all countries, no matter how big or small, are equal,” which
is just like “men are created equal” in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
However, from a practical point of view, equality between big and small countries,
as well as between strong and weak countries, is neither realistic nor fair. The
establishment of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) demonstrates the de
facto inequality between countries, as the UNSC’s five permanent members—
China, the United States, Russia, Britain, and France—enjoy more rights than other
6.1 What Is Justice? 97

UN members. In the United Nations, countries constantly debate whether it is just

and fair to expand the Security Council, and which countries should be added.
A concept advocated by the Chinese government in recent years is “pushing the
development of international political and economic order toward a fairer and more
reasonable direction.” In October 2015, President Xi Jinping pointed out that “for
hundreds of years, the great powers competed for interests and hegemony through
war, colonization, and division of the sphere of influence. This has gradually
evolved toward coordinating the relationships and interests of different countries
through institutions and rules. Today, world affairs increasingly require different
countries’ consultation to find solutions. Establishing international institutions,
abiding by international rules, and pursuing international justice have become the
consensus of most countries. Further development of economic globalization links
more tightly various countries’ interests, and generates an interest community in
which the countries are highly interdependent. Many problems are no longer lim-
ited to a single country, many challenges cannot be solved by one country, and
global challenges need vigorous cooperation of different countries to solve”.(Xi
2015). Meanwhile, China proposes “democratization of international relations,”
which essentially means that the developing countries should have a larger say in
global affairs since they outnumber the developed countries worldwide.
Generally, mainstream Chinese thinkers, officials and scholars alike observe
world politics in a state-centered approach without paying much attention to
non-state actors like nongovernment organizations (NGOs). In China, international
justice is an issue of inter-state relations. From the perspective of most international
commentators outside of China, however, global justice not only refers to sovereign
equality, international cooperation, and abiding by international law and regula-
tions, but also transnational and domestic issues that go beyond national borders
and inter-state relations, such as human rights, religious rights, refugees, poverty,
climate change, autonomous rights of political communities, and so on.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the United Nations in
1948 provides legal protection for human rights globally: “Everyone is entitled to a
social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration can be fully realized” (2020). Amartya Sen, an Indian economist and a
Nobel Prize laureate in economics, believes the concept of human rights is estab-
lished on the basis of a shared human nature, and human rights are basic rights that
should be enjoyed by every human being. In other words, everyone in the world,
regardless of his or her ethnicity, nation, race, and community, should be afforded
basic rights. Eliminating famine, genocide, slavery, terrorism, racial discrimination,
pandemics, and illiteracy worldwide carries fundamental relevance to all people
(Sen 2009). The British scholar David Miller says that “human rights have very
high value of morality. They correspond to the worst harm that could be imposed
on a person. Therefore, they take precedence over our concerns about fairness and
reciprocity” (Miller 2003).
Concerning the relationship between national sovereignty and human rights, the
mainstream thinking in China and some developing countries is that national
sovereignty should take precedence over individual rights. But the mainstream
98 6 Justice

thinking in the Western world holds that states must exercise national sovereign
rights on the basis of respecting human rights. This is the focal point of disputes on
the issue of global justice.

6.2 Justice and Income Distribution

Generally, justice in society is mostly related to income distribution in the economic

field, and this category of justice is relatively easy to measure with facts and data.
The American scholar Michael Sandel believes that justice involves the process
through which a society distributes its income and wealth, obligation and right,
power and opportunity, public duty and honor, etc. Sandel points out that there are
three perspectives of measuring justice. The first perspective is utilitarianism, and
its standard is the greatest happiness (mainly referring to the material wealth) of the
majority; the second perspective is freedom, and it advocates that everyone should
be given equal opportunities for success; the third perspective is morality, which
involves some moral dilemmas in social lives, such as abortion and homosexuality
(Sandel 2009). Amartya Sen summarizes the theories of social justice as three
schools: utilitarianism, libertarianism and Rawls’ theory of justice (Sen 2010).
Utilitarianism, mentioned by both Sandel and Sen, has been one of the most
influential social justice theories since the 19th century. For a long time, classic
welfare economics and public policy economics were based on utilitarianism. They
believed that a person’s welfare is the total satisfaction that he or she can feel.
Social welfare is the sum of individuals’ welfare, and individuals are always trying
to maximize their satisfaction. The essence of “the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people,” a principle put forward by utilitarianism, is liberalism
rather than socialism. This principle encourages everyone to compete freely for his
or her own interests, and the states’ task is only to provide a good environment for
free competition. However, based on the utilitarian goal of improving efficiency for
the whole economy, it is reasonable to implement certain measures of redistribution
of wealth. After World War II, welfarism prevailed in North American and
European countries. Its main point was that in order to establish a fair society, the
government could make extensive redistributions of wealth through progressive
taxation and other measures to narrow the disparity between the rich and the poor.
The big names of libertarianism include the British scholar Friedrich Hayek and
the American scholar Robert Nozick, among others. They asserted that property
rights and other rights should hold the superior position, and that any infringement
of a person’s rights in the name of social interests or other values should be
forbidden. Nozick claimed that social justice cares about who should get what in a
political group. So long as it can be ensured that everyone’s baseline wealth is fair
and reasonable, and the transfer is also fair, then the whole society is in a condition
of justice. If government forcibly transfers individuals’ wealth to others through
taxation according to a certain model or non-historical principle of justice, like the
principle of equality and social demands, that would severely violate individual
6.2 Justice and Income Distribution 99

rights and deprive individuals of their freedom. The logic is simple: if a person has
the right to operate independently, he certainly has the right to control over his
property, as long as it was acquired through proper methods, and to generate more
wealth through his own wisdom. As long as the principle of the rule of law is not
violated, even if wealth inequality happens, it is acceptable in the end.
Nozick and others hoped to lay a solid moral foundation for laissez-faire capi-
talism. In their view, only a minimal state with minimal government intervention
and the weakest government functions can be the fairest political organization that
is most worth pursuing. Such states should limit their functions to prevent violence,
theft, and fraudulent conduct, and to ensure the execution of contracts. Except for
these, governments should absolutely respect people’s freedom of choice and pri-
vate property rights. Any form of wealth redistribution in the name of values such
as equality or freedom is not allowed (Nozick 2013).
Another American scholar, and Nozick’s colleague at Harvard University, John
Rawls offered an explanation about social justice in the field of income distribution,
which is also very influential in Western countries. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls
contends that a fair society must meet three conditions. First, it should provide
everyone with a set of broad fundamental freedom (including political freedoms like
voting rights). Second, the jobs with the most benefits—for example, the positions
with the highest salaries—must be available to all people on the basis of equal
opportunities. Third, inequalities of income and wealth are legitimate only when
they can be proved as being in favor of the most disadvantaged in society, providing
stimuli for the improvement of the total productivity of society, and allowing more
resources to flow to the people in lower levels of society (Rawls 1971).
Rawls’s book on justice has been highly praised by many scholars because its
explanations about the state and justice are consistent with many people’s moral
intuition and understandings of the role of government; that is, only when equality
is achieved can justice be established, and government should be a balancer in
society to safeguard the rights and interests of vulnerable groups.
Amartya Sen’s research on poverty and justice is highly original. He has created
the Capability Approach to focus on the moral significance of individuals’ capa-
bility of achieving the kind of lives they have reason to value. This distinguishes it
from more established approaches to ethical evaluation, such as utilitarianism or
resourcism, which focus exclusively on subjective well-being or the availability of
means to the good life, respectively. Sen points out that a person’s capability to live
a good life is defined in terms of the set of valuable “beings and doings,” like being
in good health or having loving relationships with others to which they have real
access. It has been employed extensively in the context of human development, for
example, by the United Nations Development Program, as a broader, deeper
alternative to narrowly economic metrics, such as growth in GDP per capita. Here
“poverty” is understood as deprivation in the capability to live a good life, and
“development” is understood as capability expansion.
Classic economists believe famine is caused by food shortages. But, through
dozens of case studies and empirical analysis, Sen demonstrates that in human
history, not all famine occurred in barren areas, and not all famine happened in the
100 6 Justice

years of poor harvest. He thinks poverty not only indicates that a person is in an
impoverished condition, but also lacks opportunities due to the individual’s envi-
ronment and social restraints. He points out that in a market economy, the rights of
people include the rights of production, transaction, labor and inheritance. The
absence of any of these rights may influence people’s quality of life. Among them,
free production and free transaction (trade) are the most fundamental rights. Sen
suggests that government should set up a famine prevention system to protect the
rights of the poor, and to protect people’s “direct rights” and “trade rights” from
infringement (Sen(1981)).
Sen regards poverty and famine as an issue of social justice and ethics and not
just an economic problem. To understand poverty and famine, it is necessary to
understand the structure of ownership, also known as the relationship between
different groups of rights. He proposes the promotion of economic growth through
the broadening of people’s rights. He emphasizes that establishing a stable social
paradigm of rights while effectively securing people’s rights is a fundamental
solution to poverty and famine. From the perspective of welfare, he believes that the
basic requirements for a reasonable institution are maximized freedom of personal
choice, fair distribution of income, and a suitable standard of living that every
human being is able to obtain. Sen’s book, Development as Freedom, has been
widely praised as a way forward for a more humane society since it was published
in 1999. In that volume, Sen pays much attention to individual freedom, and points
out that freedom is also a major means of development (Sen 1999).
Utilitarianism, libertarianism, Rawls’s theory on justice, and Sen’s theory on
individual rights represent four perspectives of achieving justice in income distri-
bution. All of these perspectives discuss criteria for justice and ways to reduce or
eliminate social unfairness on the basis of standardized market economy institu-
tions. A difficult question herein is: should freedom or equality be considered
preconditions and primary benchmarks of justice? In social sciences and political
practices, this is a question with endless debate. Becoming averagely rich” in
income distribution is of course an ideal solution. But it is rare in any society in
world history. Rather, “averagely poor” is common. Wars, violent revolts, and
large-scale social unrest have always caused “averagely poor.” When economic
conditions are improved, individual rights are generally guaranteed, and social
development is smooth, some people and some areas will become rich first, whereas
other people and areas may fall behind, and the gap widens.
Chapter 4 of this book mentions that wealth in today’s world has considerably
increased and poverty has been alleviated. However, poverty alleviation is not
directly related to fairness of wealth distribution. For an imaginary example, in the
context of a fast-growing national economy, worker A’s monthly income has
doubled from 1,000 U.S. dollars to 2,000 U.S. dollars, which now is above the
poverty line; worker B’s monthly income also doubled, from the previous 10,000
U.S. dollars to 20,000 U.S. dollars. In this case, both A’s and B’s income are
doubled, and they are equal in this measurement. However, the absolute income gap
between A and B has increased from 9,000 U.S. dollars to 18,000 U.S. dollars.
From this point of view, if the income distribution is not adjusted by means like
6.2 Justice and Income Distribution 101

progressive taxation, the wealth growth of the whole society will lead to an
enlarging income gap, which means an expansion of relative inequality.
In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist Thomas Piketty
reviewed the growth and changes of capital gain and labor income of the major
developed countries during the past four decades since 1960s. He found that the
growth of capital gain is significantly higher that the growth of labor income, and
this indicates the exacerbating gap between the rich and the poor in developed
countries (Piketty 2014). According to Piketty’s data, in 1820, the richest 20% of
the world population occupied 60% of the total wealth in the world. In 1950, this
percentage rose to 70%. In 2010, it was 85%. Today, the poorest 20% of the world
population only have 1.5% of the total wealth in the world (Vanhaute 2013). The
gap of per capita wealth between the richest countries and the poorest countries has
increased from three times in the early 19th century to 100 times in the early 21st
century (Vanhaute 2013). Since the 1980s, the economic growth of developing
countries is generally faster than that of developed countries, so manufacturing
industries and wealth have gradually flowed to developing countries, and the gap
between developed and developing countries is narrowing. In this sense, the phe-
nomenon of “rich countries becoming richer, and poor countries getting poorer” has
been alleviated. At the same time, however, the gap between the rich and the poor
in most developing countries is widening.
In economics, the Gini Coefficients are frequently used to measure the distri-
bution of wealth in a country or region. Gini Coefficients can also be a series of
indicators to measure social inequality. International organizations like the World
Bank, as well as official and unofficial institutions of various countries, often
evaluate the wealth of different countries on the basis of Gini Coefficients. Denmark
and Japan have the lowest Gini Coefficients (meaning the gap between the rich and
the poor is the narrowest), followed by Norway, Sweden, Australia, Germany and
some others, but the Gini Coefficients in these countries have increased in recent
years. South Africa, Brazil, the United States, the PRC, and Hong Kong have very
high Gini Coefficients. The Gini Coefficients of the world increased from 0.43 in
1820 to 0.68 in 2005 (Gini Index 2020). At the opening ceremony of the G20
Hangzhou Summit, Xi Jinping remarked, “according to the relevant data, the Gini
Coefficients of the world have reached around 0.7, which has surpassed the com-
monly recognized ‘danger line’ of 0.6. We must pay great attention to this”
(Xi 2016). The Gini Coefficients could also be used to measure education equality,
opportunity equality, income mobility, and so on.
With the widening economic income gap, social inequality in other fields around
the world is also astonishing. At the end of the 1990s, the average life expectancy in
the world’s least developed countries was 48; in other developing countries, it was
63; and in developed countries, it was 75. The average infant mortality in devel-
oping countries was eight times as that of developed countries. Among the 36
million people with AIDS in the world, 90% of them live in developing countries,
and 20 million of them live in Sub-Saharan Africa. In education, the literacy rate in
the least developed countries was only 45%; in developing countries, it was 64%,
but in developed countries, it was 99%. In developing countries, 62% of the labor
102 6 Justice

force was engaged in agricultural production, but this ratio in developed countries
was only 7% (Trebilcock and Daniels 2008).
A common understanding of today’s world is that the widening income gap and
its social consequences are the main sources of injustice in the world; it is believed
that the rise in populism in recent years is directly linked to the widening gap
between the rich and the poor. But many Chinese and foreign scholars do not agree
with Piketty’s ideas in Capital in the Twenty-First Century. For instance, Xu
Xiaonian, a senior Chinese economist, thinks that although social stability and
income distribution are related, there is no direct correlation between the size of the
income gap and the level of stability in society. He finds that the relationship
between equality and stability depends on people’s understanding of justice and
fairness; from the perspective of economics, people may tolerate, accept, or even
welcome a widening income gap, as long as this promotes individual welfare. On
one hand, the income gap encourages social elites to create more wealth; on the
other hand, they can accumulate capital and invest it in highly risky economic
activities such as innovation to stimulate economic growth. As a result, the pie that
can be shared becomes bigger. Although the share allocated to ordinary people
decreases, the absolute amount they get increases. Therefore, people are willing to
accept this kind of “deterioration” of income distribution (Xu 2016).
During the early phase of China’s reform and opening-up, Deng Xiaoping said
that “the country should allow some regions and people to get rich first and then
gradually push for common prosperity” (Deng 1985). The report of the 18th
National Congress of the CPC states: “China must adhere to the way of common
prosperity, which is a fundamental principle of socialism with Chinese character-
istics.” The 18th Party Congress put the safeguarding of social justice and fairness
as a fundamental requirement for building socialism with Chinese characteristics
under the new conditions. The 18th Party Congress report further elaborates that the
country should “gradually establish a social justice security system in which the
fairness of rights, opportunities and rules are main features, and strive to create a
fair social environment to ensure the people’s rights of equal participation and equal
development” (Hu 2012). These are beautiful ideals and goals. However, China still
has a long way to go to achieve the objective of common prosperity.

6.3 Justice and the Rule of Law

As one of the ultimate goals of world politics, justice is related not only to rea-
sonable wealth distributions, but also to political rights, social welfare, social status,
culture, education, judiciary, social assistance, and public service required by cit-
izens, and involves complex issues of law, institution, and policy. The rule of law is
an important criterion to measure whether a decision about politics and society is
fair or not.
In China, the rule of law refers to law-based governance. The rule of law is a
basic way of governing the country. We need to promote systematic legislation,
6.3 Justice and the Rule of Law 103

strict law enforcement, and fairness of the judiciary. We need to adhere to the
principle of “everyone is equal in the eyes of the law,” and guarantee that laws are
obeyed, the exercise of law is strict, and a violation of law is punished.
The opposite of the rule of law is the rule of man. Legal justice is composed of
two aspects. The first aspect is justice in lawmaking, or legislative justice; the
second aspect is justice in law implementation, which includes law enforcement and
the judiciary. There is no doubt that legislative justice is the basis of legal justice.
But justice in courts and policing is at least as important as legislative justice. The
logic here is simple: without justice in law enforcement and the judiciary, even fair
laws would just be a wonderful ideal or serve to keep up the rulers’ appearances of
justice.
There are both differences and similarities between the concepts of justice in law
enforcement and justice in judiciary. This section of the chapter focuses on the
discussion of the narrowly defined justice of judiciary; that is, the courts’ fair trial.
Judicial justice is a full-fledged representative incarnation of legal justice, and it is
the objective and requirement of law-based national governance. If a society has no
judicial justice, the whole society will have no justice to talk about at all.
The basic connotation of judicial justice is to adhere to and reflect on the
principles of fairness and justice in the process and results of judicial activities. In
political and legal fields, how to interpret the interaction between substantive justice
(justice of a result as understood by ordinary people) and procedural justice (formal
justice) is a controversial issue. Adhering to procedural justice does not necessarily
lead to substantive justice, while achieving substantive justice does not necessitate
following just procedures. Countries have different approaches in establishing their
judicial systems. There are differences, even huge gaps, between the two kinds of
justice, and this is an issue to which makers of modern laws must pay attention.
An extreme approach in the history of the world’s legal systems is to pursue
substantive justice only and ignore procedural justice; that is, to seek justice as a
conclusion regardless of judicial procedures and means. One example is arresting a
criminal suspect without due legal process and torturing him to get testimony.
Supposing he is finally found guilty, this may be regarded as justifiable. This is one
of the traditional approaches to establishing a litigation system in civil law countries
(also known as Roman law countries, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain,
Latin American countries, and so on). The traditions of Anglo-Saxon law, or
common law, pay more attention to procedural justice. In addition to judges, the
litigation procedure in common law countries is centered on the plaintiff, the
defendant, and their defenders and agents, and adopts the doctrine of the “pre-
sumption of innocence.” This system grants the accused the right to a defense and
includes a jury system.
The relationship between procedural justice and substantive justice can be
clearly seen in criminal trials. Substantive justice in criminal trials is found in the
final judgment of courts when a guilty person is properly punished based on law;
slight punishment for a misdemeanor, heavy punishment for the felony, and no
punishment for the innocent. This is the justice of result and is the requirement for
substantive justice. Meanwhile, procedural justice requires that the judges should
104 6 Justice

treat the plaintiff and the defendant equally in criminal litigations, and guarantee
that the rights of each side are upheld. For instance, both the plaintiff and the
defender should be allowed to explain the case; the appointed or elected judges
should have no interest in the case that would bias them toward either side, and
torturing the defendant for evidence should be prohibited. These procedures are
important partly because they help ensure appropriate judgments, and partly
because they reflect the proper respect for the people who are judged. In criminal
proceedings, due to the special litigation role and social status of the defendant, any
procedural favoritism and inequality may make the defendant feel a certain kind of
injustice. Even if the judgment has realized substantive justice, it is not easy to
convince the defendant that the judgment is just, which may affect the authority and
credibility of the judgment.
The U.S. presidential election in 2000 was originally a political procedure, but
became a judicial procedure. This case fully reflected the influence of procedural
justice on substantive justice. The two presidential candidates were Republican
George W. Bush (then-governor of Texas) and Democrat Albert Gore (then-vice
president of the United States). The president and vice president are not elected
directly by citizens. Instead, they’re chosen by “electors” through a process called
the Electoral College. After the voters cast their ballots for president, their votes go
to a statewide tally. In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the winner gets all the
electoral votes for that state. Maine and Nebraska assign their electors using a
proportional system. Toward the end of the presidential election of 2000, Florida
became the key state to determine the election result. Florida had 25 electoral votes,
and the candidate who won in Florida would almost certainly become the next U.S.
president.
In America, the specific process of election is under the jurisdiction of state
governments. On the afternoon of November 8, 2000, Florida completed the
counting of votes. Among the around 6 million constituents’ votes, Bush only got
1,784 more votes than Gore (this accounted 0.0299% of the total votes in Florida).
For Gore and his supporters, the small gap of less than 2,000 votes was full of
temptation. They believed that according to the election rules in Florida, they had
the right to request a recount of the popular vote. Most observers believed that a
recount would make Gore the winner of the election, no matter if the recount was
accurate or not. However, the people in the Bush camp would not give up the
victory. The debate about whether a recount would be justified resulted in a lawsuit
that was brought from the Supreme Court of Florida to the Supreme Court of the
United States.
In the limelight, the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States made
the 5-4 judgment, stating that “the decision of continuing the manual count of votes
made by the Supreme Court of Florida is overturned.” The key point of their
judgment was that, in this case, neither the law of Florida nor the court of the state
provided a clear standard for recounting and the state could not ensure the fairness
and accuracy of the recount. Therefore, the manual recount would violate the equal
protection required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and the due process requirement to treat each voter equally, according to the ruling.
6.3 Justice and the Rule of Law 105

