I was a nineteen-year-old student, not yet a journalist, when I travelled through China during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution. I was visiting my father, then the British Ambassador to Outer Mongolia, and there were no international flights.

Interesting times: China's glorious future is not secured.

The only way to get to the Mongolian capital Ulan Bator in those days - it was 1971 - was to fly to Hong Kong, then go by train through China.

It was an intimidating journey for a young man: the train from Hong Kong took me only to the Chinese border, where I had to disembark and lug my enormous suitcase (I had packed for a two-month stay) about three hundred metres in the tropical summer heat, to the frontier itself.

I sweated my way past a phalanx of stone-faced guards in olive-drab People’s Liberation Army uniforms, guns at the ready, to the customs and passport check.

Eventually, after interminable formalities, I was allowed on to another train where I met my travelling companions. I was not permitted to travel alone, but had to go in the company of two retired military men, serving as diplomatic couriers, or ‘Queen’s Messengers’ as they were called, whose job it was to carry the sealed diplomatic bags from London to Britain’s Embassies abroad.

This might have been reassuring, except that they were both old hands at this trip, and had some horror stories. One had been in the British Embassy in Beijing when it was sacked by a Red Guard mob in 1967; both were friends of Colonel Constantine, a Queen’s Messenger who had been severely beaten by another crowd while carrying the sacrosanct diplomatic bags.

I remember the train journey from the border to Guangzhou as a series of vistas of paddy-fields, dotted with bent figures in conical hats, like an unrolling Chinese scroll. It’s pretty much all one vast city now of concrete, steel and glass. Guangzhou itself was then still in essence not very different from a nineteenth-century city; I remember watching, from my hotel room, the junks threading their way through smoke-belching tugs on the Pearl River.

We arrived by plane in Beijing after nightfall. The car journey into the city was almost completely unimpeded by traffic, apart from a few bicycles. The greatest danger was that of running over the people who sat on the road under the street-lights, playing Mah Jong or reading, because they had no electric light at home.

I spent four days in Beijing before taking the next train to Ulan Bator; long enough to be a tourist, visiting the almost-deserted Forbidden City, which had only recently been re-opened to foreigners, and walking on the Great Wall. Two scenes remain especially vivid: the Summer Palace, with its long covered walkways in which the imperial and aristocratic figures in the beautiful painted decorations had all had their faces and heads systematically scratched out; and the crowds of gaping onlookers who followed me when I was briefly allowed to go shopping in the street of antique shops.

This was a society which had deliberately exiled, imprisoned, “re-educated” or killed a huge percentage of its most cultured and educated population. Mao’s revolution, aimed at lifting the country out of peasantry, had instead made a cult out of peasant ignorance.  It was impossible, at the beginning of the nineteen-seventies, to imagine China as the emerging superpower of the twenty-first century.

Sometimes, where you begin a journey determines your destination. Martin Jacques, the British New Labour intellectual whose new book is called ‘When China Rules The World’ first went to China in 1993. He also arrived in Guangzhou, then in the process of transformation.

“Played out before my eyes was the most extraordinary juxtaposition of eras: women walking with their animals and carrying their produce, farmers riding bicycles and driving pedicabs, the new urban rich speeding by in black Mercedes and Lexuses, anonymous behind darkened windows, a constant stream of vans, pickups, lorries and minibuses, and in the fields by the side of the road peasants working their small paddy fields with water buffalo”.

This, he says, is how the British Industrial Revolution must have been: “speculative, dynamic - and a complete bloody mess”. But the clincher comes when he goes back, just over two years later, to revisit these scenes for a TV documentary: “There was not a single familiar sight I could find”. Local officials shrugged when he described what he wanted to film. “For me it was just two years ago; for them it could have been a different century”.

I do not mean to oversimplify Martin Jacques’ thesis in this large, comprehensive, solidly researched and carefully argued book.  For a summary of his arguments, you can do no better than read this column in The Guardian, in which he lays them out in brief.

I agree with him – it’s undeniable – that China’s rise in the last three decades has been simply astonishing. I am sceptical, though, about the inevitability of its consequences. He is right to identify China as a “civilisation-state” rather than a “nation-state”, but it’s possible to draw a different conclusion from this: that China’s special conception of itself as the celestial kingdom has always held it back from wider domination rather than fuelled expansion.  He is right, too, to identify the unity of China’s gigantic territory as a key to its history, but he may be underplaying the degree to which that sheer size makes it unwieldy and always in fear of fracture.

Two different points of view can yield such radically different conclusions. The American political scientist George Friedman has written a book with an equally ambitious title: ‘The Next 100 Years’. Interviewed recently by the ABC’s Richard Fidler, Friedman predicted continued hegemony for the USA and said he believed China’s growth would be severely limited. The reason – the already enormous and growing gap in China between rich and poor, which Friedman believes holds the seeds of real trouble for the regime.

