Illustration: Liu Rui
I read on a microblog the other day that it is dangerous to be an extremist country. The author argues that people will shun it as they will shun an extreme person, and that China needs friends. He accuses people who want to use China's military might to guard its business of being stuck in an imperialist 19th century mentality that China suffered from when invaded by Britain during the opium wars.
I'd like to talk about such narratives. The West has used military operations to guard its business interests for the past 500 years, from the era of open piracy to the current days of the market economy.
The West opened Chinese markets with cannons in the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). To preserve its Indian market, 50,000 British and 200,000 Indian soldiers were stationed in India. The idea of literally conquering foreign markets has not lost momentum in the 21st century. Take the US interventions in the Middle East, for instance.
On the other hand, Chinese companies are left to face foreign markets without the sense of security granted by a military presence. Stood in the market defenseless, we are facing fierce Western competitors who bullied their way into the market and so can set the rules of the game. A noticeable recent example is the military intervention by the West in Libya that posed a grand total of over $10 billion of investment from China at great risk.
Many countries that enjoy prestigious positions today were first feared by others, then respected and even admired. The influence of the US is based on the military bases in more than 140 countries and regions. When China tried to reduce its export of rare earths, the WTO dominated by the Western countries concluded that it broke the rules.
The US restricting Chinese export of tyres, however, is said to be just righteous. Also, China is helpless in the face of the Western ban on high-tech and arms sales. What is behind these rules? Isn't it the "sword?"A disguised sword is never justice.
Acknowledging the rule does not grant us full freedom of action. I can hardly imagine that China will someday be involved in full-on gunboat diplomacy to force open a foreign market. However, it does not mean we should stand aside defenseless.
Display of potential military strength is not only necessary, but also essential, for future development of our economic power.
The implications of not acknowledging the value and necessity of military power are two, both highly unfavorable. One, we might be reduced to a country that suffers from collective illusion of national pride, self-deceivingly sucking up any incidence of injustice in the global market with an idiotic smile.
It is certainly not helpful for a healthy development of national spirit and general wisdom. And it might also encourage further evasion of our national interests.
An invariably humble foreign policy that strictly prioritizes harmonious relationship and the value of compromise will reduce us to a country that serves as an ATM machine for the West and a charity for the developing world.
This direction, in which we are heading, is laughable at best and comes at the cost of the working-class majority.
There is an old saying in the classic Chinese novel Outlaws of the Marsh that every true friend is one made through various forms of conflict; no friend is made through obsequious soliciting.
If we carry on our current foreign policy, buying our way into international relations, we are placing ourselves into the vulnerability of possible betrayal and disappointment.
Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi learnt this lesson; after trying to buy off Western public and government opinion with generous "charity donations," the same countries, such as France, whose institutions received his funds, still intervened in Libya.
International relations follow the same formula as social interactions. True friendship is formed through hardship and conflict.
The author is a researcher of Chinese study at China National Academy of Arts. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Aggressive diplomacy will leave country in isolation