The US Supreme Court judgment sent Bush to the White House. Although Gore
finally got more popular votes than Bush nationwide, he still failed because he lost
the 25 electoral votes in Florida. Among the nine Supreme Court justices, five were
thought to be conservative or partial to the stance of Republicans; therefore, many
Americans believed that the judgment was not fair and were angered by it. In fact,
from the state court to the Supreme Court, and from the election-supervision
committee at the community level to the state government, all of the decisions these
organizations and individuals made might have been influenced by partisan politics,
and might not have been impartial. But from the perspective of legal procedure, the
federal court’s judgment was above reproach. After a telephone call with Bush,
Gore issued a national speech on television, saying that although he disagreed with
the judgment of the federal Supreme Court, he respected and accepted the judg-
ment. The 36-day presidential election dispute was finally settled. Aspects of the
rule of law demonstrated by this case are the power of judicial independence, the
superiority of law over political power, and the greater significance of legal pro-
cedure over political realities.
The U.S. presidential election in November 2016 witnessed another dramatic
result. President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, received 306 electoral
votes, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, garnered 232. Looking at the
number of electoral votes, Trump had an overwhelming advantage. But in fact,
among individual American voters, Trump received about 62.98 million popular
votes, while Clinton got around 65.85 million. Clinton received 2.87 million more
popular votes than Trump. According to this data, among the eligible voters,
Clinton had 2.1% more supporters than Trump, which means that if calculated on a
one-person-one-vote basis, Hillary would win with a clear advantage. Concerning
this result, the constituencies of the Democratic Party were very angry and they
went to the streets to protest. However, according to the United States Constitution
and relevant regulations, it was determined that Trump’s victory conformed to
procedural justice without having to go through any legal process. Unless the
judicial organs could find evidence to prove that Trump’s campaign group illegally
received substantial support from Russia during the campaign, or “the president is
removed on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors” (Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution of the United
States), Trump would at least have a full four-year presidential term.
Many people (including many Americans) believe that, in light of the presi-
dential elections in 2000 and 2016, the Electoral College system in the US is neither
democratic nor fair, because it has led the candidate with more popular support to
lose the election, especially in the case of Trump, who is seen by many as an
untrustworthy man. Why, then, can’t the US amend its Constitution and change the
election system to a one-person-one-vote system, as in most Western democracies?
My answer is that a series of procedures do not allow this amendment to happen.
According to Article Five of the Constitution of the United States, “The Congress,
whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two
thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,
106 6 Justice

which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states,
or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratifi-
cation may be proposed by the Congress.” The current Constitution is partial to the
less populous states in the apportionment of the Senate and the Electoral College. In
present-day America, the population of the nine most populous states is slightly
more than half of the total population of the US, while the population of the 25 least
populous states is less than one-sixth of the total population. Regardless of the
number of citizens, each state must have two senators. This system reflects the
features of the republic and the federation. Therefore, it is impossible for more than
two-thirds of the senators or the state legislatures to agree to amend the constitution
in a way that is not favored by the small states.
Western countries like the United States separate political power into three
branches—legislative, judiciary and executive—nd their election systems are based
on multi-party competitions. Therefore, their rule of law has significant differences
from the socialist rule of law as it is understood in China. In America, the “rule of
law” is not “rule by law.” In English, although these two concepts are distinguished
only by a preposition, their meanings are very different. The subject or main body
of “rule of law” is “law.” Being the fundamental law of a country, the US
Constitution has a supreme position. In America, the written constitution has a
history of more than 200 years. Anything that is outside the Constitution or judged
as “unconstitutional,” is considered unlawful and unacceptable.
It is obvious, however, that the law itself cannot govern. People and agencies are
needed to interpret and implement the law. In America, once an affair becomes a
legal issue, the court is the main authority, and the Supreme Court of the United
States is the highest authority. Legal judgments in America can be influenced by
factors like money, public opinion, politics, partisan stance, and faith of or bias by
the judges, and legal judgments therefore are not always fair and just. In spite of
this, many cases, including, demonstrate that the American people believe that it is
justified to ultimately accept legal judgments no matter whether the results are fair
or not. If people do not accept certain legal judgments, the judgments could be
overturned only through due legal process.
Liu Yu, a Chinese political scientist, used a case in Honduras, a Central
American country, to vividly show the political chaos in a country after its rule of
law is damaged (Liu 2013). On 28 June 2009, a military coup occurred in
Honduras. The direct reason for this coup was Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, then
the President of Honduras, rejecting the ruling of his country’s court and refusing to
restore the position of commander-in-chief of the army. Zelaya had removed this
commander-in-chief because the military refused to help Zelaya hold a referendum
that was judged by the Supreme Court of Honduras as illegal. Prior to this, Zelaya
had ignored the opposition of the Supreme Court, the military, the National
Congress, and the ruling party, and insisted that a referendum should be held on
June 28. The referendum was supposed to ask voters whether they would agree to
hold a formal referendum during the presidential election in November regarding
the issue of whether the constitution could be amended so that the president could
6.3 Justice and the Rule of Law 107

be reappointed. Therefore, one hour before the scheduled referendum, the military
initiated a coup and expelled Zelaya to Costa Rica, a neighboring country.
Zelaya was elected president in January 2006. According to the constitution, he
would serve a four-year term and could not be reappointed. President Zelaya was
politically supported by Hugo Chavez, the left-wing president in Venezuela at the
time. Meanwhile, Zelaya wanted to follow Chavez and some rulers in other
countries like Belarus, Algeria, and Azerbaijan in those years to achieve reap-
pointment through a referendum and amendment of the constitution. The consti-
tution of Honduras stipulated that only the National Congress had the right to hold a
referendum. Therefore, Zelaya’s opponents decried the proposed referendum as
“unconstitutional.” After the success of the coup, the Congress and the supreme
Court of Honduras declared the dismissal of Zelaya, and pointed out that the
military’s detention and deportation of Zelaya was authorized by the court, which
was a legal action for “protecting the legal system.”
However, despite being suspected of breaking the law, Zelaya was a legitimate
president elected by the voters. Overthrowing a popularly and publicly elected
president through a military coup completely ran counter to the tide of our era. The
coup in Honduras was condemned by US President Barack Obama, the Venezuelan
President Chavez, the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, the
European Union, the Organization of American States, the World Bank, and so
forth, although the motivations behind them were different. This political incident in
Honduras, however, did not lead to civil war. Zelaya’s political career ended and a
new president was elected in January 2010.
In the case of Honduras, Zelaya attempted to use his presidential power to
achieve his re-election, which violated the principle of procedural justice. But it is
conceivable that, in the eyes of Zelaya and his supporters, if he had reached the goal
of holding a referendum, successfully held the election in November, and had the
support of the majority, it could be said that “substantive justice” could have been
achieved. But in reality, under the circumstances of that time, it was impossible to
realize procedural justice and substantive justice simultaneously. On the other hand,
the military frustrated the president’s objective of holding a referendum, and they
thought that their action was “just.” But the method of staging a military coup
violated the constitution and axioms, and so procedural justice was not realized. It
seemed that, through their common reactions, members of the international com-
munity were upholding “justice,” but some countries, especially Venezuela, were
specifically involved in mediation between the factions in Honduras, and their
interventions in the domestic affairs of Honduras should be regarded as violating
international law. This constituted another dilemma in upholding justice.
In today’s world, using military force, including a bloodless military coup, to
seize power lacks moral and legal basis. On July 4, 2013, the Egyptian military
announced that President Mohamed Morsi was removed from office, and mean-
while, suppressed the supporters of Morsi by force. Meaningfully, the Muslim
Brotherhood that was backing Morsi condemned the action as a “military coup,”
while the public that was opposing Morsi claimed that the military’s action was in
line with the people’s will and it should not be called a coup. The foreign
108 6 Justice

governments’ stance and definitions regarding this incident were based on their
attitudes toward Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration in
America wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to step down, and therefore it expressed
sympathy to the military of Egypt. On the other hand, Washington knew that a
military coup violated the principle of procedural justice, and so it would not openly
endorse the Egyptian military’s actions. The Egyptian military, represented by
General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, stated that they would respect democratic procedures
and would soon revert the power to the people. They selected a civilian official as
the interim president, while the real power was still held by Sisi. A presidential
election was held in June 2014. Unsurprisingly, Sisi was “naturally” elected to be
the president.
Coincidently, a military coup happened in Thailand in May 2014. Then
commander-in-chief of the Thai Royal Army, Prayut Chan-o-cha, with some other
military officers, declared that they had taken over the government. This was the
12th military coup in Thailand since 1932. According to Prayut, he would restore
national stability and normality as soon as possible, and would prevent Thailand
from “becoming another Ukraine or Egypt.” After the coup, Prayut became acting
prime minister of Thailand and quickly convened the ambassadors and envoys of
many countries, as well as the delegates of international organizations, to hold a
meeting in Bangkok to “seek understanding” of the military coup. This meant that
the Thai military felt domestic and international pressures on what they had done.
Three months later, Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej formally appointed
Prayut as prime minister, which made Prayut’s governance legitimate.
Countless facts demonstrate that in world politics today true justice comes only
from the rule of law.

References

Aristotle (2009). Nicomachean Ethics (trans: Ross, D.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Aristotle. (1995). The Politics (trans: Barker, E.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, quoted from Sartori, G. (1987). The Theory of Democracy
Revisited. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers
Article 28, Universal declaration of human rights. For full text, see official website of United
Nations: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html. Accessed May
5, 2020.
Deng, X. (1985). There is no fundamental contradiction between socialism and a market economy.
In English edition (2015): Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping (1982–1992). Boston & London:
Intercultural Press.
Gini index (World Bank estimate). Resource document. The World Bank. https://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?page=1. Accessed October 21, 2020.
Hu, J. (2012). Full text of Hu Jintao’s report at 18th Party Congress. Ministry of Commerce,
People’s Republic of China. Resource document. http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/
newsrelease/counselorsoffice/bilateralexchanges/201211/20121108450110.shtml. Accessed
November 22, 2020.
Xunzi: The Achievements of the Ru. English edition: (trans.) Hutton, E.L. (2016). Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
References 109

Jia, Y. (2000). Xin Shu Jiao Zhu. Beijing: China Publishing House.
Li, J. (1986). A Collection of Conversations of Master Zhu. Beijing: China Publishing House.
Liu, Y. (2013). Guan nian de shui wei. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press.
Miller, D. (2003). Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University
Press Inc.
Minogue, K. (2000). Politics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Analects of Confucius: Yan Yuan. English edition: (trans.) Muller, C.A. (2018). Resource
document. http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html. Accessed May 14, 2020.
The analects of Confucius: li ren. English edition: (trans.) Muller, C.A. (2018). Resource
document. http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html. Accessed May 14, 2020.
Mencius: Li Lou (part one). English edition: (trans.) Muller, C.A. (2019). Resource document.
http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/mencius.html. Accessed May 14, 2020.
Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Party History Research Center of the CPC Central Committee. (2011). The History of the
Communist Party of China, vol.2 (1949–1978), part 2. Beijing: History of Chinese Communist
Party Publishing House. p. 915.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century (trans: Goldhammer, A.). Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Plato. (2007). The Republic (trans: Lee, D.). London: Penguin Books.
Rawls, J. (1971b). A Theory of Justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971a). A Theory of Justice (revised edition). Cambridge: Harvard University Press;
Sandel, M.J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux; Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press (2002).
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Sen, A. (1999). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. New York:
Oxford.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Chinese edition: (trans.) Wang, L. & Li, H. (2012). Beijing:
China Renmin University Press. p.133.
Sen, A. (2010). The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books.
Trebilcock, M. J., & Daniels, R. J. (2008). Rule of Law Reform and Development. Northampton:
Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Vanhaute, E. (2013). World History: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Ibid.
Xi, J. (2015). Xi Jinping: Promoting a fairer and more reasonable global governance system.
Resource document. Xinhua Net, October 13, 2015. http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-
10/13/c_1116812159.htm. Accessed May 5, 2020.
Xi, J. (2016). Xi Jinping’s remarks on the opening ceremony of 2016 g20 Hangzhou summit.
Resource document. Xinhuanet. http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2016-09/04/c_129268987.
htm. Accessed May 6, 2020.
Xu, X. (Nov 2016). Why should we “let some people get rich first”? Resource document. Sohu
Business. https://www.sohu.com/a/19883225_114770. Accessed May 14, 2020.
Chapter 7
Freedom

7.1 Notion of Freedom and Political Progress

Among the five ultimate goals in world politics explored in this book, freedom is
the most difficult to define, but it is no less admired or pursued than the other goals.
People in different times, different countries, and different positions understand
freedom very differently. Montesquieu, a French thinker in the era of the
Enlightenment, said, “There is no word that admits of more various significations,
and has made more varied impressions on the human mind, than that of liberty”
(Montesquieu 1989). However complicated its connotations are, the most basic
meaning of freedom is clear: individuals or groups being able to act according to
their own will, without being hindered by external factors.
In European culture, “freedom” implies “emancipation”; that is, liberation from
the shackles of external forces, with the ability to decide for oneself. The word
“freedom” (zi you) in ancient Chinese is most similar to “nature” (zi ran). In Lao
Zi’s idea of “the Dao following the course of nature” (dao fa zi ran), “nature” is
being oneself. That is, the Dao follows its own principles freely and with no
restriction. In his masterpiece, “Carefree and Easy Wandering” (xiao yao you),
Zhuang Zi described his understanding of freedom as “having nothing to rely on,”
which means not being limited by anything external (Yang 2016).
Freedom can be classified in many ways. In the range of human activities, it can
be classified as political freedom, social freedom, economic freedom, freedom of
thought and culture, free will, etc. In terms of people’s state of being, it can be
classified as individual freedom, group freedom, all the way to the freedom of
nations and countries. In the context of how people rid themselves of restraints,
freedom can be classified as passive or active. While this book focuses on political
freedom, it is difficult to completely separate political freedom from other freedoms.
As American political scientist Giovanni Sartori wrote, “Political freedom is by no
means the only kind of freedom, nor is it by any necessity the one that should rank

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 111

W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_7
112 7 Freedom

highest in value. It is, however, the primary liberty on procedural grounds, for it is
the sine qua non of all other freedoms” (Sartori 1987).
Political freedom mainly refers to the freedom of citizens to express their
political will. It is usually manifested as the freedom of speech, press, assembly,
association, procession, and demonstration. These are the freedoms stipulated in the
current Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. In addition, the PRC
Constitution also protects the freedom of religious belief, the person, marriage, and
correspondence. Mao Zedong pointed out in his report, “On Coalition Government”
at the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China in April 1945:
“Freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, political conviction and religious
belief and freedom of the person are the people’s most important freedoms” (Mao
1945). The word “freedom” appeared 58 times in the report. Opposing the dicta-
torship of the Kuomintang and “guaranteeing full civil rights to the people” is one
of Mao Zedong’s key propositions repeatedly stressed in this famous work. It was
also one of the chief objectives of the revolution led by the CPC during that
historical period.
In Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, there is a
famous saying about the ideal communist society: “In place of the old bourgeois
society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in
which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”
(Marx et al. 2008). It could be construed from a semantic perspective that Marx and
Engels believed that the free development of individuals was the condition and that
the free development of all people was an ultimate goal. The freedom and full
development of individuals were thus ultimate goals in the effort to liberate
humankind. Engels also said that the history of human development was a history
of the pursuit of freedom. “Each step forward in the field of culture was a step
towards freedom” (Marx and Engels 1987).
As Chinese political scientist Xu Zhenzhou pointed out, although political
freedom and political rights based on the rule of law were absent in traditional
Chinese society, there existed widespread social freedoms in daily life. He attrib-
uted this phenomenon mainly to Chinese people’s optimism, openness, tolerance,
non-asceticism, and passion for life. Xu also argued that freedom can exist in any
political system, and is not necessarily associated with democracy (Xu 2006).
Prior to modern times, however, freedom was not a core issue in world politics.
Nor did it suddenly emerge. The opposite of political freedom was slavery and
autocracy. In ancient Greece, except for visiting foreign guests or businessmen, the
metics (foreign residents of Athens who did not have citizen rights) in the polis
were all plundered slaves, while free citizens were the inhabitants within the
city-states. The word “freedom” in ancient Greece referred to a state in contrast with
the state of slaves. For freedom, the Greeks would pay the price of their lives (Yi
2004).
However, in ancient Greece, freedom was more of a collective political right.
Free citizenship was limited to adult men of all classes except slaves, while slaves
and women who made up the majority of the population were denied
citizenship. As free citizens, the Greeks collectively and directly exercised political
7.1 Notion of Freedom and Political Progress 113

power through consultation and voting in deciding whether or not to go to war, to

form alliances with foreign countries, or to criticize and remove archons (Constant
1819a). The Greeks perceived sharing social power in public institutions as a form
of freedom, but such freedom only allowed individuals to participate in public
politics, distinct from the freedom of individuals by today’s understanding. The
degree of subordination of individuals to the society was substantially higher in
ancient Greece than it is in any European country today.1 “For though they be free
men, they are not in all respects free; Law is the master whom they own….
Whatever it commands they do; and its commandment is always the same; it forbids
them to flee in battle, whatever the number of their foes, and requires them to stand
firm, and either to conquer or die” (Stavrianos 1990).
The Renaissance, which began in 14th-century Europe, involved a rational
exploration of freedom. In the medieval period, theologists took God as the supreme
principle and the core of the world, while the Renaissance humanists placed the
person at the center. Such a shift not only led to a revolution of ideas, but also, more
importantly, earned the individual freedom of thought. The Reformation launched
by Martin Luther and others severely weakened the Pope’s power and elevated the
notion that all were equal in the eyes of God. It cultivated the spirit of religious
tolerance and created a relatively loose environment for freedom. In the modern
capitalist period, economic freedom rooted in private property rights became an
important value. Without the concepts of private property and property rights, the
modern conceptualization of freedom would not exist.
Under the influences of great European thinkers of the Enlightenment like John
Locke, Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 1776 American Declaration
of Independence stated that “all men are created equal,” which is a self-evident
truth. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution in 1789, commonly known
as the Bill of Rights, mainly addressed the following points: Congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the rights of the people to
peaceably assemble and to petition the government; the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated; no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; in all criminal prosecutions or suits at
common law, the accused shall enjoy certain rights. In 1789, Declaration of Rights
of Man and of the Citizen, the guiding principle of the French Revolution, was
officially issued. Its core concepts were freedom, equality, and fraternity. According
to the Declaration, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” and “The
aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible
rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to
oppression.” As an important testament to human civilization, the basic ideas of this
French Declaration were enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations signed in
1945.

1
Ibid.
114 7 Freedom

Unlike some of his predecessors who perceived freedom merely as a political

principle, John Stuart Mill, a leading liberalist of the nineteenth century, understood
freedom in his own times as a social principle. He believed that social tyranny was
far more formidable than political oppression. Thus, Mill provided a new inter-
pretation of freedom and defined it as the legitimate exercise of social power—
rather than just political power—aimed at protecting the rights of individuals
against the encroachment by society and defending individuality and social
diversity (Mill 2009).
To this day, freedom has become a core value universally recognized in human
society. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, is a milestone document in
world history. The document set forth, for the first time internationally, fundamental
human rights centered on freedom to be universally protected. Article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance” (The United Nations 1948). Article 19 pronounces: “Everyone has the
right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.”2 The “Four Freedoms”—freedom of
speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear—outlined
by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 are widely known. The Constitution
of the Russian Federation adopted in 1993 also strongly emphasizes personal
freedom: “Man, his rights and freedoms are the supreme value. The recognition,
observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be the
obligation of the State” (The Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993). It also
states: “Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and shall be
enjoyed by everyone since the day of birth,” and “Everyone shall be guaranteed the
freedom of ideas and speech.”3
That said, in political practices until WWII, slavery existed in various forms
across the world and was legal in many cases. Those who were enslaved in colonies
and elsewhere were deprived of their personal freedom and individual dignity. Until
the mid-twentieth century, black people in the United States and South Africa were
still inferior to white people in terms of legal status. Women won the right to vote in
Europe and America only about a century ago. Nonetheless, people regardless of
gender and race naturally have longed for freedom. Human society has been
constantly moving forward and breaking the shackles on freedom along the way.
Today, with the exception of a few Islamic countries, women enjoy equal legal
status with men. Monogamy is generally practiced in the world. Any system or act
of slavery, or discrimination against groups with different skin colors, ethnicities or

2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
7.1 Notion of Freedom and Political Progress 115

religions, are expressly prohibited by law in most countries of the world today and
are morally condemned by the international community. The right to individual
freedom and democracy reinforce each other, and jointly promote equality, justice,
and progress in human society.
However, the pursuit of freedom can easily go in the opposite direction, as is
common in the history of the modern world. In his book, Reflections on the
Revolution in France, published in 1790, the second year of the French Revolution,
Edmund Burke pointed out the danger of a revolution in pursuit of freedom turning
to anti-liberal statism. According to Burke, the French Revolution had evolved into
a violent rebellion subverting tradition and legitimate authority, instead of a
reformist movement pursuing representative and constitutional democracy; col-
lectivism converged with the belligerence of nationalism, leading to arbitrary
contempt for individual rights. The French Revolution started off in pursuit of
freedom, equality and fraternity, but ended up being full of violence and terror.
Especially in the era of the Jacobins dictatorship, the tyranny relentlessly abused
human rights in the name of the revolution and the people (Burke 2003). Madame
Marie-Jeanne Roland, one of the Girondist leaders of the French Revolution,
pursued freedom for the people, but was guillotined by the Jacobins in 1893. Before
her execution, Madame Roland said her final words, which are widely known to the
future generations: “Oh liberty, what crimes are committed in your name”4!
During the French Revolution, freedom was manifested as a powerful ideo-
logical weapon and political slogan for mobilizing the people. But after the King’s
dictatorship was overthrown, freedom became a tool and an excuse for the newly
ruling Jacobins to trample on human rights. In the meantime, such violence and
terror were still supported by mobilized revolutionaries. The British political sci-
entist Kenneth Minogue gave a rational explanation of this phenomenon: “In
political contexts, this means not having to live one’s life under a ruler who has
arbitrary powers. It is an easy sophism, however, to argue that if freedom means not
being restrained, and if I am, as it were, restrained from doing what I want by lack
of money, then poverty is unfreedom. In this way, the term ‘freedom’ can slip into
‘power’ and we are well launched on the road towards positing some benign depot
who will abolish poverty and equalize our power” (Minogue 2000).
Today, humankind has generally gained great political freedom, which is a
precious historical advancement for which many generations have fought. As Mao
Zedong proclaimed, “Freedom is won by the people through struggle; it is not
bestowed by anyone as a favor (Mao 1945).” But if people abuse the right to
freedom by only pursuing their own freedom without respecting that of others or of
other countries, freedom will be regarded as merely a political tool for other pur-
poses, and “the free development of all people” that Marx and Engels expected will
never be realized.

The original French quote is: “O Liberté, que de crimes son commet en ton nom!”
4
116 7 Freedom

7.2 Political Constraints of Individual Freedom

A paradox about freedom involves a very old subject—the relationship between

freedom and order. Modern society has gradually yet irreversibly aroused human’s
primitive instinct of pursuing freedom. But the meaning of life for modern people is
not just limited to individual freedom, independent personality, and general human
rights, but also refers to individuals’ obligation for family ethics, individuals’ moral
quality, individuals’ responsibility for society and community, individuals’ respect
for social order, etc. Personal freedom shall not obstruct public order. For example,
pedestrians, cyclists and drivers must all abide by traffic rules when exercising their
rights to freedom of trafficking on the road.
Here I reiterate a point made in Chap. 2. Maintaining social order is a goal in
itself. However, like stability, order is the condition and guarantee for achieving
other goals. Although freedom and order appear equally important, freedom is
actually the more fundamental goal. The popular saying that “freedom is the pur-
pose of order and order is the guarantee of freedom” is quite true. Order guarantees
freedom, security, and justice. For instance, following traffic rules can ensure the
safety and freedom of pedestrians and those who use public transport, and improve
the efficiency of road transportation. It is not difficult to understand in this case that
order is not the purpose of freedom. Only good order can guarantee freedom,
security, and justice. Unfair and unreasonable order would undermine the access to
freedom, security, and wealth.
In modern society, individual freedom is subject to political constraints in
several ways.

1. Constraints of collective freedom

People choose their own governments and leaders and participate in legislation and
administration. In this way, the original meaning of freedom is actually applied to
the population as a whole, thus forming a kind of collective freedom. For a nation
or a country to get rid of slavery by foreigners and decide their own destiny, they
must fight collectively to achieve freedom of the nation or country. That is the right
of self-determination and national independence. Obviously, advocates of indi-
vidual freedom will support national freedom and independence with the same
enthusiasm. The convergence of the movements for individual freedom and for
national independence in Europe in the nineteenth century is a perfect illustration.
However, the pursuit of national freedom and independence does not necessarily
enhance individual freedom. In some political systems, the government requires its
people to obey the single, dominant goal of fulfilling national mission. From the
perspective of those ruling the system, the pursuit of ideal requires sacrificing
individual freedom, and such sacrifice, however costly, is worthwhile as long as the
ideal is noble enough. Due to differences and confrontations between nations, in
some cases people would rather sacrifice personal freedom and choose an autocratic
monarch of their own nation to obtain national freedom than welcoming a
7.2 Political Constraints of Individual Freedom 117

democratic government led by foreigners to protect their individual rights.

However, pursuing the nation’s right to freedom may become an excuse for an
authoritarian government to arbitrarily limit individual freedom.
Seen in this light, the relationship between national freedom and individual
freedom is manifested in three scenarios. The first scenario is a complementary
relationship, in which an individual’s pursuit of freedom and equality within his/her
own nation and country is consistent with the country’s quest for freedom, equality,
and independence in the international system. National dignity and state sover-
eignty are built on the basis of individual freedom. Thus, nationalism here is set to
be restricted by liberalism from moving toward internal dictatorship and external
aggression.
The second scenario is that nominal national freedom and dignity are prioritized
without individual freedom as a prerequisite. The rulers require domestic individual
freedom to be subject to the freedom of the nation or the state, which actually
creates freedom for the rulers. They even regard individual freedom as a threat to
the alleged dignity of the nation and the state, denounce the appeal of individual
freedom as treason, and suppress domestic freedom of speech under the pretense of
non-interference in internal affairs of a country. In this way, the country’s apparent
pursuit of freedom and equality in the international community disguises its lack of
freedom and equality at home.
The third scenario is that in a nation that has not yet been freed from foreign
oppression, the rulers turn to foreigners for their own interests and in turn suppress
individual freedom within the nation. Both individual freedom and collective
freedom are absent here, causing grave disaster for the people.

2. Governmental and legal constraints

The distinction between negative freedom and positive freedom made by the
contemporary Western thinker Isaiah Berlin is very helpful for understanding the
political limitations of freedom. Negative freedom means being free from any
interference; that is, individuals can act according to their will without restriction by
external factors. Positive freedom refers to individuals’ ability to achieve their will
without restrictions, usually expressed as the realization of personal development
and personal will. According to Berlin, the adherents of negative freedom care
about “how far does the government interfere with me?” and “what am I free to do
or be?” The advocates of positive freedom are concerned about “by whom am I
ruled?” and “who is to say what I am, and what I am not, to be or do” (Hardy
2002)? In short, passive freedom focuses on not letting others obstruct one’s own
freedom—“you don’t restrict me.” In other words, it doesn’t matter what political
party or individual is in power, as long as they do not curb my freedom of choice.
The essence of positive freedom is being one’s own master—“I decide what I do.”
The adherents of positive freedom are not willing to be politically “carefree” and
inactive but instead wish to participate in political activities through elections and
other means, in order to determine their own destiny to a greater extent.
118 7 Freedom

Negative freedom corresponds to the idea of “small government,” while positive

freedom corresponds to “big government.” Classical liberals who favor negative
freedom believe that human beings are rational and intelligent animals capable of
making choices according to their own will on matters concerning their interests.
Without restraint and interference, everyone can unleash their full potential to
pursue and realize their own happiness. The basic principle of building a society is
to interfere as little as possible with personal activities. Negative freedom is
compatible with a negative government. Apart from maintaining order in general,
the best approach of the government, as the public power, toward society is
laissez-faire. As the saying goes, “That government is best which governs least.”
Classical liberals are very wary of suppressing individual freedom in the name of
the state. They believe that the biggest threat to personal freedom comes from the
government. In their view, the government’s power is given by the people, and its
raison d’être is to protect individuals’ dignity and rights. If the government violates
this basic principle, it will lose the foundation of its legitimacy. Individual freedom
is the end, and state authority is the means. To protect personal freedom, classical
liberalism demands maximum limit on state power, and requires applying separa-
tion of powers and the rule of law. Montesquieu saw limiting government power
and achieving checks and balances among the institutions of power as the pre-
requisites for freedom.
In the views of modern liberals who support positive freedom, modern society is
complex, and many issues concern the entire society and cannot be solved by
individual actions. Inadequate individual capacity hinders the realization of per-
sonal freedom, and thus it is incumbent on the power of the state to promote
individuals’ development. What corresponds to positive freedom is a positive
government, which is a “big government.” The government should provide basic
protection for individual freedom, and even be the creator of people’s happiness
and welfare. Government intervention, especially in the realm of economic
development, can expand and ensure individual freedom, particularly when it
comes to looking after the rights and liberty of disadvantaged groups in society.
These ideas form the basis of social liberalism and welfare liberalism. Modern
liberals support government intervention in the economy and society for building a
positive welfare state. As the British political scientist David Miller pointed out,
“[So] a government that wanted to promote freedom to choose could do so by
encouraging social diversity—by exposing people to new ways of living, new
forms of culture, and so on” (Miller 2003).
By the standard of positive freedom, people obviously enjoy a greater degree of
freedom in today’s societies than in traditional societies. For example, food choices
are more versatile, nutrition standards higher, and viable options for leisure, enter-
tainment, culture and sports greater. People can travel around the globe through
convenient modes of transportation, communicate with people from all corners of
the world via telephone and the Internet, change their occupations and workplaces
more easily, find lovers and partners more freely and voluntarily, and so on.
By the standard of negative freedom, individual freedom is actually more
restricted by the government in a modern society than in a traditional society.
7.2 Political Constraints of Individual Freedom 119

Countries around the world, including the Western “free world,” have significantly
strengthened their ability to manage and monitor individuals. The procedures for
emigrating and settling overseas in the colonial era were much simpler than today.
Advanced communication tools, information technology, and the Internet have
facilitated strong law enforcement and international cooperation by government
agencies. In the past, it took vast human and material resources to conduct political
surveillance on citizens. Nowadays, however, modern intelligent technology has
enabled fully automated, full-coverage, 24-h unmanned surveillance that watches
people’s every move without missing anything. The U.S. government uses
advanced information technology to monitor other countries’ political leaders,
officials and individuals, collecting massive amounts of all-encompassing data, and
mining all kinds of information it needs from the sea of data. The freedom of
contemporary states seems to be expanding infinitely, while personal freedom is
being increasingly limited. Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, quoted Socrates in
The Republic, writing that “extreme freedom probably cannot lead to anything but a
change to extreme slavery, whether in a private individual or a city” (Cohen et al.
2016).
In principle, the state should, through legislation, gradually disclose data unre-
lated to national security, intellectual property, commercial secrets and personal
privacy, to make government operations transparent and enable supervision by all
citizens. But the reality is often the opposite: certain government agencies and
officials often refuse to make government affairs transparent on the grounds of
national security and confidentiality, thereby breeding corruption and other
behaviors damaging to public interests.
Many countries have strengthened political censorship of the press and other
media. According to the Kuwaiti-born Arab scholar Muhammad Al-Rumaihi’s
research, although the constitutions of most Arab countries, whether permanent or
interim, explicitly stipulate the right to freedom of communication and of press,
they also limit freedom with various legal provisions. These provisions find various
expressions, such as “to the extent permitted by law”, “according to the law”,
“according to the terms and conditions stipulated by law”, or “not to cross legally
prohibited lines.” As a result, he points out, freedom becomes as unattainable as the
mythical phoenix in these countries (2013).

3. Restrictions on information technology, especially big data

Apart from the limits and supervision over individual freedom imposed by the
administrative and judiciary authorities, other organizations like corporations,
banks, and various criminal groups with network information technology and
intelligent devices are all capable of recording people’s thoughts and behaviors by
collecting data. These data may be rapidly transmitted through the Internet and
stored in the cloud, leaving a permanent digital record. People’s personal data, such
as information about their hobbies, preferences, needs, social networks, and
political votes, are increasingly vulnerable to being misused. So is their ownership
120 7 Freedom

of these data, their right to know, collect, store and use these data, as well as their
right to privacy. The abuse of these rights may result in ethical degradation and
even cause a grave political crisis.
4. Restrictions through political taboos as well as religious, social and cultural
factors
The gist of John Stuart Mill’s famous book On Liberty is the following: an adult
should enjoy full freedom of action with which others and society must not
interfere, as long as his actions do not affect the interests of others; only when his
words and actions endanger others’ rights and interests should he receive manda-
tory punishment from society (Mill 2009). That was the demarcation line between
individual rights and social rights drawn by Mill. When the modern Chinese thinker
Yan Fu first introduced On Liberty to China in 1903, the title of the Chinese
translation was On the Boundary between Group Rights and Individual Rights (Qun
Ji Quan Jie Lun). This translation reflected Yan Fu’s precise understanding of
Mill’s thoughts.
In real life, however, it is difficult to distinguish between individual rights and
social rights. In the contemporary world, people’s rising awareness of ethnicity,
religion, and culture has generated an “identity crisis” in many societies. This trend,
intertwined with traditional ideological divides and class consciousness, is ampli-
fied by online media, and threatens the internal solidarity of many societies. When
people exercise their freedom of speech and of the press, they must increasingly
take into account the feelings and sentiments of other social groups. Otherwise, they
may face certain social pressure or even death threats in some extreme cases.
On 7 January 2015, a group of terrorists attacked the Paris headquarters of
Charlie Hebdo, a French magazine, and killed 12 people. The terrorists claimed to
be sent by Al-Qaeda and accused Charlie Hebdo of having published cartoons
insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Charlie Hebdo and its supporters
insisted on defending the freedom of speech and of the press. Similar terrorist
incidents and disputes have happened several times in Europe and the United
States. Non-Muslim women may encounter embarrassment in Saudi Arabia, if they
do not follow local customs of wearing headscarves and black robes in the street
and other public spaces. It may be difficult for them to resist this unwritten ground
rule of “due respect for personal choices.” In contrast, some European countries
have introduced legal bans on wearing burqas (long garments covering the entire
body including the face and head, except for eyes) in public places. Mainly targeted
at Muslim women, these regulations have triggered protests by many Muslim
groups. As Europe accepts an increasing number of immigrants from Islamic
communities, liberal European political parties face a dilemma between respect for
other cultures and respect for individual rights. Some argue that the government
should proactively promote Western values, European values, or Enlightenment
values in resistance to parochial customs.
For decades, due to changes in ethnic and religious composition and the
prevalence of liberalism, cultural pluralism or multiculturalism used to prevail in U.
S. public discourse. The notion of diversity has extended from ethnicity and gender
7.2 Political Constraints of Individual Freedom 121

to sexual orientation. The Chinese political scientist Liu Yu summarized the trend
of “political correctness” culture in American society in “four basic principles”—
not to offend ethnic minorities, not to offend women, not to offend homosexuals,
and not to offend people holding different beliefs or political opinions (Liu 2009).
To put it simply, the American version of “four basic principles” means sympathy
for and protection of the disadvantaged. Many people, especially white suprema-
cists and right-wing conservatives, blame the culture of “political correctness” for
eroding freedom of speech in the United States. According to Liu Yu, the debate
over political correctness is essentially a conflict between the pursuit of truth and
the pursuit of goodness in a free society. Defenders of “political correctness”
attempt to seek justice for the weak in a world full of inequality, while opponents of
“political correctness” want an open society without any taboo, in which people can
explore truth and speak freely.5
In August 2017, several white supremacist groups rallied in Charlottesville,
Virginia, in the United States, causing serious riots that killed one and injured a
few. The incident once again sparked the debate about proper limitations to indi-
vidual freedom. The questions under debate in America in recent years include the
following: Should people be allowed to use German Nazi flags and gestures?
Should anyone be allowed to stigmatize Islam as a “cult”? Should burning the U.S.
national flag be considered illegal? Should insulting personal attacks on leaders like
Barrack Obama and Donald Trump be permitted? All these are serious political
issues concerning America’s liberal values and social cohesion.
The legal and ethical issues about abortion are also politicized in the United
States. Pro-choice advocates believe that pregnant women should retain their right
to choose whether to have an abortion. Pro-life supporters, many of whom are
conservative Christians, think that ending a life—whether an embryo or a
heart-beating fetus—is committing the crime of murder and thus intolerable,
because life is given by God. In many countries today, whether people have the
freedoms to choose euthanasia and to take drugs is also a question causing
increasing legal and political controversy.
Some Western institutions have conducted many assessments on the freedom of
speech, economic freedom, and freedom of the media in different countries. Among
these studies, Freedom in the World, an annual report published by the Freedom
House—an American non-governmental organization—is widely known.
According to the Freedom in the World 2020 report, 84 countries and territories are
rated “Free,” 67 are rated “Partially Free,” and 59 are rated “Not Free” (2020).
Whether its rating criteria are objective is of course debatable. The study mainly
assesses the political rights and civil liberties held by individuals, taking into
account the impact caused by both the state and non-state actors including insur-
gents. But it apparently does not consider the restrictions on individual freedom
created by social taboos and religious beliefs.

5
Ibid.
122 7 Freedom

7.3 Contemporary Liberalism and Its Opposites

Among the five goals—security, wealth, belief, justice, and freedom or liberty—
discussed in this book, only liberty (ziyou in Chinese) can derive an “ism” (zhuyi) as
“liberalism” (ziyou zhuyi). Liberalism is a political doctrine and an ideology that
stems from liberty. Supporters of liberalism definitely promote freedom, but
advocates of freedom do not necessarily agree with liberalism.
Liberalism is a very complex system of thinking that is full of controversies.
Generally speaking, liberalism is the sum total of different schools of thought that
all hold freedom as the core political value. Contemporary liberalism advocates
protection of individual freedom of thought, liberal democracy in the form of
republic or constitutional monarchy, open and fair electoral systems, legal limits on
the exercise of government power, trade and investment liberalization, market
economy based on private enterprises, as well as equality and diversity among
ethnic groups, religions, cultures, and so forth. Contemporary liberalism includes
many different political ideas and propositions, which are very widely distributed
from left to right across the political spectrum.
Liberalism is commonly categorized into classical liberalism, modern liberalism,
and neo-liberalism. Classical liberalism rose along with the development of liberal
capitalism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. English scholar John Locke
and French Enlightenment thinkers Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu were
pioneering classical liberals. Classical liberal economists like Adam Smith held the
idea of laissez-faire, and opposed mercantilism that would involve excessive
government intervention in the economy.
Featured in the thoughts of John Keynes, modern liberalism advocates that the
government should properly intervene in economy, improve social welfare, and
strive for equal rights. Modern liberalism prevailed in the mid-twentieth century
and propelled President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the United States.
Contrary to the Keynesian view, however, British liberal scholar Friedrich Hayek
argued that increased government regulations were responsible for the rise of
totalitarianism.
Another modern liberal and Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper, defended liberal
democracy in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper 2013). He
promoted the concept of open society and contended that the government should
obtain reforms without using violence. According to Popper, since the accumula-
tion of human knowledge was an unpredictable process, an “ideal state” was simply
unattainable. Political institutions therefore ought to be flexible in adjusting gov-
ernment policies to the changing needs of society, particularly in encouraging
multicultural policies.
Prevalent after the 1970s, neoliberalism advocated privatization, financial
deregulation, and restricting government power. Its political economic views were
adopted by the Reagan administration in the United States and the Margret Thatcher
government of the United Kingdom. They were also reflected in the Washington
Consensus after the end of the Cold War.
7.3 Contemporary Liberalism and Its Opposites 123

An alternative classification is to divide liberalism into political liberalism,

cultural liberalism, and economic liberalism. Political liberalism stresses the social
contract between the ruler and the ruled, under which citizens make laws and agree
to abide by them. All adult citizens are granted the right to vote, regardless of their
gender, race or economic status. Rule of law and liberal democracy are advocated.
Cultural liberalism focuses on individual rights to moral values and lifestyles,
including sexual freedom, freedom of faith and cognitive freedom, and resists
government intervention into individuals’ private lives. Some cultural liberals
oppose government restrictions on literature, art, scholarship, gambling, sexual
behavior, prostitution, legal marriage age, abortion, reproduction, alcohol, as well
as cannabis and other drugs. The Netherlands is considered the world’s most free
country in these aspects. Economic liberalism supports a laissez-faire capitalist
system, and advocates the removal of trade barriers and state monopolies and
subsidies.
In today’s Chinese political context, “liberalism” and “liberalization” often have
a pejorative connotation. For example, Mao Zedong wrote an essay titled “Combat
Liberalism” in 1937, (Mao 1967) and Deng Xiaoping also disapproved of “bour-
geois liberalization” (1994). Neoliberalism that advocates the Washington
Consensus and promotes “color revolutions” is even more strongly criticized by the
Chinese political mainstream. One view has it that liberalism is an ideological tool
for the self-perpetuation of capitalism and that its dominating “discursive hege-
mony” has caused severe social crises and polarization on a global scale. Liberalist
ideology is said in China to entail the overall domination of technical rationality
over society and humanity on the one hand, and the complete alienation of society
and humanity on the other hand.
The opposites of liberalism in today’s world politics are mainly socialism,
absolutism, conservatism, populism, and nationalism. The political and economic
systems advocated by liberalism are epitomized by contemporary Europe, North
America, Australia and New Zealand. Their political tendency is in sharp contrast
with the political thinking of socialist countries such as China and many developing
countries that are perceived as autocracies, a point on which I need not dwell here.
Conservatism, as the opposite of liberalism, is comprehensible only in the
context of Western political development. Conservatism originated in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries when Britain established a constitutional monarchy
and France founded a republic. Different from liberalism, conservatism advocates a
moderate, gradual approach to social transformation. In this sense, the opposite of
conservatism is radicalism rather than liberalism. In the view of some conserva-
tives, since people are born unequal and not free and human nature is sinful,
freedom must be limited. Leading conservatives—British political scientist Edmund
Burke and his peers—all criticized the French Revolution for having utterly
destroyed the principles of order and freedom. They believed that any movements
uprooting existing institutions would only pave the way for tyranny. Conservatism
emphasizes preserving the past, respecting traditions, maintaining social stability,
defending the authority of theocracy, kingship and rulers, as well as opposing
radical social reforms and particularly violent revolutions.
124 7 Freedom

With the establishment of democratic republics and the principle of the market
economy in Western countries, modern liberalism and conservatism have gone
from divergence to convergence. Since the mid-twentieth century, the leading
figures and core ideas of neoliberalism and neoconservatism have greatly over-
lapped. What neoconservatism has conserved is the classical liberal tradition that
was once abandoned by modern liberalism as represented by Keynesianism.
Neoconservatism retains the core of liberalism but displays itself in a conservative
form. Conservatives explore the relationship between equality of opportunities and
equality of outcome, between freedom and equality, as well as between efficiency
and fairness. From their perspective, the neo-liberal state intervention instruments,
which seek to achieve equality of outcome by adjusting people’s income gaps,
actually jeopardize the equality of opportunity and people’s rights to free compe-
tition. That would in turn affect productivity and dampen people’s passion for
wealth creation and technological innovation. Making hardworking and creative
citizens support those who live mainly on social welfare is unjust and may even
lead to political autocracy.
The convergence of liberalism and conservatism is most obvious in the con-
temporary United States. What conservatives are conserving is the American liberal
traditions, especially the traditions of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs).
What neoliberalism advocates is maintaining the development of liberalism in the
traditional conservative way. In the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and
British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher waged a “conservative revolution.” Their
governance philosophy is called neoconservatism by some and neoliberalism by
others.
In recent years, populism has been emerging in the United States, Europe and
many other countries, posing a great challenge to the neoliberalism discourse that
used to be dominant after the Cold War. Like all other political concepts, populism
is subject to different definitions and interpretations. In this book, populism refers to
a school of political thought popular among the middle and lower classes of society.
It features rebellion against the ideas of political and intellectual elites, strong
dissatisfaction with injustice and income disparity, as well as the pursuit for the
ideal of equality. Populism is opposite to elitism. Populism is people-centered on
the surface, but actually lacks respect for citizens’ personal dignity and basic
individual rights. Populists worship “the people” as an abstract whole but despise
the specific individuals that form the people. Although seemingly anti-authority,
many populists are intolerant of their opponents and even bystanders.
The current prevalence of populism across the world is built on five trends of
global development. First, the world’s demographic imbalance persists, a transna-
tional and interregional movement of population accelerates, and the bottleneck of
urbanization worsens. The aging population in developed countries has slowed
down economic growth, and has increased expenses of social welfare, pension and
public health. Rapid demographic growth in developing countries has resulted in
high youth unemployment, breeding social unrest and violence.
Second, the accelerating population movement across the globe has caused an
identity crisis for many groups. Tribal and sectarian tensions in the Middle East and
7.3 Contemporary Liberalism and Its Opposites 125

other regions and countries are intensifying. Extremism and ethnic separatism are
on the rise. In Europe, a considerable number of Muslims and other minority
immigrants from North Africa, Turkey, and the Balkans are having difficulty
integrating into local European communities, deepening the cultural, linguistic,
ethnic, religious and political identity problems. The rejection and discrimination by
indigenous residents toward new immigrants is easily egged on by right-wing
conservative forces. Historically, most of the people living adjacent to each other
belong to the same ethnic group and believe in the same religion. Today, some
people have to leave their hometowns due to war or poverty and live in a com-
pletely alien country, whereas others find a large number of ethnically, religiously
and culturally different people suddenly appear in their own towns and commu-
nities. The degree of estrangement and collision between these groups is
unprecedented. It will take a long time, perhaps several generations, for the new-
comers to build good relations and form a new social identity. Especially in eco-
nomically underdeveloped and politically unstable countries, the massive influx of
immigrants and refugees has exacerbated existing social tensions, and sparked riots
and violence.
Third, the unequal global distribution of wealth and the lack of social justice
have seriously impacted social stability and aggravated political polarization. The
2008 global financial crisis has revealed the profound flaws of contemporary
capitalism. The slowdown of the world economy has fueled tensions over
socioeconomic inequality.
Fourth, the global economy suffers from almost intractable imbalance. Emerging
countries enjoy rapid growth in their manufacturing, energy production, and natural
resource industries, but still depend on developed countries for investment, ser-
vices, and technological innovation. While the economic gap between emerging
powers and developed countries is narrowing, the gap between emerging powers
and underdeveloped developing countries is widening, creating drastic divergence
among developing countries. In some countries, economic stagnation or decline,
social decay, and political disarray with various causes will continue. Imbalanced
global economic development has caused many countries and groups to blame
foreigners, including foreign countries and foreign immigrants, for domestic
problems.
Fifth, the rapid expansion of social media has empowered individuals and
groups as political participants. Social media are a double-edged sword. On the one
hand, they can strengthen the internal cohesion of religious sects, ethnic groups and
countries. On the other hand, they can also widen ideological and communal
divides in a pluralistic society. The Internet is at once a hub of ideas and cultures
and an amplifier of public opinions. Individuals and groups, large and small, come
together via social networks. Different groups and individuals may have completely
contradictory views and make starkly different value judgments on the same issue.
With state power diffused and decentralized, social governance faces sharply
increased uncertainty. Various populist thoughts are spread rapidly through the
Internet, challenging traditional political logics and the boundaries of state power.
126 7 Freedom

Populism itself is not a political belief. But like traditional beliefs, it has moral
rationality and appeals, and is politically disruptive and destructive. In the eyes of
Western populists, the problems of their own countries lie in too much openness to
foreign products and foreign immigrants as well as excessive rights allowed for
promoting ethnic equality and legalizing homosexuality. The West’s rapid liber-
alization in various fields in the past few decades has incubated potential resistance
to itself. Politicians like U.S. president Donald Trump have effectively mobilized
these anti-liberalization forces, and gained enough power and influence to run their
country through democratic elections. They are now trying to use such power to
curb liberalization across the board.
In the 1990s, the European Union was established, and U.S. president Bill
Clinton was incumbent. The momentary prosperity and stability brought about by
economic globalization both disguised deep ethnic and class tensions, and tem-
porarily diluted nationalist sentiments. Feeding off each other today, the twins of
populism and nationalism are simultaneously on the march. The U.K.’s Brexit
referendum and Trump’s election as U.S. president under the “America First”
banner both resulted from the fusion of populism and nationalism. Western
countries as a whole still maintain political, economic, cultural and military
advantages in the world, and they often use such advantages to intervene in the
internal affairs of non-Western countries. Therefore, many people in developing
countries naturally blame the United States and other Western countries for social
injustice. People in developed countries also often attribute their discontent with
their fate to new immigrants and the resurgence of developing countries. As a
result, the appeal of nationalism grows stronger, and the clear divide between the
West and the non-West remains distinct.
At the national level, in the face of populist pressures from both the left and the
right, Western governments and political elites need to carry out substantial reforms
in such areas as electoral procedures, parliamentary systems, division of power
between central and local governments, and public supervision over the govern-
ment. In the short term, such reforms will not yield significant improvement and
may even fuel tensions. After the end of the Cold War, some “transition countries”
(like those in the Soviet bloc) and developing countries adopted a multi-party
system. Throughout their democratization processes, these countries have seen a
myriad of chaos including bribery elections, corruption, violent conflict, and
political confrontation. Some may even relapse into the previous regimes or see a
resurgence of strongman politics.
In a large number of countries, people are increasingly aggrieved at the state
establishment and the intellectual elites who advise and defend it. Some intellectual
elites, along with politicians who use anti-establishment sentiments, incite xeno-
phobic sentiments and nationalism. Thus, populism and nationalism are shaping a
new “political correctness.” On the one hand, amid weakening domestic gover-
nance and growing political polarization, the stronger xenophobic attitude and the
tougher foreign policy statements a government expresses, the greater support of
7.3 Contemporary Liberalism and Its Opposites 127

public opinion toward the government will be gathered. On the other hand,
advocating one’s own country first and implementing trade protectionism not only
fails to help tackle the domestic economic downturn and address the lack of justice,
but also causes a vicious circle of internal and external difficulties. These trends
have all constituted a fundamental challenge to liberalist thoughts that gained global
momentum immediately after the Cold War.
Despite the strong assaults from populism, nationalism, racism, religious
extremism and other trends, liberalism as a value system—along with the economic
and political institutions on which it relies—remains irreplaceable in the contem-
porary capitalist world.

References

Cited in Huizu Wenxue (Hui Literature), 2016(4), 134.

Burke, E.: Reflections on the Revolution in France. Yale University Press, New Haven (2003)
Cohen, S.M., Curd, P., Reeve, C.D.C.: Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to
Aristotle, 5th edn. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis (2016)
Constant, B.: The Liberty of Ancients Compared with That of Moderns (1819). Chinese edition:
(trans.) Yan, B., & Liu, M. (2003). : Century Publishing Group, Shanghai
Deng, X.: Take a clear-cut stand against bourgeois liberalization (December 30, 1986). Selected
Works of Deng Xiaoping: volume iii (1982–1992). Foreign Languages Press, Beijing (1994) .
For electronic version, see https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/the-united-
states-should-take-the-initiative-in-putting-an-end-to-the-strains-in-sino-american-relations/.
Accessed 24 April 2020
Freedom House: Freedom in the world 2020: a leaderless struggle for democracy. Resource
document. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FIW_2020_REPORT_
BOOKLET_Final.pdf (2020). Accessed 1 April 2020
Hardy, H.: Liberty: Isaiah Berlin, Incorporating Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press,
Oxford (2002)
Liu, Y.: Details of Democracy. SDX Joint Publishing Company, Shanghai (2009)
Mao, Z.: Combat Liberalism (September 7, 1937). Foreign Languages Press, Beijing (1967)
Mao, Z.: On coalition government. English edition (1961): Selected Works of Mao Zedong, vol. 3,
pp. 203–270. Foreign Languages Press, Beijing (1945). Resource document. Wilson Center
History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/
document/121326. Accessed 19 March 2020
Mao, Z.: On coalition government. In English edition (1961): Selected Works of Mao Zedong, vol.
3, pp. 203–270. Foreign Language Press, Beijing (1945). Resource document. Wilson Center
History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/
document/121326. Accessed 19 March 2020.
Marx, K., Engels, F.: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Collected Works, volume 25: Engels.
Lawrence & Wishart, London (1987)
Marx, K., Engels, F., Harvey, D.: Communist Manifesto. Pluto Press, London (2008)
Mill, J.S.: On Liberty. The Floating Press, Auckland (2009)
Miller, D.: Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York
(2003)
Minogue, K.: Politics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York (2000)
Montesquieu, C.: The Spirit of the Laws. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)
Popper, K.: The Open Society and Its Enemies (new one-volume edition). Princeton University
Press, Princeton and Oxford (2013)
128 7 Freedom

Sartori, G.: The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham House Publishers, Chatham New
Jersey (1987)
Stavrianos, L.S.: A Global History: From Prehistory to the 21st Century, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall
Inc., New Jersey (1990)
The Constitution of the Russian Federation: Resource document. https://www.constitution.ru/en/
10003000-01.htm (1993) . Accessed 20 March 2020.
The United Nations: The universal declaration of human rights. Resource document. https://www.
un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html (1948). Accessed 20 March 2020
Xu, Z.: Freedom that originates from life. J. Int. Stud. 3, 88–104 (2006)
Yang, Y.: Freedom in the centralized system of ancient China. J. Soc. Sci. 9, 94 (2016)
Yi, L.: The idea of freedom of ancient Greeks. Collect. Pap. Hist. Stud. 2, 98–105 (2004)
Chapter 8
Interactions Among the Five Goals

8.1 Ranking of Priority and Choice

Can the five goals—security, wealth, faith, justice, and freedom—be ranked in
order of importance? My answer is a definite “no.” In general, it might seem that the
security of individuals, groups, and nations should be set as the top political goal.
On the other hand, the American Revolution gave us this famous saying: “Give me
liberty or give me death” (Henry 1775). The Hungarian poet Sandor Petofi’s fol-
lowing verses have also been recited worldwide: “Liberty and love, these two I
must have… For my love I’ll sacrifice my life. For liberty I’ll sacrifice my love.”
Petofi also sacrificed his own life on the battlefield fighting for his country’s liberty
(Bodolai 1978). Therefore, in certain circumstances, even life and safety must give
way to other goals.
Politicians, thinkers, and scholars of all generations recognize the state as the
most important political actor. However, they do not have consensus on what the
most important goal of the state is. Is the meaning of its existence to maintain
security and stability, to advance national economy and people’s livelihoods, to
uphold common beliefs, to safeguard equality and justice, or to preserve citizens’
right to freedom? Politicians and scholars have divergent opinions. Also, there are
important historical figures who hold and represent the various viewpoints. History
has shown that achieving one ultimate goal often requires giving up on others, at
least temporarily. But such struggles usually lead to social imbalances and even
disasters. Therefore, I think the five goals are in parallel and of equal importance.
In theory, the five basic political goals pursued by humankind are mutually
reinforcing. In practice, however, they are often incompatible. For the sake of
freedom, equality, justice, and belief, or by using these values as an excuse, groups
and countries often resort to violence against one another at the expense of peace,
security, and wealth. More often than not, individual freedom and equality for all
cannot coexist. Individuals, groups, nations and countries may have different belief
systems, but they tend to believe that their own beliefs are the most noble and

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 129

W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_8
130 8 Interactions Among the Five Goals

inalienable. Political unity and harmony as well as conflict and confrontation also
arise from faith.
People in contemporary China believe that the nation’s noble goals are making
the motherland rich and strong, achieving national rejuvenation and advancing
people’s happiness. Undeniably, however, many politically influential people in the
world do not take the prosperity of their countries as their own responsibility, or
regard the countries of their residence as the most important object of loyalty.
Shortly after the end of the Cold War, the American political scientist Samuel
Huntington proposed a concept of “the clash of civilizations.” He defined “civi-
lizations” by religious beliefs, and specifically described the resurging post-Cold
War confrontation between Western civilization and Islamic civilization. In spite of
the increasingly apparent flaws in Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis, his
argument about the great impact of religious beliefs on international politics
remains compelling. The premise of the theory is that compared with material
factors like economic interests and state power, spiritual factors such as religions,
cultural traditions, ethnic identities, values, and ideologies are more influential in
shaping political motivations. As Huntington stated, “In the modern world, religion
is a central, perhaps the central, force that motivates and mobilizes people.”
(Huntington 1993).
The brutal and continuous religious wars in the history of Europe and the Middle
East have highlighted the relationships between peace, security, wealth and faith.
To be sure, religious wars are often motivated by the struggle for resources and
wealth. In recent years, however, cruel violence perpetrated by some religious
extremist forces was not necessarily intended to gain specific material interests, but
rather to achieve political objectives through religious demagoguery. Driven by a
certain “belief,” extremists are obsessed with their own “God,” disregarding moral
standards and material wealth. This reflects the factual basis of Huntington’s
assertion.
My argument that these five major political goals cannot be ranked in order of
importance is merely an intellectual observation based on contemporary global
political dynamics. It does not mean that specific individuals, groups and countries
do not sort or prioritize their goals. Political practitioners, be they Western par-
liamentarians, top leaders or grass-roots officials, certainly prioritize their work
objectives, especially in public. Their ranking can appear to be very astute and
finely-balanced. An official who inspects or lobbies various government agencies
would tell the audience in the agency, “Your work is the most significant and is the
top priority!” Objectively, that is actually true—among the departments of treasury,
industry, defense, justice, internal security, media and public relations, whose work
is not of top priority? They all are. When the U.S. president and secretary of state
visit Japan, they say, “To the United States, no country is more important than
Japan, and no bilateral relationship is more important than the U.S.-Japan rela-
tionship.” When they visit China, they proclaim, “To the United States, no country
is more important than China, and no bilateral relationship is more important than
the U.S.-China relationship.” Such a narrative is a statement of fact, but more of
diplomatic rhetoric. Juxtaposing top priorities means there is no real first priority.
8.1 Ranking of Priority and Choice 131

That said, in specific circumstances and times, parliamentarians, government

leaders, and diplomats always know clearly what the genuine first priority is to
them without having to specify it in public.
In international politics, it is important but very difficult to prioritize a country’s
foreign policy goals. For instance, South Korea has been faced with several dif-
ferent diplomatic objectives. Facing military threats—particularly a nuclear threat—
from North Korea, the South needs to strengthen national defense and thwart the
development of the North’s nuclear weapons. Because an armed conflict with the
North would cost the South substantial wealth and lives, Seoul must endeavor to
maintain peace on the Peninsula and improve ties with Pyongyang. As North
Koreans suffer greater hardship due to a backward economy and, given the fact that
many families on both sides were separated by the Korean War, South Korean
human rights and religious organizations demand that their government exert more
pressure on North Korea in order to force Pyongyang to change its domestic
policies, and even demand the overthrow of the current North Korean regime. The
Korean Peninsula has been split for nearly 70 years, and the reunification of the
Korean nation is the wish of several generations and the commitment of every
South Korean administration. The numerous resolutions passed by the United
Nations Security Council seek to impose severe sanctions on North Korea, but their
implementation will hurt Seoul’s relations with Pyongyang and the economic
interests of many South Korean conglomerates. As South Korea’s military ally, the
United States provides necessary security guarantees and wants to deploy the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea. But
China, South Korea’s largest economic partner, plays an important role in the
political, security and economic affairs of the Korean Peninsula, and yet Beijing
resolutely opposes the deployment of THAAD. Thus, the goals South Korea seeks
to achieve include the denuclearization of North Korea, peace and stability of the
peninsula, promoting political changes in the North, striving for South-North
reunification, maintaining South Korea-U.S. military alliance, and keeping up
friendly cooperation with China. Political leaders of successive South Korean
administrations have been unable to give up any of them. Nor can they forgo any of
the domestic political goals, including maintaining economic prosperity, increasing
employment, improving people’s livelihoods, reducing corruption, advancing jus-
tice and equality, as well as protecting the rule of law and the dignity of the people.
What should a country or a government do in the face of so many long-term
objectives and immediate tasks? Different interest groups and political parties
within South Korea, and different external political powers such as China, North
Korea, the United States and Japan, hold distinctive opinions and claims over these
political goals. They have all been pressuring the current South Korean govern-
ment, and expect it to make strategic choices in their own favor.
Putting myself in the shoes of a politician like the president of South Korea, I
think that in confronting the many choices, the best option is to never make
clear-cut strategic choices but always act according to the situation. He or she
should play it by ear, handle every issue in a balanced and appropriate manner, and
say different things tailored for different audiences and different occasions. In public
132 8 Interactions Among the Five Goals

speeches, the national leader must say certain empty rhetoric, clichés and principles,
in order to cover everything. In South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s inauguration
speech on 10 May 2017, he covered all the political goals discussed above, with
particular emphasis on fairness, justice and equality. But he didn’t say a word on
the contradictions between these goals. On his vision of governance, Moon stated,
“The new Republic of Korea we are trying to carve out is the nation that the people
before us have consistently aspired to in the face of countless frustrations and
defeats. It is the nation that our young people have longed for so ardently in spite of
many sacrifices and dedicated efforts.” (Moon 2017).
In some sense, politics is a navigation system in society. If there is not one but
five or more ultimate goals, individual politicians, political parties and countries
will have to combine these goals all together and package them into one ideal or
dream. The road to the destination is therefore winding, sometimes requiring stops,
wait-and-see or even traveling in reverse. On this, the British political scientist
Kenneth Minogue made a sharp remark: “One type of politics is, then, navigation
by ideals. The problem is, of course, that you can only steer by one star, not by
several scattered over the heavens. That means that those who promote the claims
of one star rather than another must show that it is the one star which will lead to the
satisfaction of all our strivings. But since many of our strivings are mutually
contradictory, we must give up either some of our strivings or some of these
destinations. And that is why the direction of politics must always be an outcome of
changing judgements about conflicting desirabilities. Ideals are important in poli-
tics, but in the end, realities must determine where we go, and how fast we travel.”
(Minogue 2000).
Among the five goals, there are ten bilateral relationships. In fact, the five goals
have overlapping intensions and extensions. Going through each of the ten bilateral
relationships can thus be redundant, not substantially meaningful, and lacking
focus. Therefore, I’ll only explore the relationships between security and the other
goals here, to kick off a brainstorm.

8.2 Security and Wealth

Security and wealth go hand in hand. The mutual reinforcement between peace and
development is self-evident. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, to fully
implement the holistic approach to national security, “development issues will be
considered in tandem with security issues. Development provides a basis for
security, whereas security constitutes a necessary condition for development. Only
a prosperous country can build a strong military, and only a strong military can
defend our country.” (Xi 2014).
On the flip side, the correlation between poverty and violence is very easy to
understand. As Bob Dylan’s song goes, “when you got nothing, you got nothing to
lose.” The utter poor tend to resort to violence to express their dissatisfaction with
social injustice and rob others of their wealth. Therefore, curbing violence and
8.2 Security and Wealth 133

strengthening domestic security require economic growth and poverty relief.

According to Samael Huntington’s research, the majority of politically stable
countries are relatively wealthy countries; countries with higher degrees of modern
development suffer less internal violence than less-modern societies. However, he
also pointed out that poverty is not necessarily correlated to instability and that
poverty causing violence is a symptomatic phenomenon. In fact, when poor
countries try to become rich and modernized, their modernization breeds violence
and instability. According to Huntington, “political instability was rife in
20th-century Asia, Africa and Latin America in large part because the rate of
modernization was too much faster there.” (Huntington 2006) Countries in these
regions wished to achieve modernity in one stroke, while the modernization of
Europe and North America was spread over several centuries.
Some studies have shown that the relationship between economic growth and
political instability varies according to the level of economic development. In
economically developed countries, the higher rate of economic growth, the greater
degree of political stability; in countries with medium levels of economic devel-
opment, there is no clear correlation between economic growth and political sta-
bility; in underdeveloped countries, growth rate tends to correlate negatively with
political stability; that is, greater growth rate may bring about more instability. This
is because the distribution of wealth and income in poor countries is generally more
uneven than in developed countries. The immediate gains of rapid economic
development are often concentrated in the privileged classes. Those privileged,
however, normally command the government that is supposed to operate as a
balancer, making income distribution more skewed toward the rich and causing
greater inequality. With public grievances reaching a boiling point, social mobi-
lization by any political party, organization or external force could set in motion
rebellion and political unrest (Huntington 2006).
Violence hinders economic development and peace promotes wealth accumu-
lation. Peaceful countries can successfully emerge out of poverty, which tends to be
exacerbated in countries torn apart by civil wars, ethnic conflict and organized
crimes. The 1994 Rwandan civil war and genocide brought an immense disaster to
the country, further impoverishing the already poverty-stricken country as well as
depriving it of large numbers of laborers. Collapse in national economy and fiscal
depletion ensued. Since the end of the civil war, Rwanda’s economy has gradually
recovered. Rwanda’s annual rate of gross domestic product (GDP) growth has
reached 7% since 2012. It has been repeatedly listed as “the fastest reforming
economy in sub-Saharan Africa” by the World Bank and other international
organizations.
However, the two goals—security and wealth—may also clash. Wealth accu-
mulation in world history, especially the primitive accumulation of capital, has been
riddled with violent plunder, border disputes and wars. Precedents for the “peaceful
rise” of great powers are few. Japan and Germany were the strongest countries in
Asia and Europe, respectively, before World War II. Japan’s heavy industries,
especially its automobile sector, was as advanced as that of Europe and the United
States. Its shipbuilding tonnage ranked third in the world, just behind the U.K. and
134 8 Interactions Among the Five Goals

the U.S. Japan established an advanced aircraft manufacturing industry, a

well-developed national transportation network, and rapidly evolving technologies
in the production of consumer goods. Japan also made its colony in Northeast
China an important industrial base to alleviate its own resource shortages. From
1933 to 1939, the scale of Germany’s heavy industry and armament industry grew
by 2.1 times, its output of consumer goods increased by 43%, and its gross national
product (GNP) more than doubled. During the same period, Germany built a
national highway network, restructured the infrastructure architecture of its heavy
industry, and equipped a modern army. It took Germany only six years to surpass
Britain and France and become the strongest power in Europe. However, the rapid
growth in wealth also boosted Japan’s and Germany’s ambitions for expansion. In
the name of safeguarding national security, Japan and Germany waged wars of
aggression in Asia and Europe, respectively, and both ended in disastrous defeat.
Wealth is limited, but the need for security is unlimited. How much material
wealth a country should spend on meeting the needs of national security and
domestic stability—namely, the question of “cannon or butter”—has been an issue
faced by every sovereign state in modern times.
North Korea is a poor country, but has always pursued “military-first” (Songun)
politics, which prioritizes the military forces in state affairs and as the backbone and
mainstay of the country. North Korean leaders have repeatedly stressed that no
matter how grave the country’s economic difficulties become, its defense spending
must be guaranteed. North Korea’s regular army takes the greatest proportion in its
population as compared to all other countries in the world, and its military spending
ranks first in the world in percentage of its GDP. To the North Koreans, the fate of
their country does not depend on the size of its territory and population, but rather
on its military strength, and building a strong army is key to strengthening overall
national power. The North Korean army must vow to protect its leaders at all cost
and prevent hostile forces from infiltrating in domestic military, political and
economic affairs.
Clearly, the North Korean leaders’ prioritization of strengthening the military
and developing nuclear weapons is politically calculated to protect their regime and
authority. However, whether the building of military power at the expense of
economic development and people’s living standards, while staging a show of force
abroad, is really enhancing its national security remains questionable.
The relationship between Russia’s defense spending and economic development
is also a question worth exploring. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union spent
tremendous wealth on a prolonged arms race with the United States. To a certain
extent, the Soviet Union was crippled by excessive military spending. According to
one controversial view in China, Russia is admired as a “warrior nation.” This view
argues that due to its vast territory and low population density, Russia is prone to
foreign invasion and has experienced numerous wars throughout history.
Consequently, it has to spend more on defense than many other countries.
After the end of the Cold War, Russia waged two costly Chechen wars in the
1990s, and had a brief border war with Georgia in 2008. In the Ukrainian crisis that
began in 2013, Russia first occupied Crimea, and then launched large-scale military
8.2 Security and Wealth 135

operations in Eastern Ukraine and Syria. Despite its economic downturn in recent
years, Russia’s military expenditure has remained at high levels. In 2016, Russia
ranked 12th in the world in terms of GDP and 5th in terms of defense budget.
Moscow clearly felt the unbearable pressure of military spending on its economy in
the mid-2010s. In June 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated: “There is an
understanding that an effectively functioning economy is a priority for the state.
Therefore, the army must be compact, but modern and effective. But we are already
spending quite a lot. These expenses reached more than three percent [of GDP] last
year. It will return gradually to 2.7–2.8% of GDP in the next three years (Sputnik
2017)”. It is safe to conclude that Putin understands that increased military spending
will not necessarily bring about greater national security.
The end of the Cold War bestowed a “peace dividend” on the United States
under President Bill Clinton, as the country achieved rapid economic growth in part
by cutting off military expenditures. Around 1999, however, U.S. military spending
was beefed up again due to its involvement in the Kosovo War. The American
defense budget at one point equaled the combined military expenditures of all other
major powers. In spite of its powerful military force, the United States was hard hit
by terrorist attacks on its soil on September 11th, 2001. After Donald Trump took
office in 2017, his administration slashed budgets of the State Department and
foreign aid, but significantly increased military spending while requiring its
European and East Asian military allies to raise their defense budgets to ease U.S.
security burdens. The Trump administration put strong pressure on the European
members the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to raise their military
budgets to the level of 2% of GDP. At present, the United States contributes
approximately 70% of NATO’s defense budget. For many years, the U.S. has kept
its annual defense expenditure at 4.4–4.8% of its GDP. By 2017, among its NATO
allies, only the military expenditures of Greece, the U.K., Estonia and Poland met
the target of 2% of GDP, and Germany’s defense spending only counted for 1.2%
of its GDP. For many years, Japan’s military spending has been less than 1% of its
GDP.
These comparisons raise the following questions: To what extent can the
increase in defense spending strengthen national security? Given the low ratios of
military expenditure to GDP of today’s Germany and Japan, are the two countries
less secure than the U.S. or Russia?
Obviously, there is no simple answer to these questions. It is certain that a
country’s security is not directly correlated to how much wealth it spends on
developing military power. Another relevant and noteworthy issue is that politically
influential interest groups, under the pretext of strengthening national security, have
pocketed billions of dollars from major powers’ advanced weapon development or
procurement programs. Dwight Eisenhower, a well-respected American WWII
hero, made a surprising clarion call to the nation at the end of his presidential term
in 1961: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist (Eisenhower 1961).” The phenomenon that the military-industrial complex
136 8 Interactions Among the Five Goals

unduly wields its influence and lobbies the Congress and government to raise
military spending has not only persisted, but also intensified. In the last few years,
powerful military-industrial groups have often been behind those who exaggerated
China’s security threat to the U.S.
“Backwardness invites bullying” is a notion deeply etched into the minds of
many Chinese. It has been strongly borne out by Chinese textbooks on modern
history. However, this assertion is only partly true in world history. Genghis Khan,
a reckless warrior from the Mongolian steppe, did not possess a big war chest or
advanced weapons. Dubbed as someone who “only knew how to shoot eagles with
his bending bow,” as one of Mao Zedong’s poems depicted, Genghis Khan actually
not only conquered today’s Northern China, but also launched expeditions to
Central and Eastern Europe, and even occupied coasts of the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean. It couldn’t possibly be true that China’s Song Dynasty and those
ancient Eurasian civilizations were more backward than the Mongol Empire at that
time. When Japan staged the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and when the
terrorists following Osama bin Laden hijacked two airplanes that crashed into the
World Trade Center in New York City on September 11th, 2001, the “beaten”
United States was far more powerful than Japan and Al-Qaeda. Many underde-
veloped countries in the world today do not fear being bullied by big powers, but
are more concerned about domestic instability and poverty. Many Chinese are
convinced that if their nation were weak it would get trampled, and no other country
would dare to bully a rich and strong China. They have actually fallen into the trap
of the simplistic law of the jungle where the weak are the prey to the strong.
Moreover, they have ignored the importance of political institutions, moral ground,
social harmony, and ethnic unity of their nation, and overlooked the weight of soft
power in world politics.
The contradiction between the two goals of security and wealth is increasingly
manifested in the field of nontraditional security. Economic development inevitably
causes a series of non-traditional security issues, especially environmental pollution
and climate change, which in turn affect human health and biodiversity. Sadly,
since the modern European industrial revolution, humankind’s accumulation of
wealth has run full parallel with the degradation of the ecological environment. The
development of modern industry, agriculture and tertiary industry all requires
expanding manufacturing and infrastructure, and consumes enormous natural
resources. In the era of economic globalization, a large number of energy-intensive
and high-polluting industries have been moved from developed countries to
developing countries. Manufacturing giants like China and India are among the
most ecologically damaged countries.
Accounts on China’s economic loss caused by environmental pollution differ.
According to a fairly authoritative argument, environmental pollution costs 5–6%
of China’s GDP per year. The costs include monetary expenses and losses—such as
company expense on sewage treatment, harvest reduction in agriculture and fishery,
and partial ecological loss, as well as the unmeasurable harms to human health and
resulting medical expenses (Liang 2012). According to the estimate from economic
8.2 Security and Wealth 137

modeling by British researchers in 2016, climate change would cut the value of
global financial assets by US$2.5 trillion (Dietz et al. 2016).

8.3 Interaction of Security with Faith, Justice,

and Freedom

The history of world politics has been littered with violent protests, armed revo-
lutions, civil and international wars as a result of repression of individual and
national freedom and social injustice. Class and national oppression, religious
persecution, and colonial rule beget fierce resistance, whereas rulers resort to vio-
lent suppression in the name of safeguarding national security.
The tensions between the demand for freedom and justice and the pursuit of
national security and stability, as well as the ensuing vicious cycles, have been on
display in the “Color Revolutions” and “Arab Spring” in Eastern Europe, Central
Asia and the Middle East in the past decade or so. In early 2011, political turmoil
erupted in Tunisia and Egypt, giving rise to what the West has called the “Arab
Spring.” Shortly after, a serious conflict broke out in Syria between the Bashar
al-Assad government and the Syrian opposition, which has morphed into a pro-
tracted civil war. Years of civil war in Syria have displaced large numbers of
people, and destroyed their homes. According to some statistics, about 250,000
people have died in the civil war, about 11 million people have become refugees,
and many of them have been exiled to neighboring countries and Europe. The
Assad administration, supported by Russia, Iran and a few other countries, claims
that its goal is to maintain national security, stability, solidarity and unity, and to
stand against Western countries’ forceful interference in Syria’s internal affairs. The
opposition is made up of a welter of groups, whose only common goal is to
overthrow the Assad regime. It blames the current Syrian government for only
representing Allawi Muslims (a branch of Shia), which make up a small minority of
the Syrian population. The opposition calls for a government which can fairly
represent different ethnicities, religions and denominations. The Syrian opposition
is supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, among others. In addition to the
government and the opposition, there are Al Qaeda, the extremist forces of the
“Islamic State,” Kurdish organizations who demand freedom and independence,
and so forth. In the eyes of the Assad administration, it is impossible to maintain
national security and unity without defeating the opposition and its armed forces.
Meanwhile, the opposition believes that as long as Bashar al-Assad is still in power,
there would be no justice, freedom, or peace. Both sides attempt to claim the high
moral ground but both suffer moral deficiencies.
The moral dilemma among security, faith, justice and freedom is even on more
vivid display in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. For decades,
violent tit-for-tat between Palestine and Israel has led to countless casualties and the
displacement of Palestinians. Both sides insist that their violent act is to maintain
138 8 Interactions Among the Five Goals

their own security and pursue justice, equality and freedom. In fact, the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict has deep historical roots. As early as the thirteenth
century BC, the Hebrew, ancestors of Israelis, settled in Palestine and established
the Jewish state. Later, foreign nations continued to invade the Palestine area,
forcing a large number of Jews into exile, most of whom migrated to Europe. Jews
were oppressed and excluded by some local people in Europe. During World
War II, they were horrendously slaughtered and persecuted by Nazi Germany. After
the anti-Fascist war, with the support of Britain, the United States and other
countries, Jews scattered around the world “returned to their homeland” and “re-
vived” their country in the Palestine area. The State of Israel was established in
1948 and recognized by the United Nations. In the eyes of Israelis and their sup-
porters, the founding of the State of Israel meant that the Jewish people regained
justice, freedom and independence, while safeguarding their own security during
various wars with Arab countries was justified. To them, Israel’s “moral superi-
ority” is also bolstered by its formidable military, technical and economic strength.
However, the Arabs have also lived in the Palestinian area for more than a
thousand years. A large number of Palestinian Arabs were driven into exile by the
forcible settlement of the Jewish people into the Palestinian area after WWII. It may
be unfair for the Palestinians, who were not responsible for the exclusion and
destruction suffered by the Jews in history, to be expelled from their homeland to
make way for Israel’s “restoration.” The Israelis not only occupied a large area of
fertile plains and fresh water resources in the Palestinian area from the outset, but
have also continuously encroached on the land of the Palestinians through various
means for more than 60 years since its establishment. With support from the
Western countries in the previous five wars with Arab countries, Israel won all the
wars and gained more territories. Israel also maintains longstanding and actual
control of Jerusalem, the Holy Land regarded by Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Israel has adopted many discriminatory policies against Palestinians.
Due to the entanglement of issues such as religion, land, resources and history,
to this day the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has continued to defy appropriate solu-
tions. In many aspects, such as peace, security, justice, equality, freedom and
religious belief, both parties, convinced of their self-claimed sufficient moral jus-
tifications, expect support from both their own people and the international com-
munity. To further complicate matters, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often seen
as a microcosm of the “clash of civilizations” between Islamic civilization and
Western civilization. Although the Palestinians cannot represent Islamic civiliza-
tion, nor can Israel represent Western civilization, the state of play in their political
struggle has been determined by the balance of power in strength and discursive
power strongly in favor of Israel and its international supporters over Palestine and
its international cohorts.
“Freedom, equality, fraternity,” the resounding slogan of the French Revolution,
together with many daily political conversations, has led people to equate freedom
with equality and justice. In fact, there are many contradictions and discords among
the three goals in theory and practice (Dietz et al. 2016). American historians Will
Durant and Ariel Durant (1968) said: “Nature smiles at the union of freedom and
8.3 Interaction of Security with Faith, Justice, and Freedom 139

equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting ene-
mies…To check the growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed, as in Russia
after 1917…only the man who is below the average in economic ability desires
equality; those who are conscious of superior ability desire freedom; and in the end
superior ability has its way.”
Why did the Durants contend that “freedom and equality are sworn and ever-
lasting enemies” (Durant and Durant 1968)? They explained that, in terms of the
law of nature in biology, all human beings are created unequal, with differences in
gender, physical strength and intelligence. If each individual seeks free develop-
ment without the society providing some kind of care to the inborn weak, there will
be no equality; in other words, equality can only be achieved through the constraint
of some people’s freedom. Therefore, the weak and vulnerable groups often
advocate equality, while the strong demand freedom.1
It is also fair to ask whether inequality that appears to be determined by the “law
of nature” may be a consequence of social inequality. For example, the sickness of
an infant at birth may be caused by the lack of nutrition of his/her poor parents. The
“inborn” inequality cannot be separated from the “acquired” inequality caused by
society.
Regarding the relationship between freedom and equality, Karl Popper proposed
the famous “paradox of freedom,” claiming that freedom is more important than
equality: If freedom means that everyone can do whatever he wants without any
restriction, then some people will be at liberty to dominate and even enslave others.
Unlimited freedom, in return, leads to its opposite. But freedom cannot be sacrificed
for equality. Abolishing free competition in order to control economic inequality
cannot achieve economic equality, because freedom is more important than
equality. If freedom is lost, there will be no equality in a society (Popper 2013; Yu
2015).
In discussing the relationship between equality and freedom, Giovanni Sartori
also advocated that there is a procedural linkage that “liberty must materialize, in
time and in fact, before equality (Sartori 1987).” His reasoning is that without
freedom, people would not even have the right to speak about equality. If there is a
kind of equality that both predates and has no relation to freedom, it is the equality
between slaves or equality among lowly people, but this has nothing to do with the
equalities we cherish. When analyzing why the American people could succeed in
fighting for social equality, Liu Yu said: “In this sense, freedom can be regarded as
the mother of equality: it is the very freedom to fight ‘freedom’ that makes the
achievement of ‘equality’ possible … There wouldn’t be any equality to talk about
without freedom. This is the truth revealed by the history of American politics (Liu
2009).”
An example of freedom being more important than equality is popular elections
under autocracy. In Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s iron-fisted rule, presidential
elections were also “one person, one vote,” which seemed very “equal.” It was a

1
Ibid.
140 8 Interactions Among the Five Goals

foregone conclusion that Saddam Hussein always won the elections with almost
unanimous votes. However, voters did not actually have the freedom of choice.
Therefore, the freedom of choice is more important than the “equality” of “one
person, one vote” in democratic elections.
Sartori has put forward an interesting point that once people enjoy freedom
which stimulates the desire for equality, the appeal of equality will be stronger than
the ideal of freedom (Sartori 1987). This is because equality can be given a tangible
meaning and also produce benefits, including material benefits, while the benefits of
freedom are invisible and intangible. This is why economic equality has such a
strong appeal in the modern age.
John Rawls’s view is unique when it comes to the relative importance of justice,
equality, and freedom. He insists that justice is the first, and equality should take
precedence over freedom. His thought can be called “egalitarian liberalism (Rawls
2001).” The American scholar Mortimer J. Adler believes that among liberty,
equality and justice, “[o]nly justice is an unlimited good, as we shall presently see.
One can want too much liberty and too much equality—more than it is good for us
to have in relation to our fellowmen, and more than we have any right to. Not so
with justice. No society can be too just; no individual can act more justly than is
good for him or for his fellowmen (Adler 1981).”
The Western policy orientations and social thoughts have oscillated between
justice (equality) and freedom for a long time. The “Affirmative Action” imple-
mented in the United States after the 1960s can well explain why equality is
attractive, and the complex relationship between equality and freedom. Mandated
by Federal legislations, Affirmative Action and its related policies aimed to reduce
discrimination and inequity in employment, education and other areas so that
minority groups including Afro-Americans and disadvantaged groups like women
who have been discriminated against for generations can compete with the whites
and men on an equal footing. The U.S. government has implemented a series of
remedial programs that give certain preferences and priorities to minorities and
women in terms of school admission, government loans, distribution of scholar-
ships, employment, and promotion. For example, if a university has a vacant
professorship, and a white male and a black female, both with a doctorate and other
similar qualifications apply for the position at the same time, then the black woman
should be recruited. Later the “Affirmative Action” extended to vulnerable groups
such as the disabled and veterans, who naturally welcome such policies and
regulations.
Inevitably, some overcorrections can occur during the implementation of
“Affirmative Action.” For example, many U.S. universities lowered their admission
standards for the minorities, especially Afro-Americans (but no preferential treat-
ment to the Asians since they have better academic performance). Under equal
capability and qualifications, minority groups such as Afro-Americans, women, and
the disabled enjoyed the priority to be recruited. In this context, some white men
believed that they were treated unfairly, arguing that the policy also benefited those
who had not experienced discrimination. Therefore, some white Americans accused
Affirmative Action of “reverse discrimination,” which deprived them of
8.3 Interaction of Security with Faith, Justice, and Freedom 141

opportunities to which they were entitled. Therefore, it was inequitable. Some

opponents also pointed out that Affirmative Action was based on ethnicity and
gender, irrespective of the beneficiaries’ actual economic status. Some of the
beneficiaries were in fact quite wealthy, whereas many whites were in dire need of
government assistance. Even some of the minorities were dismissive of the
Affirmative Action, arguing that this differential treatment was nothing but treating
them as “second-class citizens.”
In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the blue-collar and lower-income
middle-class voters among white Americans were said to be Donald Trump’s main
base of support. Long ignored by political and intellectual elites, these groups were
unable to benefit from Affirmative Action and related policies. On the contrary, they
felt they even fell victim to the so-called “fair treatment” sought by the Democrats
for the minorities and immigrants. In the eyes of these Trump supporters, it was
they, not the minorities and immigrants, who had been treated unequally and
unfairly in the United States today. Many of them had long been fed up with Barack
Obama’s eight-year “black” U.S. presidency. They protested that the principle of
“political correctness” had taken hold in American society; namely, not to offend
minorities, women, homosexuals or people with different beliefs and political
opinions. They asked: Was it just that only white Americans of European descent
could be offended at will? Or was it right that only the “WASP culture” as the
national foundation could be attacked? Did this live up to the principle of freedom
and fairness?
The question of “who discriminates against whom” between the whites and the
blacks is also emerging in contemporary South Africa. In 1994, the black liberation
movement led by Nelson Mandela succeeded, and Mandela was elected President
of South Africa, ending the whites’ domination and the apartheid in the country.
After the apartheid was abolished, the government launched a large number of
preferential policies and regulations for black people, such as the “Black Economic
Empowerment” (BEE) and “Employment Equity Act,” stipulating employment
quotas for black citizens. Many white people were fired while some of them with
professional skills and wealth chose to move abroad. How to evaluate the social and
economic consequences of these preferential policies for blacks in South Africa is a
controversial issue.
The Malays are the indigenous people of Malaysia. After the founding of
Malaysia Federation, the Malaysian government’s economic, social, educational,
and demographic policies have been biased toward the Malays. The proportion of
Chinese Malaysians in Malaysian population has fallen from 38% in the early days
of its foundation to 25% today. Many Chinese Malaysians believe they have been
discriminated against or treated unequally, but the average income of them is still
higher than that of the Malay population.
Through the cases of the United States, South Africa and Malaysia, we can see a
similar phenomenon: If the government allocates social resources according to the
principle of freedom and treats all ethnic groups equally without discrimination,
then the advantageous position of white people in American and South African
societies is set to continue, or even increase. Chinese Malaysians are far richer and
142 8 Interactions Among the Five Goals

better educated than Malays. This is something of “equal treatment.” However, if

the aim is “equal outcome,” that is, the minorities (actually the majorities in South
Africa and Malaysia) and women would enjoy education opportunities, job
opportunities, and income commensurate with their population proportions in order
to redress past discrimination, then adopting compulsory preferential policy,
namely “treating different groups unequally,” would become necessary. It is diffi-
cult to find satisfactory answers to the paradoxes of freedom, justice and equality,
both in theory and in practice.
In modern world politics, the left-wing advocates safeguarding the interests of
the lower and middle class in society to create a more equitable distribution of
wealth and basic rights, while the right wing supports market economy tools based
on economic freedom and private property. Put more simply, the left emphasizes
equality and the right stresses freedom, while both sides consider their claims to be
fair and rational. Traditionally, the differences between the Democrats and the
Republicans in the United States as well as the divergences between the left-wing
and right-wing political parties in Europe can all be understood along these lines.
Nonetheless, against the backdrop of globalization and informatization, the
boundary between “left” and “right” is no longer so clear-cut. For example,
President Trump is supposed to represent the Republican Party, which has always
been regarded as “right-wing” or conservative. However, his inaugural speech in
January 2017 was full of “leftist” arguments. For instance, he claimed that he
represented the suffering masses to regain power from the nobles and the estab-
lishment. He did not mention American traditional values such as freedom and
democracy at all, but devoted his full attention to populism. Trump declared: “…
today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or
from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C.,
and giving it back to you—the people.” Donald Trump’s inauguration speech
transcript (2017).
In the global context, it used to be that developing countries demanded equality
from developed countries to protect their national industries, while developed
countries demanded the opening of international political borders and liberalization
of trade and investment. However, today the United States is demanding equality
from the developing countries, erecting trade and investment barriers in certain
areas, and building high walls to stop the influx of immigrants from Mexico. By
contrast, some emerging developing countries advocate further movement of goods
and labor between countries. In the past, the blacks flew the flag against racial
discrimination but now it is the white people’s turn to attack “reverse racial dis-
crimination” in America. Not only do these trends reflect the changing power
balance between developed and emerging countries and the changing global social
structure, but also they attach new meanings to concepts such as fairness, freedom,
and security, and bring changes to the world’s political thoughts.
References 143

References

Adler, M. (1981). Six Great Ideas: Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Liberty, Equality, Justice. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Bodolai, Z. (1978). The timeless nation: The history, literature, music, art and folklore of the
Hungarian nation. Budapest: Hungaria Publishing Company. https://www.hungarianhistory.
com/lib/timeless/chapter23.htm. Accessed April 25, 2020.
Dietz, S., Bowen, A., Dixon, C., & Gradwell, P. (2016). ‘Climate value at risk’ of global financial
assets. Nature Climate Change, 6, 676–679. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2972.
Accessed April 27, 2020.
Donald Trump’s inauguration speech transcript. Resource document. Politico, January 20, 2017.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/full-text-donald-trump-inauguration-speech-
transcript-233907. Accessed April 10, 2020.
Durant, W., & Durant, A. (1968). The Lessons of History. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Military-industrial complex speech. Resource document. Yale Law
School Lillian Goldman Law Library. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/
eisenhower001.asp. Accessed April 26, 2020.
Henry, P. (1775). Give me liberty or give me death. Resource document. Yale Law School Lillian
Goldman Law Library. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp. Accessed April
25, 2020.
Huntington, S. P. (1993). If not civilization, what? Paradigms of post-Cold War world. Foreign
Affairs, 72(5), 191–192.
Huntington, S. P. (2006). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
Liang, J. (2012, March 13). Former vice-minister of environmental protection: environmental
pollution costed China over two trillion Yuan last year. China News.com. Resource document.
People’s Daily Online. https://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1027/17365248.html. Accessed
April 26, 2020.
Liu, Y. (2009). Details of Democracy. Shanghai: SDX Joint Publishing Company.
Minogue, K. (2000). Politics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moon, J. (2017). Inauguration address to the nation. Resource document. Embassy of the Republic
of Korea to the Commonwealth of Australia. https://overseas.mofa.go.kr/viewer/skin/doc.html?
fn=file_20170524123&rs=/viewer/result/202004. Accessed April 25, 2020.
Popper, K. (2013). The Open Society and Its Enemies (new one-volume edition). Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sartori, G. (1987). The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham New Jersey: Chatham House
Publishers.
Sputnik. (2017, June 15). Russia to cut defense spending to 2.7–2.8% of GDP. Sputnik
International. https://sputniknews.com/military/201706151054644820-russia-cut-defence-
spending/. Accessed April 25, 2020.
Xi, J. (2014). A holistic view of national security (on international situation and diplomatic
strategy). Resource document. China Academy of Translation. https://www.china.org.cn/
english/china_key_words/2016-12/20/content_39946739.htm. Accessed April 25, 2020.
Yu, K. (2015). A Reader of Classics of Western Political Science. Nanchang: Jiangxi People’s
Publishing House.
Chapter 9
Road to an Ideal Republic

9.1 Standards of the Republic

Many modern politicians and thinkers have described what they see as the ideal
society. For example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels envisioned the communist
society. Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Republic of China, developed the concept
of “Great Unity” (tian xia da tong). However, these ideal societies were all based on
the demise of the state. At present, there is no real prospect for sounding the death
knell of the state. Many publications present their trajectories of world politics in
the next 50 or 100 years, but I have not found any forecasting that the sovereign
state system or the state as a polity will decline in the foreseeable future. I think that
even in the long run, a more realistic political goal is not to promote the withering
of the state and the state system, but to build a relatively well-governed sovereign
state.
The core concept discussed by the Greek philosopher Plato in his famous book
The Republic is justice. He pointed out that justice is the organizing principle of the
ideal state (Plato 1986). He divided the human soul into three parts. The most
important aspect was “to learn,” or to know the truth, rather than to strive for money
and honor. This can also be described as “the love for learning and the love for
wisdom.” The two lesser aspects of the soul were “the love for money” and “the
love for honor.” Those people whose soul was ruled by the first aspect were called
the “wisdom-lovers” or the “philosophers”; those ruled by money were called the
“gain-lovers”; and those ruled by honor were called the “honor-lovers.” According
to Plato, three types of happiness correspond to these three types of people. Only
the happiness of the wisdom-lovers was “true happiness” and “pure pleasure,”
which could not be experienced by the gain-lovers and the honor-lovers. A polity