The American-based China expert Minxin Pei, author of ‘China’s Trapped Transition, told me some time ago that he saw a danger that China will become, like Russia, a kleptocracy, with damaging results for the country’s longer-term prospects. 

And there is, for China no less than America, the problem of demographics. In fifteen to twenty years time, the country will have to cope with an aging population, and because of the One Child Policy, there will be little left of the traditional family structures which have looked after the Chinese throughout history in their old age.

As for me, I think predicting a year into the future is hard enough, let alone a hundred. I no more have a crystal ball now than I did on that train 38 years ago. I think it quite possible that in fifty years time, we will be reading books on how India, not China, became the world’s next superpower; but I wouldn’t bet the farm against Brazil, either.

I do know this: that no political scientist in 1909 foresaw even a fraction of what was going to happen in the next decade, and the world of 2009 would seem unimaginably strange to an observer from the first decade of the nineteenth century.. The reason is that politics, international relations and human affairs in general are unpredictable by their very nature.  As the British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan remarked, “Events, dear boy, events”, change everything.

18 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Patrick says:

      06:19am | 28/10/09

      “no political scientist in 1909 foresaw even a fraction of what was going to happen in the next decade”

      I think there where a significant number who actually did. In fact some time even earlier before he died, Bismark almost pinpointed to the very day when he thought a European war would occur, and remarked that if there was another great European war it “will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans” How right he was.

    • Cameron says:

      06:41am | 28/10/09

      Cultural shift. Economic change. Political influence. Knowledge advancement.
      These four factors, (driven by a ‘world superpower’), and the extent to which they shape our world and influence it, are generally the characteristics of a world superpower. Is it somehow possible for a company or its product to be a world superpower ? If it is, the winner is Google.

    • delperro says:

      06:59am | 28/10/09

      Wow, after reading with joy your stories of sharing the internet with your son, this story reveals more about how interesting your experiences are.

      And I agree with your analysis to a point. China is on too fast a trajectory to not do both things - rise to shift hegemony and have to deal with internal stability issues associated with the rapid rise in some’s wealth.

      Deng said ‘all will get rich, but not at once’ will not suffice forever and the Chinese Communist Parties quest for control means those events will be all the more tumultuous

    • John A Neve says:

      07:50am | 28/10/09

      This is one of the best articles I’ve read in a long, long time.
      What concerns me, is that China’s great divide between rich and poor seems to be a world wide trend. I believe the same conditions apply in America, the UK, in fact in most ,if not all first world countries. Australia in my view is fast catching up, if in fact it has not alread caught up?

      The real question, if I am correct, is what are we going to do about it?

    • iansand says:

      07:56am | 28/10/09

      There is no guarantee that China will be the next superpower - history tells us that there are no guarantees - but China is currently the most likely candidate (although remember when it was going to be Japan?)

      One of many things I find interesting about dealing with Chinese business people is that they assess projects only on the basis of impact in China.  Is there a market in China (even if the end product will be exported).  The people I deal with have not yet grasped the idea of global resources being sold into a global market.

    • David C says:

      08:37am | 28/10/09

      The nominal GDP of the US is bigger than China, Japan and Germany combined. This fact will not change in a hurry although there will definitely be a period of rebalancing.
      All nations of the world face big issues, personally I back the USA, there is a reason Bill Gates didnt happen in China

    • Micko says:

      08:55am | 28/10/09

      This is an excellent and thoughtful article.  One point to not about China’s history is that it has always changed through catharsis rather than evolution.  I suspect the obvious hiccup in China’s economic development will be the (inevitable) shift to a democratic form of government…given the determination of the current regime to stay in control this will be no easy transition…we could be witnessing a Prague Spring followed by another half century of chaos and transition.

    • shabangabang says:

      09:30am | 28/10/09

      China will never be a superpower to the levels of America. It isn’t even the dominant regional power, as it has India and Japan to contend with.
      George Friedman is in my opinion accurate in its assessment of China. The 1 Child Policy has seen parents want son’s not daughters, which will see a demographic imbalance. A lack of social cohesion between racial groups will see internal instability.
      China also has no social security system, which leads to huge levels of savings and minimal domestic consumption. It also has protectionist measures in place to halt foreign investment; something I find funny given the fuss they make when their investments in Australia are turned down.
      Long live the English speaking countries ruling the world.

    • ShaneO says:

      10:28am | 28/10/09

      Great work again Mark. Finding out more about your background lends extra credibility to your work on ‘PM’.

      Would be very interested to know what REAL work your father was doing in China bearing in mind your previous article!

    • Pedro X says:

      10:58am | 28/10/09

      Who wants to be a superpower like the US?

