Decades of change: Let the past serve the present

Western motivations

The Yuan Ming Yuan, the architectural wonder built by the Kang Xi and Qian Long emperors, once stood as the epitome of Qing imperial splendor and refinement. It was a vast sequence of interlocking palaces with gardens and fairylike pavilions, radiating outwards along crystal lakes covered with delicate bridges. The very existence of the Yuan Ming Yuan must have irritated European minds. Its splendor confirmed to the West that Europe had not attained the advanced level of culture that China had enjoyed for tens of centuries.

Today, when you stroll through the public park that was once Yuan Ming Yuan, in the suburbs of modern Beijing, you see nothing of this splendor --virtually everything that was Yuan Ming Yuan has been obliterated. The delicate palaces which once housed imperial treasures dating from every period of China's history are gone; only the stone foundations, which could not burn, remain to mark the pillar supports of the once-classic vermilion palaces and pavilions. The treasures once held within are today on display in the museums of those European countries whose forces sacked Yuan Ming Yuan.

Today, when you walk through the shattered remains, you can only ask yourself what kind of hatred could fuel such destruction.

In 1860, the British and French allied forces united in a single purpose: to cripple China politically and force it to open to the West -- on Western terms -- economically. The Emperor Hsien Feng had already fled to Chengde in the north, the old hunting lodge palace complex of the Qings. His dynamic brother, Prince Kung, became diplomat of the day. He kept the foreign forces at bay and refused to open the gates of Beijing to them.

Unable to attack the political nerve center of China, the allied forces attacked the cultural. Discovering the vast wealth outside Beijing's city walls, enshrined in the Yuan Ming Yuan and the Summer Palace, they broke into the palaces, stealing every conceivable item of value and destroying what they could not take with them. Pearls, jade, rubies and gold of immeasurable quantity and value were removed. Century-old vases were shattered, paintings of priceless value were indiscriminately burned, the precious Peking dogs -- specially bred by the imperial household -- were hurled head first into wells, and gold-embroidered dragon robes were heaped up and burned.

The entire complex of Yuan Ming Yuan and the Summer Palace was put to the torch. For weeks, the sky over Beijing was black with smoke. The destruction was vast, and intended to be complete. The statement was clear: Precious items of immediate commercial value to China were to be taken by the foreign powers; precious items of cultural importance and value were to be destroyed completely.

In the weeks that followed, Prince Kung negotiated. The foreign powers wanted access to Beijing; they wanted the gates opened. Eventually, he was forced to acquiesce and the gates were opened. The foreigners entered; another treaty was signed. Trading ports which included Tianjin, Beijing, Nanjing and Guangzhou were opened, and foreign-occupied territories in China were put under foreign administration. Chinese law was not enforceable against foreign interests on Chinese soil in these foreign-administered enclaves.

The backdrop of these events cannot be forgotten or lost in understanding the dynamics of Chinese-Western relations today. It is not a question of old unsettled grievances, but the historical context upon which such relations have been established.

It is clear that the foreign powers did not have as their intention the toppling of the Qing imperial system. They chose not to attack the basis of the political nervous system of dynastic China. Rather, it was clearly their intention to have access and, moreover, control of China's resources. Leaving a weak political system in place was only to their advantage.

The elements of Western policy towards China during the late Qing Dynasty were to obtain unlimited access to China's market, that is, the selling of Western-manufactured finished goods to the vast Chinese population without restrictions or import duties; to have unlimited access to China's vast natural and/or crafted products at cheap labor costs; and to control trade. Foreign powers knew that a weak political system would have to tolerate their interests and commercial domination. In addition, foreign rights in China could not be touched by Chinese laws, foreign laws and administration were carried out within foreign enclaves, and complete diplomatic immunity was accorded to all foreign interests.

These elements have remained part of the collective unconscious underlying both the Western diplomatic initiatives today and the approaches of Western business interests in opening the China market. To a great extent, Western diplomatic relations with China are today driven by corporate interests seeking access to China's massive market potential as the most heavily populated country in the world (the fact that China accounts for nearly one-quarter of the world's entire population is an awesome marketing statistic).

China's own regulations on foreign investment prohibit the creation of any kind of "dependency" relationship. Foreign multinationals wishing to market their products in China must manufacture them in China, which requires investing there. This avoids a pure trade dependency relationship similar to that developed earlier between the developed West and Latin America or Africa. In a dependency relationship, finished goods from the industrialized counties are exported to underdeveloped countries in return for raw materials to be processed for export back to these developing markets. This has the spiral effect of keeping the underdeveloped world underdeveloped and concentrating capital in the developed world which grows ever richer through manufacturing finished products which the underdeveloped world becomes dependent on.

Being aware of the risks of dependency, China, like any other developing nation, views the promotion of "American values" as an attempt to create dependency on American products. Should China become capable of producing its own products with its own technology at prices below those in America, then maybe Americans will find themselves dependant on Chinese-made goods. It is not totally unrealistic to foresee the day such an ironic situation actually happens.

China is driving forward on a policy of market economics, which has created what is in fact becoming one of the most laissez-faire economies in the world today. The incredible materialistic drive of the Chinese people -- a pent-up energy released by 15 years of reform -- is gaining momentum of its own. China has come of age: This is a fact of our times. It cannot be denied by negative journalism, historic misunderstandings, misdirected animosities and emotions, or policies of "containment". The century beginning in the year 2000 will be China's.