© CITIC Press Corporation 2021 145

W. Jisi, Essential Goals in World Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0562-8_9
146 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

with justice should be governed by wisdom-lovers or philosophers. The positions of

both the gain-lovers (such as farmers, craftsmen, and businessmen) and
honor-lovers (such as soldiers) should be inferior to that of a philosopher. In Plato’s
“republic” (i.e. the “ideal state”), justice was primary, while military and wealth
were secondary. To Plato’s mind, it was obvious that states should be guided by
elite politics instead of populism.
Confucius and Plato can be regarded as more or less contemporaries because
they lived in the same period of human history. Although the conditions of
city-states in ancient Greece and the Spring and Autumn period of China were
vastly different, Confucius and Plato shared remarkable similarities in their political
perspectives. The core idea in Confucius’s writing, The Analects (Lun Yu), was
“humanity” (ren). Confucius’s most famous saying about politics was “to govern
means to rectify.” This exactly coincides with Plato’s idea that the core principle of
the ideal state was justice.
The Analects contains the following passage:
Tsze-kung (Zi Gong) asked Confucius about governing. The Master (Confucius)
replied, “The requisites of government are that there be sufficiency of food, suffi-
ciency of military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their rulers.”
Tsze-kung said, “If one of these must be dispensed with, which of the three should
be foregone first?” “The military equipment,” said the Master. Tsze-kung again
asked, “If it cannot be helped, and one of the remaining two must be dispensed
with, which of them should be foregone?” The Master answered, “Part with the
food. From of old, death has been the lot of all people; but if the people have no
faith in their rulers, there is no standing for the state” (Qian 2012).
Confucius believed that governing a country required three minimum condi-
tions: food, army and trust from people. Trust was the most significant among the
three. Without people’s trust of the governor, the country could not survive with
food and military alone.
The Analects also mentioned: “When the Master went to Wei, Ran You acted as
driver of his carriage. The Master observed, ‘How numerous are the people!’ Ran
You said, ‘Since they are thus numerous, what more shall be done for them?’
‘Enrich them’, was the reply. ‘And when they have been enriched, what more shall
be done?’ The Master said, ‘Teach them’.” (Qian 2012).
What Confucius means is that when there are many people, the governor needs
to let them get rich; once they are rich, they need to be educated. In other words,
enriching people precedes educating people.
Although from different angles, Plato and Confucius actually offered three cri-
teria for an “ideal state,” which should promote justice, be prosperous, and have an
army to maintain dignity and security. When Plato and Confucius were alive,
religions like Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam did not come into being or were
not yet popular. There were no ideologies in the modern sense. Therefore, at that
time, the term “faith” as referred to in this book had yet to take shape. What this
book describes as faith and justice may correspond to what Confucius called “trust”
and “rectification,” as well as the goal of “teaching.” “Individual freedom” in the
modern sense was an extremely rare commodity indeed since basic survival was not
9.1 Standards of the Republic 147

even guaranteed in ancient societies where slavery and sacrificial burial were
widely practiced.
Measured by the five ultimate goals presented in this book, a successful,
admirable country should have the following five characteristics: First, it should be
free from serious external and internal security threats and enjoy a high degree of
political stability and low rates of violent crime. Second, both the country and its
people should be reasonably wealthy and enjoy steady economic growth. Third, the
country should have a generally unified belief system, moral standards, and
mainstream values, while tolerating other beliefs. Its citizens should have a strong
sense of national identity. Fourth, the gap between the rich and the poor should be
insignificant, and equality should be well reflected in education and the social
security system. Social injustice can be rectified through legal and policy adjust-
ments, while official corruption can be effectively constrained. Fifth, citizens’ right
to freedom should be fully guaranteed, and individual freedom should be consistent
with the freedom of the nation and the state. It can be said that the five-in-one
combination of security, wealth, faith, justice and freedom serves as an organic
matrix for measuring a country’s success or failure.
According to the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama (2011), a good
modern political system, or a “successful country,” should be based on a strong
state, the rule of law, and democratic accountability. Fukuyama raves that
“Denmark is a mythical place that is known to have good political and economic
institutions: it is stable, democratic, peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, and has
extremely low levels of political corruption.” In her introductory remarks to the
Chinese edition of Fukuyama’s book, Political Order and Political Decay
Fukuyama (2014), the Chinese political scientist Liu Yu summarizes “how to get to
Denmark” in these words: “the rule of law, democracy, and an efficient and clean
government” (Liu 2015).
My intention is not to deny the criteria proposed by Fukuyama to measure
successful countries; rather, I aim to demonstrate, through the five-goal indicator
system developed in this book, why countries like Denmark can be identified as
successful. If Fukuyama is concerned with “how to make countries as successful as
Denmark,” my discussion focuses on “what makes Denmark successful.”
Danish writer Hans Christian Andersen is famous for his beautiful fairy tales,
and Denmark is also known as the “kingdom of fairy tale.” In the eyes of the world,
Denmark is admired in many ways. Since its industrialization after the second half
of the nineteenth century, Denmark maintained its neutralism in Europe, always
staying away from war turmoil. On April 9, 1940, Nazi Germany broke its promise
and invaded Denmark. Denmark announced its surrender the next day, and its
economy did not suffer major damages in World War II.
Denmark was one of the first member states when NATO was established in
1949 and has actively participated in international peacekeeping missions. After the
Cold War, Denmark joined NATO military actions against Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan, and Iraq. Denmark’s defense budget accounts for 1.2% of its GDP,
lower than the 2% required by NATO. In terms of national security, contemporary
148 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

Denmark has not experienced major threats. It has excelled in areas of nontradi-
tional security such as environmental protection and public health.
Denmark is one of the most developed economies in the world. With GDP per
capita of 53,400 USD in 2016, it ranked seventh in the world (The World Bank
2018). Denmark is home to world-renowned brands such as Novo Group and Lego
Company, and enjoys a lead in science and technology. As of 2017, Denmark had a
population of 5.75 million, which showed a low growth rate, and of which 87%
were Danish by origin. As a generally homogeneous nation-state, Denmark’s
immigration policy is quite strict. In recent years, it admitted only a small number
of immigrants from Poland and the three Baltic countries, and most of these
immigrants are engaged in manual labor. The Danish people consistently rank
highly in the world happiness index and boast a strong level of national cohesion.
The main religion in Denmark is Protestant Lutheran. The current Danish
Constitution, passed in 1953, sets Protestant Lutheran as the national religion,
which enjoys support from the state. As of January 2017, 76% of Danish citizens
were members of the Lutheran Church of Denmark. However, the Constitution only
requires that the royal family be the members of the Church of Denmark, while the
Denmark citizens have religious freedom, and discrimination based on faith is
officially forbidden (UNESCO 2020). However, the latest poll shows that only 19%
of Danes believe that religion is of great significance to their lives.
Like other Nordic countries, Denmark was never ruled by the Roman Empire,
thus the Medieval mindset of hierarchy and privilege found it difficult to get a
foothold in this country. The Christian Doctrine in Europe after the Reformation
advocates honesty and reliability, and rejects inordinate ambitions and filthy lucre.
In the Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark is highly regarded. It is a country
with little disparity in wealth distribution, and its Gini coefficient is one of the
lowest in the world.
In terms of ideology and social customs, Denmark is one of the most liberalized
countries in the capitalist world. In 1969, Denmark became the first country in the
world to legalize pornography; in 1989, Denmark was the first country to introduce
same-sex marriage, which was then legalized in 2012 (Rule 1989; Daniele et al.
2014). In 2019, Denmark ranked first in the Legatum Prosperity Index, which
measures national prosperity based on economic equality, personal freedom, social
tolerance, education, health, ecological environment, governance, and social
security (Legatum Institute 2019). From the above indicators, Denmark is regarded
as “the most successful country,” a title it fully deserves in the capitalist world.
Norway, another Nordic country, is similar to Denmark, topping various social
development indexes in the world. For example, Norway ranked second in the 2016
Legatum Prosperity Index mentioned above; with GDP per capita of 70,800 USD in
2016, it ranked third in the world. Both indicators were ahead of Denmark. Stein
Ringen, a Norwegian-born political scientist at the University of Oxford, published
a case study titled, “How Good Is the Best Democracy in the World,” speaking
highly of Norway. He says Norway is “one of the healthiest and most standard
democracies today.” He describes how Norway, whose industrialization started
only in the early twentieth century, has been transformed from an extremely poor
9.1 Standards of the Republic 149

state to one of the world’s richest in less than a century. During World War II,
Norway was brutally ruled by Nazi Germany for five years. This painful experience
has strengthened the Norwegian people’s value of freedom and equality. Today
Norway has become a place with good social welfare, gender equality, social
harmony, advanced education, few social conflicts, low crime rates, clean gov-
ernment, family happiness (the highest birth rate among European countries),
national fiscal surplus, and so forth. However, Ringen (2009) also points out that
Norway’s representative democracy has shown signs of decline, and the cohesion
and vitality of national values and social life are beginning to weaken.
In Fukuyama’s book (2014), Costa Rica, a small Central American country, is
described as “a well-governed democracy” and “a good example of a country
escaping the Latin American birth defect.” Costa Rica is ethnically homogeneous,
with 95% whites and Indo-European, 3% blacks, approximately 0.5% Native
Americans and 1.5% other ethnic groups. Although the Costa Rican Constitution
establishes Catholicism as the state religion, it also assures religious freedom for all.
According to recent data, 76.3% of Costa Ricans identify as Catholic. An additional
13.7% are Evangelical Christians, 1.3% are Jehovah's Witness, and 0.7% are
Protestant Christian. As early as 1948, Costa Rica abolished the regular army and
established the National Guard, making itself the first country in the world without
an army and eliminating the possibility of military coups. The country relies on a
police force of 18,000 to maintain law and order. In 2016, Costa Rica’s GDP per
capita reached US$11,825, ranking among the best economies in Latin America
(The World Bank 2018). Costa Rica is one of the most liberal countries in the
world, according to the annual overview of Freedom in the World by Freedom
House, a U.S. non-governmental organization. As Fukuyama (2014) states, “The
Costa Ricans themselves argue that they have always had an egalitarian and
democratic culture.”
When I personally visited Costa Rica in 2013, I felt that the country’s infras-
tructure, living standards and service quality were rather commonplace, but I was
quite impressed by their national pride. In conversations with Costa Rican intel-
lectuals, I asked them how they would evaluate their place in the world: “Are you a
Western or non-Western country, a developed country or a developing country?” I
was surprised by their answer without hesitation: “We are certainly a Western
country, because we are white, speak Spanish, and are Roman Catholic. Moreover,
Costa Rica is a democracy!”.
Undeniably, the three above-mentioned “well-governed countries” from Western
perspectives exhibit various advantages in institution and cultural tradition. So do
some other countries that have done well in domestic security, economic devel-
opment, belief systems, equality and justice, and individual freedom, such as
Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Japan.
Nevertheless, a common feature that can be easily overlooked is that they are all
largely mono-ethnic countries. Under the pressure of globalization, once these
mono-ethnic countries ease their immigration policies and allow large numbers of
immigrants to enter their labor markets and to congregate in their major cities, it is
certain that their Gini coefficients will rise sharply, threatening their social cohesion
150 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

and domestic security. With today’s aging population and declining birth rates,
Japan could boost its economic development by accepting more immigrants.
However, taking great pride in its native culture and ethnic homogeneity, many
Japanese are reluctant to trade their homogeneity and sense of security for economic
growth. Therefore, immigration has long been a controversial issue in Japan and
other mono-ethnic countries. The Shinzo Abe administration in Japan that took
office in 2012 made it a priority to increase the country’s rock-bottom fertility rate,
while hoping to fill the gap in the labor market by attracting more women and the
elderly into the workforce, rather than through immigration.
In fact, even a small “alien effect” can have a huge psychological impact on
traditional homogeneous societies. Professor Ringen’s concern about social cohe-
sion in Norway is by no means unfounded. Soon after the publication of his case
study, “How Good Is the Best Democracy in the World,” a shocking tragedy rocked
Norway. On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian citizen, deto-
nated a powerful van bomb outside the office buildings of the Norwegian gov-
ernment in Oslo, and then shot dead 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League
summer camp on the island of Utøya. The two attacks killed 77 people and injured
more than 300. Breivik was a veteran, a radical Christian, a far-right nationalist who
hated Muslims, left-wingers and immigrants. The tragedy shocked the world and
served as a wake-up call for social stability and solidarity in Nordic countries.
Tracing the history of “successful countries,” such as Denmark and Norway,
from their birth to the present, we can see that they are largely “innate” and their
advantages are due more to happenstance than design. For a country, especially a
developing one with diverse ethnic groups, religions, and cultures, “how to make it
as successful as Denmark” involves not only the political system, but also racial
integration. Globalization can easily turn an existing mono-ethnic country into a
multiethnic society, while efforts in the reverse direction are not only impossible to
implement successfully, but also can cause a huge catastrophe in the form of an
ethnic blood feud.
However, Singapore’s example seems to prove that multi-ethnic countries can
also move towards the “ideal state.” Singaporeans are mainly composed of immi-
grants from other parts of Asia over the past 100 years and their descendants. The
characteristics of an immigrant society, the history of colonial rule and special
geographic location provide this country with a multicultural flair. Chinese
Singaporeans account for 74% of its population, with 13% of Malay, 9% of Indian,
and 3% of Eurasian. After gaining independence from the Federation of Malaya in
1965, Singapore has achieved miraculous development. Today, Singapore ranks
among the highest in the world in terms of various social development indicators,
with GDP per capita of US$53,000 in 2016, which was comparable to that of
Denmark.
But why don’t Western scholars like Fukuyama regard Singapore as a model of
contemporary countries? I think this is because Singapore meets only two of the
three criteria for a successful country in Fukuyama’s eyes. These criteria include
having a strong state, upholding the rule of law, and keeping government
accountable. He described Singapore as “hav[ing] achieved seemingly miraculous
9.1 Standards of the Republic 151

economic results in the absence of democracy” (Fukuyama 2014). Singapore has

two neighbors, Malaysia and Indonesia, which are much larger countries than
Singapore and are Muslin societies. Singapore, with Chinese as the majority pop-
ulation, needs to maintain a delicate strategic balance among the major powers as
well as a careful management of its ethnically diversified society.
When it comes to defense budget as a share of GNP, Singapore is about twice as
high as Denmark or Norway. Coupled with special national conditions of ethnic
diversity, Singapore has felt a strong sense of insecurity, and therefore it has
adopted strict policies of social control at the expense of a certain degree of indi-
vidual freedom. In terms of its domestic policy landscape, Singapore’s housing
policy is unique. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat is an indem-
nificatory housing unit built by the Singapore government, where most citizens
reside. The government does not allow people of the same ethnicity to occupy the
same building or the same community in order to avoid ethnic group separation or
extreme situations like ethnic conflicts. Therefore, the composition of the residents
of each HDB flat, among other things, needs to match the proportion of ethnic
groups in the country. Without much fanfare, this provision has laid the foundation
for ethnic harmony and created an atmosphere of social stability. From a Western
perspective, such mandatory regulations obviously interfere with individual free-
dom, but Singaporeans view them as necessary to maintain justice. In addition, in
the process of nation-building this young country faces some longstanding ques-
tions: how to rally the citizens around a common faith that goes beyond general
patriotism, and whether a “Singaporean nation” can eventually be molded.
The United States, the most powerful and affluent country in the world today, is
admired by many people. And yet, around the world few political scientists (in-
cluding American scholars such as Fukuyama) regard the United States as a typical
“successful country.” Why?
It should be noted that since gaining its independence more than 200 years ago,
the United States has developed rapidly. However, the United States has also
wasted many opportunities politically and its flaws and maladies are hard to miss.
The United States has the world’s most powerful armed forces with a global
footprint, but ever since the end of WWII, the US has constantly viewed itself as
under serious external security threats. The US government has repeatedly used
forceful means to suppress domestic unrest, and several of its presidents were
subject to political assassination. The US has long had the world’s largest number
of prisoners, an overflow of guns and high rates of homicide. With some long
stretches of boom, the American economy was also hit hard by the Great
Depression from 1929 to 1933 and the financial crisis of 2008, which caused
worldwide panic and economic stagnation in many countries. Americans have a
relatively unified political belief, and all different political factions wrap themselves
under the flag of “freedom.” The proportion of Americans with religious affiliation
is greater than that of most other developed countries.
However, the longstanding White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) tradition
now faces an intense challenge by cultural pluralism, resulting in worsening
political polarization. Despite its more or less fully-developed legal system, the
152 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

United States has failed to eliminate racial discrimination. The gap between the rich
and the poor has continued to widen, fueling public dissatisfaction with social
injustice. According to a research report on the freedom of different countries by the
Cato Institute (The Human Freedom Index 2016), “personal freedom” of Denmark
and Norway ranked the first and the third, respectively, while the United States
ranked 28th, which was almost the lowest in the Western world, only comparable to
Eastern European countries. It was much lower than the same survey conducted in
2008. All this indicates that the United States is far from being the “most liberal
country in the world” by Western standards. In summary, the United States still has
a long way to go to meet the criteria of the “ideal state” proposed in this book. Time
will tell whether that distance will become shorter or longer.

9.2 The Endless Quest

It should be acknowledged that no single indicator system can be applied to all

countries’ politics. As an ancient Chinese poem goes, “one gets different images of
the same mountain when viewing it from various angles.” Observers from different
countries will inevitably judge others by their own criteria. For example, Americans
are used to measuring other countries in terms of freedom, democracy, and plu-
ralism. In addition to the rule of law, Europeans are particularly fond of justice (as
reflected in social welfare). Japanese people tend to make sweeping judgements on
other countries by zooming in on small details in life and politeness and manners in
social etiquette. “Japanese people are more concerned about microscopic things in
China,” (Wang and Liang 2016) such as food safety, Chinese martial arts, tradi-
tional Chinese medicine, and Chinese cuisine. Some Islamic countries enshrine
their religious belief in their countries’ names and constitutions to show that it is
above everything else. Africans are very sensitive to racial and national equality,
and the free choice of national development path. When measuring other countries,
Chinese people pay attention to political stability and economic growth as well as
their attitudes toward China, rather than political systems, belief systems, human
rights conditions, Gini coefficient, or other indicators. The study of the five ultimate
goals of world politics in this book may contribute to a better understanding of the
diversity as well as the uniformity of world politics. Globalization has reinforced
the political homogeneity and interconnectedness among nations, while identity
politics under the trend of informatization has brought their differences and
diversity into sharp focus.
All countries pursue the five ultimate goals, but their priorities and methods vary
widely. In ancient times and even up until the middle of the twentieth century, racial
discrimination, class discrimination, gender discrimination, slavery, autocracy and
torture were not only widespread, but regarded as reasonable and legitimate in
many societies. In today's world, freedom, equality, human rights, democracy, and
the rule of law have become generally accepted political principles, although they
can be realized in different ways. The problem is that, despite the establishment of
9.2 The Endless Quest 153

relatively mature democracies in Western developed countries, these countries still

face the difficult choice of “re-democratization” in the face of new challenges such
as immigration and refugee influx (e.g. Europe, Australia), ethnic and religious
diversity (e.g. the U.S.), aging and labor shortages (e.g. Japan, Russia). For many
developing countries, the prospect of overthrowing the current government through
violent revolution has generally lost its legitimacy, and street politics like the “color
revolution” and the “Arab Spring” cannot bring democracy and the rule of law
overnight (especially in multi-ethnic countries). The faded glory of Western-style
democracy and the sluggish economy have made political transition tougher.
From the perspective of political philosophy, the “ideal state” is the one that can
achieve balance among the five ultimate goals. However, in practice, which of the
five should be given higher priority is subject to the changing environment at home
and abroad, and to the political inclination of the ruling party and its leaders.
Understanding the transformation and interaction of political goals in countries and
regions provides a perspective on the general trends of world political development,
which also enriches the content of area studies.
Take China, for example. In the pre-reform era of “putting Mao Zedong Thought
in command,” violent revolution and class struggle were celebrated, and political
ideology and faith enjoyed a very high status. During the period of reform and
opening-up, in contrast, the Chinese government accepted economic development
as its central task, adhering to the path of peaceful development, and maintaining
social harmony, with security and wealth as two prominent themes. In the 1980s,
China insisted that all its work must serve the purposes of practically benefiting the
development of social productivity, increasing the comprehensive national strength,
and improving living standards. It can be said that economic development and
improving living standards took precedence over other political goals during that
time period.
In 1993, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China established the
socialist market economy system. The founding documents proposed the principle
of “giving priority to efficiency with due consideration to fairness”in social and
economic redistribution, demonstrating that the priority of domestic politics at that
time was promoting economic growth. However, as the situation changed, this
principle was increasingly called into question. After years of discussion, the Fifth
Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee in 2005 made the adjustment
of “attaching more importance to social equity.” This implied a change of priority
from efficiency—promoting economic growth—to fairness or social justice in the
Party’s work when the gap between the rich and the poor had enlarged rapidly in
Chines society. However, the relationship between efficiency and fairness so far has
not been completely resolved in practice, as the Gini Coefficient in China reportedly
has continued to rise. At the same time, more nontraditional security issues have
emerged. Social welfare, public health, education, and the environment are still
weak links on China’s road to becoming a truly great, admirable nation.
Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the political balance has once
again been fine-tuned, with more emphasis on upholding political belief and
enhancing political security and regime security, rather than on the notion that
154 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

“everything must be conducive to the development of social productive forces,”

which was popular in earlier stages of the reform era. The Report of the 19th
National Congress of the CPC points out that the main contradiction in Chinese
society is between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s
ever-growing needs for a better life. My understanding is that to deal with this
contradiction, it is necessary to pay further attention to social justice, bridge
regional disparity, income disparity, and urban–rural disparity, and emphasize
coordinated and green development.
The political themes or goals in the United States are also in a state of flux. After
the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the focus of American politics was sharply turned
to national security issues. After the financial crisis broke out in 2008 and the
Obama administration came to power in 2009, the core of US national politics
shifted to economic recovery, job creation, and the improvement of the social
security system. Income inequality and social injustice loomed large as prominent
themes during the 2016 U.S. presidential and congressional elections. As
Fukuyama (2016) pointed out, “The real story of this election is that after several
decades, American democracy is finally responding to the rise of inequality and the
economic stagnation experienced by most of the population. Social class is now
back at the heart of American politics, trumping other cleavages—race, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, geography—that had dominated discussion in recent
elections.” Social inequality has taken center stage in American politics, which will
inevitably affect the scope and direction of adjustment to its domestic political
goals.
Upon the announcement of the Brexit referendum results in June 2016, one of
my former Chinese students, now a scholar living in the U.K. for many years, wrote
emotionally in a private correspondence: “This is the result of protest votes from
those disadvantaged by economic globalization, regional political integration, and
the ensuing unequal distribution, who joined forces with people concerned about
the erosion of national sovereignty and people’s right to autonomy.” We may learn
that the political goals of Britain and Europe today are more concerned with the
unequal distribution of wealth, national identity, and cultural beliefs, than they are
with national security, slow economic growth, or lack of civil liberties.
Looking at changes in the world since ancient times, we find that human society
is constantly evolving and making progress. “Progress” has various meanings in
different domains of social life. In the realm of politics, “progress” should refer to a
general increase in the sense of human safety, the reduction in violent activities, the
stabilization of social and international order, the growth of total wealth, and the
equitable distribution of social welfare. When it comes to rights, people should be
more equal, and citizens’ political freedoms should be guaranteed to a greater
extent. The list goes on. But we also note that history has always had twists and
turns on its way forward, and that the future of humanity will inevitably face huge
headwinds and “black holes” full of uncertainties. In the following ten aspects,
world politics is at once progressing and stagnating in certain areas, and even
running the risk of retrogression.
9.2 The Endless Quest 155

1. Human violence is gradually decreasing, but the destructive power of war is

rising.
The proportion of casualties caused by war and other forms of violence in the
global population has trended downward throughout history (with the exception of
the two World Wars) (Harari 2012). In the contemporary period, the number of
people who have partaken in or lived through wars as a percentage of world
population is lower than any period in world history. This is a huge step forward.
We live in an era in which widespread and long-term peace is possible to
achieve. Until the Second World War, the goals of wars among nations were to
seize more territories, plunder more resources and populations, while most civil
wars were aimed to seize power. However, factors in today’s world such as the
opening of the global market, the massive movement of populations, international
law, and international ethics not only will render the initiation of wars for territorial
resources not worthwhile in the material sense, but also bring about international
isolation and public condemnation to the aggressor. The establishment of crisis
management and control mechanisms between major powers has reduced the risks
of emergencies evolving into wars. The use of warfare in domestic political
struggle, such as launching bloody military coups, has also been generally resisted.
However, with the development of military technology, the losses caused by
wars, once started, are increasing, as demonstrated by the two cruel World Wars.
Today, nuclear weapons owned by the United States and Russia are enough to
destroy all humankind. International nuclear disarmament is progressing slowly,
while the number of countries with the capability and willingness to possess nuclear
weapons is still on the rise. International terrorist organizations are also striving to
acquire weapons of massive destruction. It is worth noting that in the information
age, cyber warfare, space warfare and other new forms of destruction can cause as
much damage as nuclear wars. We can only hope that organizations and individuals
who master the means of war can act rationally. But like other forms of violence,
wars can be triggered by irrational decision-making or emergencies. It is with
sufficient justification that China, Russia, South Korea, the United States, Japan and
other countries are all worried about the security threat posed by North Korea in
possession of nuclear weapons. The “progress” in military technology may offset or
even reverse the progress we’ve made in terms of peace and security.

2. Technology has underpinned human progress, but also caused increasing

damage to the ecological system, turning various non-traditional security
issues into global politics.
There is no doubt that science and technology promote human progress. On the
one hand, technological advances since modern times, especially the development
of medical and health technologies, have led to population growth, an increasing
life expectancy and improvement in overall quality of life. On the other hand,
technological development after the European Industrial Revolution has also
156 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

resulted in severe destruction of the natural environment on which human survival

depends. As one American historian said, “Perhaps the fundamental paradox of the
modern revolution is that on the one hand human control over the biosphere has
increased spectacularly; yet, on the other hand we have not yet shown that we can
use that control in ways that are equitable and sustainable” (Christian 2008). As a
result, many nontraditional security issues, such as ecological environment, climate
change and public health, are becoming central issues in national and international
politics.

3. The growth rate of the world’s material wealth is higher than that of global
population.
Before the eighteenth century, the world’s population grew slowly, while the
Industrial Revolution thereafter propelled it into a period of rapid growth. The
growth of the world’s material wealth is directly proportional to population growth.
In general, the economic growth rate is higher than that of population, which means
that the total wealth and average wealth of humankind are continuously accumu-
lating. Wealth will certainly never grow to the point where it meets human needs in
an absolute sense, whether for the poor or the rich.

4. Human development is getting increasingly unbalanced.

The Human Development Report 2016 released by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) notes that human development has made
remarkable achievements in the past 25 years, but many people still lag behind
(2017) [21]. Women and girls, rural residents, aboriginal people, ethnic minorities,
the disabled, seasonal workers, and refugees are among the world’s poor,
marginalized, and vulnerable groups. They are the groups that suffer the most from
systemic discrimination. They face not only economic obstacles but also political,
social, and cultural exclusion. If these deep-rooted developmental obstacles,
including discrimination and inequality in political participation, are not eliminated,
the development and income gap among countries and social groups will further
widen. It is not just developing countries that face the aforementioned problems;
developed countries also need to address the challenges posed by poverty and social
exclusion, given that fact that more than 300 million relatively poor people live in
developed countries, more than a third of whom are children.
In today’s world, the uneven distribution of wealth is unprecedented. In recent
decades, the population of developing countries which are relatively poor and
backward has grown much faster than that of the developed countries. This con-
stitutes one of the reasons for the growing polarization between the rich and the
poor worldwide. However, a more important reason is that the government has not
acted as a regulator to alleviate class conflicts and maintain a fair balance, with
some policies even exacerbating the imbalance of income distribution. If the growth
9.2 The Endless Quest 157

of wealth represents human progress, then it is at least partially offset by global

economic inequality. In world history, political turmoil, violence and wars in many
countries were not caused by poverty and backwardness, but by the lack of equality
and justice in the process of economic growth.

5. Globalization is Irreversible.
“In general, the concept of globalization refers to the world becoming ‘smaller’
or, in more scholarly terms, to a compression of time and place. Globalization
implies a systematic reduction of boundaries.” (Vanhaute 2013) The emergence and
popularity of globalization as a new concept can be traced back to the 1980s, while
looking back to history from ancient times, it is in fact a process in which contacts
among human groups become increasingly frequent and the world become smaller
and smaller.
Like the era of Western expansion, contemporary globalization represents his-
torical progress by promoting the transmission and dissemination of capital, tech-
nology and knowledge. Generally, those who consciously facilitate globalization
are beneficiaries while those who have no choice but to accept globalization pas-
sively are likely to become victims. With its self-interested motives and various
unscrupulous ways, capitalism serves as an unintentional driver of human progress.
Today the driving forces of globalization, including multinational companies sup-
ported by Western governments, nevertheless act as “the unconscious tool of his-
tory,” just as Karl Marx (1995) referred to Britain’s role in its Indian colony. No
forces today, including the so-called “anti-globalization” and “de-globalization”
thoughts and behaviors, can pull the already-globalized economic exchange and
social mobility back to the past state of social isolation. In this sense, globalization
is irreversible. The questions are merely who benefits more and who suffers more in
the process, the magnitude of the headwinds on the way forward, and the ability of
human beings to correct the imbalances brought about by globalization.

6. Human society has made enormous strides in individual freedom and

dignity. At the same time, civil liberties and rights also face more restric-
tions in certain aspects.
With the rapid development of economic globalization and social informatiza-
tion, and the trending of political pluralism after the end of the Cold War, people in
many countries have gained greater economic freedom—freedom of domestic
migration, freedom of worship, and freedom of speech—although freedom in many
countries is still lacking. With increasingly sophisticated technology and expanding
space of individual activities like traveling, telecommunication, and surfing the
Internet, the freedom to absorb and disseminate information has increased. At the
same time, as the state tightens its control over resources and society, individual
freedom in certain areas has been gradually curtailed. Freedom of speech and
158 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

freedom of press, for example, are technically very easy for governments to restrict
through social surveillance. They are also subject to more social normative con-
straints than at any other time in history. For example, today there is still no
shortage of people who discriminate on the basis of race, religion, and gender, but
“freedom of speech” to stigmatize other races as “barbarians,” “lower animals,” or
to discriminate against women is not recognized publicly in most societies.

7. The modern political system based on the rule of law and democracy is the
result of historical progress, but there are many ways to achieve democ-
racy, which need not follow fixed rules.
Democracy emerged in Athens of ancient Greece. After the Industrial
Revolution, most European and American countries established parliamentary
systems, universal suffrage and relatively independent judicial systems, which were
recognized and solidified in the form of legislation. The vast majority of countries
in the world today claim to be democracies, and their forms of government and laws
have more in common with each other than they do with ancient dynasties and
empires. This demonstrates that the establishment of modern state systems based on
strong government, the rule of law, and democracy is a huge step in historic
progress. The modern state system is unlikely to regress to the system of feudal
autocracy, caesaropapism, or colonial empire of the past. However, throughout
world history there have been diverse ways and avenues for building a strong,
impartial, and clean government, establishing the rule of law, and democracy. All
political systems are imperfect and may decay, and they must keep pace with social
changes.

8. Nationalism based on race and culture is enormously powerful.

In the foreseeable future, various forms of nationalism around the world will
gather further momentum instead of declining. For more than three centuries since
the establishment of the sovereign state system defined by the Peace of Westphalia,
the number of sovereign states has been growing, with the emergence of inde-
pendent states far outnumbering the merger of states. Pushed by the unrelenting tide
of national separatism, more sovereign states are likely to emerge.
Nationalism or patriotism is necessary in order to strengthen social control and
national unity. Though powerful, nationalism can only help strengthen internal
cohesion, rather than attract foreigners or increase one’s soft power internationally.
Preaching the greatness of one’s own nation sounds like belittling others. The
slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again” put forward by U.S.
President Donald Trump can arouse national emotions at home, but do not resonate
with the rest of the world. If anything, these slogans may be met with disgust. The
historical role of nationalism is always a double-edged sword.
9.2 The Endless Quest 159

9. The vitality of religious belief is inexhaustible.

Religious belief goes hand in hand with the development of world politics. There
is no evidence to suggest that religious belief of humankind will gradually die out
with the improvement of education and the advancement of science and technology.
There is also no evidence to indicate that a society’s economic development,
individual freedom, sense of safety, justice and equality are explicitly correlated
with the proportion of its population that is religious. Politics is clearly bound up
with religion. The different fates of the Eastern Orthodoxy in Tsarist Russia, the
Soviet Union, and post-Cold War Russia seem to indicate that the long-term impact
of political changes on religious belief is limited.
Like nationalism, religion can only unite people of the same faith while
excluding others. In terms of the exclusive nature of religion, if “civilization” is
defined as religion, an approach taken by Samuel Huntington, then the “clash of
civilizations” does exist. The only question is whether such clashes will evolve into
large-scale violence. Unlike nationalism, most religions are cross-cultural, interra-
cial, and transnational, thus having less impact on the trajectory of a country’s
domestic politics than nationalism. However, it is particularly important to note the
fact that major religions in the world are much more stable than nations and
countries, and have existed for much longer. Both Christianity and Buddhism have
a history of more than 2,000 years while no dynasty or country has enjoyed such
longevity. In history, the fusion of politics and religion has often resulted in the
demise of the state, but hardly in the survival of the religion. Many countries have
tried to destroy all or some particular religions within their borders, but they have
rarely succeeded. Without a doubt, certain religions will evolve or die out, but on a
smaller scale and at a slower pace than other components of culture (such as
language, entertainment tools, dressing and eating habits), not to mention nations
and countries. As a kind of human spirit, religious belief may be said to have an
eternal lifespan.

10. The global political system is expected to evolve continuously in an orderly

direction.
Historically, the establishment of political order has started from village com-
munity to city-state, feudal state and the empire system, from small to large, and
from weak to strong. After the establishment of the modern international order, with
the exception of very few lands, such as the Antarctic, there is no longer any “terra
nullius,” or any completely disordered geographical areas and functional spheres.
As a Financial Times op-ed puts it: “For all its blemishes, the post-1945 settlement
ushered in a remarkable period of relative peace and prosperity. We can all list the
mistakes—whether hubris in Washington, corrupt politicians in Europe, or greedy
bankers everywhere. But for the most part, the story has been one of rising living
standards and a spreading politics of generosity.” (Stephens 2017) The modern
international order has experienced several major shocks such as the two world
wars, the Cold War, and the end of the Cold War, and this will continue into the
160 9 Road to an Ideal Republic

future. However, the international system of countries with equal sovereignty, and
the major principles of resolving international conflict by peaceful means will
persist in the foreseeable future, and the international cooperation and coordination
mechanism with the United Nations as its core will not only exist for a long time to
come but also improve. During the long process of history, local political disorder
may occur frequently, but fortunately the global political system is generally
evolving in an orderly direction, a development which is worth promoting.
By exploring the above 10 trends, we can conclude that among the five ultimate
goals of world politics discussed in this book, although the three major conundrums
involving security (peace), wealth (development) and freedom are still formidable,
on the whole there are signs of their easing. At present, the biggest problem causing
contradictions and conflicts in world politics is concentrated in the field of social
equality and justice. Populism is the perfect storm that shows no signs of abating.
Meanwhile, in recent decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, large-scale
transnational immigration and a massive surge of refugees have forced long
geographically-isolated ethnic groups of different faiths to live side by side,
resulting in proliferating conflicts and further complicating social governance.
Different religions and sectarian identities, ethnic identities, and cultural identities
in some countries have eroded national unity and social cohesion, exacerbating
inequality among ethnic groups and the tendency of separatism. The rapid growth
of social media, the exploding awareness of individual rights and the lack of social
morality are further threatening those countries’ internal unity in political belief.
In this new environment, the connotations and denotations of “peace and
development are the themes of the present times” have changed. In China’s political
context, “peace and development are the themes of the era” and “adhering to the
path of peaceful development” are mutually reinforcing, which together form a
common discursive system. Reaffirmed in the report of the 19th National Congress
of the Communist Party of China, its political correctness is self-evident and
beyond doubt. At the same time, the diversity and new trends of world politics
require researchers to broaden their perspectives, to pay attention to themes beyond
peace and development, and to seek new frameworks for comprehensive analysis.
The quest for the “Great Unity of Humankind” is an endless quest. The ultimate
goals, as discussed here, require endless pursuit but can never be fully realized.
Confucius once said: “It is destiny if the Way (Dao) prevails; it is equally destiny if
the Way falls into disuse” (Confucius 1979). Whether Dao will prevail or not
depends neither on our ideals, nor on a preordained destiny. My understanding is
that Dao is the continuous progress of human civilization. In this sense, I hope this
book will help to shed new light on exploring the Dao of politics.
References 161

References

Christian, D. (2008). This fleeting world: A very small book of big history, or the story of the
universe and history of humanity. Great Barrington: Berkshire Publishing Group.
Confucius. (1979). The analects (trans: Lau, D. C.). London: Penguin Books.
Daniele, G., Paladini, L., & Pustorino, P. (Eds.). (2014). Same-Sex Couples before national,
supranational and international jurisdictions. Berlin: Springer.
Fukuyama, F. (2011). The origins of political order: From pre-human times to the French
revolution. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.
Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the
globalization of democracy. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.
Fukuyama, F. (2016). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-06-13/american-
political-decay-or-renewal. Accessed 16 April 2020.
Harari, J. (2012). From animals into Gods: A brief history of humankind. Scotts Valley:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Legatum Institute (2019). The legatum prosperity index 2019, https://www.prosperity.com/
rankings. Accessed 10 April 2020.
Liu, Y. (2015) Introductory remarks. In Chinese Edition: Fukuyama, F., Political order and
political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Guilin:
Guangxi Normal University Press.
Marx, K. (1995). “The British rule in India”, in anthology of Marx and Engels (Vol. 2). Beijing:
People’s Publishing House.
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Viking
Books.
Plato. (1986). The republic. Chinese edition (Vol.2). Beijing: Commercial Press.
Qian, N. (Ed.). (2012). The new analects. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company.
Ringen, S. (2009). What democracy is for: On freedom and moral government. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Rule, S. (1989). Rights for gay couples in Denmark. Resource document. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/02/world/rights-for-gay-couples-in-denmark.html.
Accessed 8 April 2020.
Stephens, P. (2017). Peace and prosperity: It is worth saving the liberal order. Resource document.
The Financial Times. https://www.ftchinese.com/story/001071336/en?ccode=
LanguageSwitch&archive. Accessed 12 April 2020.
The Constitutional Act of Denmark of 1953. Resource document. The United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/education/edurights/media/docs/
5ab4f4577ee04eb3905f7bbc7427dea50a077c63.pdf. Accessed 19 April 2020.
The Human Freedom Index (2016). Cato Institute.https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-
freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2016-update-3.pdf. Accessed 6 April 2020.
The United Nations Development Programme (2017). Human Development Report 2016.
Resource document. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/hdr/2016-
human-development-report.html. Accessed 20 April 2020.
The World Bank (2018). GDP per capita (current USD). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.
GDP.PCAP.CD. Accessed 2 April 2020.
Vanhaute, E. (2013). World history: An introduction. Oxon: Routledge.
Wang, X., & Liang, Y. (2016). China in the Eyes of Japanese. Beijing: Peking University Press.