      What does it get them? The US doesn’t even have a proper empire. It just has the costs of empire with US politicians embarking on imperial adventures in the Middle East and central Asia.

      China will look at the US example and wonder what the point is and if the US does something that really annoys China China can pull in their loans which are financing US sillyness.

      Long live the hypocrisy of the English speaking countries wasting their money on foolish imperial actions. It sped Britains decline and now it’s doing the same for the US.

    • stephen says:

      12:52pm | 28/10/09

      China deserves to be a phenomenon, not a superpower. She has shown herself to be too dishonest and self-interested. There is another matter too of China lacking internal variety : that push and pull of often conflicting forces that attenuates a culture. I’d give odds of 4 to 1 that China does reach grand proportions.

    • chuppy says:

      02:24pm | 28/10/09

      Great piece, so much of the media and commentary is so blinkered in regards to China. The Chinese domestic economy is facing a demographic timebomb and their export economy will have to compete with a much stronger yuan or rampant inlation. But hey the media loves a good rags to riches story ...
      Love your PM program by the way.

    • orange says:

      04:14pm | 28/10/09

      Yes very interesting i suggest to gain some insight one should watch the interview bloombergs charlie rose and the “man” LEE KUAN YEW”  a couple of days ago.

    • pc says:

      06:07pm | 28/10/09

      So shipmates,

      I’ve noticed there are a lot of different China’s. How many China’s are there? And are any of them a threat to you?

      There’‘s the China we deal/negotiate with…
      Theres the China we get rich off….
      The China we fear….
      The China we eat….
      The China we watch….
      The China watchers add whole other China’s, the celestial China, the Middle China, the Commnist China, the China of the spectacle. There is pre modern China, the socalist China, the post colonial China. The Diaspora China. There is the exotic China of literature/the travel diary and the future China, SF China.

      There are so many China’s because there is no CHINA.

      Rather than join in the comparsion of pre fixes. I will talk about a subject discussed in both countries. SECURITY. In China, it is often NATIONAL security. In Australia it is BORDER security. I notice that both put some kind of security ahead of PEOPLE security or lets call it HUMAN security. And surely this is the only kind of security that counts.

      Is China a threat to the rest? Is the rest a threat to China?

      Who cares. Until the security of humans, regardless of whether they are citizens, exiles, dissidents, boat people is put before BORDER security or NATIONAL security then we are all a threat to each other.

    • Sam says:

      01:04pm | 29/10/09

      I trust in the wisdom and leadership of the Chinese Communist Pary. I see no advantage in introducing democracy. I don’t think the gap between the rich and the poor is unique to China or somehow poses more risk to the CCP than if China were a democracy! And I think poor people who don’t manage to climb can simplly get used to being poor, they won’t miss something they’ve never had! And there is nothing stopping a poor peasant boy or girl from doing well at school and becoming a doctor… so there’s no end in sight for hope. And who needs to become a military superpower when you can simplly own one or two or three…. It’s in the bag.

    • pc says:

      09:26pm | 29/10/09

      Sam,

      I think thats an interesting point about the relationship between the CCP and the citizens of the PRC. The only people with anything to fear from the CCP are the citizens of the PRC. Conversely the CCP know the only thing they have to fear is, not the aircraft carriers of the U.S, the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, but those very people with the most to fear, the citizens of the PRC. After witnessing the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe (sorry it wasnt Ronny, it was Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement) the CCP knew that it had to crush any similar demands for greater political freedom from its own citizens. We know what happened we were watching. Tiananmen. “Interpreting the gaze of the world’s media as daring them to respond to the challenge, the Chinese authorities rose to the occasion by putting their best foot forward - by showing they dared to kill even their own students and workers…If the West’s gaze can be paraphrased as “Lets keep a watch over you so that you dont act foolishly”, the Chinese governments response was “Since you are watching me so closely, let me show you how I can act.”

      Rey Chow has very interesting things to say on the subject of china.” Writing Diaspora. Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies”, as has Arif Dirlik   If you dont like reading I can recommend the art of Zhang Xiaogang or the films of Chen Kaige.

    • Etrix says:

      01:10pm | 25/02/10

      Do not completely agree… Rise of CHINA to almost becoming a superpower is inevitable… it will happen… & one of the main reason for that is current generation in west is too proud & lazy… they don’t realise the sacrifices the earlier generation has made to earn it…

    • Bayarnyam says:

      12:38pm | 13/01/12

      Whether have remained your archive of a photo of Ulaanbaatar of those days? To me very much interests as the journalist and inhabitant UB.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd there's always time for Din Tai Fung.

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski will be there just in time for Din Tai Fung

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd I hope that's in your piece tomorrow. Also - are you coming over this week or laaaaaater?

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski yes, Snowtown Abbey should be given an entirely segregated feed...

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter