unirule-logo
Independent Think Tank - China Market Reform Initiative

Home
Unirule Highlights
About Us
People
Research
Consulting
Biweekly Symposium
Events
Publication
News
Newsletters
Videos
Support Us
Contact Us
中文


You are here:Home>Unirule Highlights



People-oriented or Country-oriented〔Mao Yushi〕
 
 Author:Unirule  
Time:2010-09-05 16:46:03   Clicks:


Unirule Institute of Economics, MAO Yushi

Artyom Savelyev, the 7-year-old Russian boy adopted by an American nurse named Torry Hansen from a Children’s Welfare Home in Vladivostok when he was 6 years old, was recently sent alone on a one-way flight back to Moscow by his adoptive mother, with a note saying she no longer wishes to parent this child as he was violent and had severe psychological problems. This incident is merely a family dispute in itself, and a variety of similar things have happened in the past. In more certain severe cases, even bodily injury has been involved. However, since it involves people of two countries, it then became an issue between two countries, and diplomats, even the president of Russia have released statements on this issue. The media then added fuel to the fire, making this incident an international affair. This incident, if not involving two countries, is actually no more than an ordinary issue, which would barely be qualified for a local newspaper. From such comparison, we can see that both politicians and the common people are more willing to view things from a country’s perspective, thus making simple things much more complicated. A matter between two individuals then becomes an issue between two countries. Which viewpoint is right and which is wrong? The boundary point is the principle of “people-oriented” and the principle of “country-oriented.”

If we stick to the principle of “people-oriented”, we should pay more attention to and base ourselves on the interests of concerned people, and try our best to find the most favorable solution. In the case of Artyom Savelyev, what should be firstly taken into consideration is the child’s future, and his adoptive mother’s interested should also be looked to. Here, no country issue would be involved at all. However, if we stick to the principle of “country-oriented,” the situation will be very different. What should be firstly taken into consideration is national interests, territorial integrity, etc. Even if there is no national interest issue involved, we should at least look to national dignity. When talking of dignify issue, we will always find something to do. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman had said that adoptions of Russian children by U.S. families would all be suspended. Russian president also had made public speech and scolded sharply that American adoptive mother from the perspective of national dignity. Russian government has made decision to suspend its adoption deal with the U.S. As a result, the American parents, who should originally be able to complete their adoption procedure happily, now have to wait until the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman would show some kindness one day to approve of resuming the adoption business. Recently, American parents even launched a signature campaign with twenty thousand participants, requesting Russia to resume the adoption business as soon as possible. If this incident has happened within a country, it should never have exerted such extensive influence. However, for implementing the principle of “country-oriented,” hundreds of thousands of people will take part in. Participation of so many enthusiastic people makes the adoption business more complicated and with more troubles rather than making it easier and more complete. Ultimately, it is the common people who have to pay the bill and suffer inconvenience.

[Page]

It is really a very strange thing that when “country-oriented” is emphasized, all things tend to become more and more complex. Originally a very simple issue or something barely qualified to be called an issue, or totally nothing at all, will arouse heated arguments and finally result in fierce conflicts. Take the territorial conflict in Fishing Island in the East Sea for example. There are neither residents nor resources on this island. If we base ourselves on the principle of “people-oriented”, nobody will even pay any attention to this island at all. However, just due to “country-oriented” idea, this island becomes a national dispute and both party contest every inch of the ground. In fact, some people have already died for it. Their sacrifice obviously is not for some individuals but for the country. That’s where the difference of the principle of “people-oriented” and the principle of “country-oriented” lies. Luckily that few had died in Fishing Island conflicts. There are similar conflicts in which both party moved troops to start wars against each other simply for certain worthless territory, yet much more people sacrificed their lives, up to several dozens, several hundreds, and even several hundred thousands. What on earth their death is for? Now we might still have some excuses to say. However, as history develops, these excuses will gradually fade. After one or two hundred years, it’s very possible that these excuses will then seem rather beyond comprehension. In such wars as Korean War, Treasure Island Battle, the 1962 India China War, China Vietnam War, and Aiding Vietnam in Its Anti-American War, etc., the numbers of the dead go far beyond one hundred or two hundred thousand. It seems we had never thought too much for the dead in wars. Their young life was destroyed thus. The dead will never speak for themselves again, while we are still alive and have chances to speak. Shouldn’t we have a thought for them? They died for the country and certainly deserve our admiration, yet few ever inquire about what are their reasons for sacrifice. If similar things happen in the future, are we ready to sacrifice again? If it were your turn, are you willing to die for this? Those who start wars rarely go to the front, that’s why they call loudly for sacrifice for the country. 

It totally makes sense if they died for the country based on the principle of “people-oriented.” For example, when Japan invaded China and wanted to make Chinese people colonial slaves, we refused firmly and defended our country even at the cost of our lives because our people were harmed. This is not about national dignity but people’s lives. If it's only about national dignity and has nothing to do with people’s interest, whether we should care about it will be something deserves further discussion. This opinion might be very difficult to be accepted by most people, as the deep-rooted idea of “country-oriented” is very difficult to reverse. Since this idea had been implemented for sever thousand years, nobody feels it necessary to think about what’s the problem with it. However, due to mislead of “country-oriented” idea, numerous people died a worthless death. Probably, it’s because the concept of country is so much strong that even people’s lives seem not so important. Actually, this is totally putting the cart before the horse. Human life is the most important and valuable thing, and the idea of “people-oriented” is absolutely correct. Now it’s time for us to reconsider the importance order of things. [Page]

This year is the 35th Anniversary of the End of Vietnam War. The U.S. held another memorial in remembrance of over fifty thousand Americans died in Vietnam War. Now it seems these people died such a useless death. The U.S. took part in Vietnam War and was defeated, yet failed to prevent Vietnam to become a communism country. What is more beyond the U.S.’s imagination is that Vietnam then transited more and more towards capitalism after reform. If they had known then what was going to happen, they certainly wouldn't have done what they did. Probably, Vietnam is also mourning for its solders died in the war. However, neither of the two countries will mourn for the dead people of the other country, because it is “country-oriented”, and each country has their own political aims. However, when we view this war from the perspective of “people-oriented,” all those died in Vietnam War are humans, and all died a worthless death. Recently in April 30th, 2010, a monument was erected on Hainan Island sacred to the memory of martyrs died in Hainan Liberation War, among which the dead of the Kuomintang troops are certainly excluded. Both parties of the war have their excuses, all claiming the other party to be wrong, reactionary, and against the people’s interests. As for who on earth is right, it’s difficult to speak plainly with just a few words. However, for those who died in wars, they are all common people for whom their own life is the most important thing rather than the fact who is correct and who is wrong. The government sent them to the battlefield to face the enemy’s weapons, and they had no choices. The only way is to kill the other party, because if you don’t kill the other party, he will kill you. They were forced to kill young men similar to themselves. They might have parents, wives and children, and once warm families. However, once they were put on the battlefield, all these were forgotten. Killing is the only way out, because it is “country-oriented” here! Soldiers on the battlefield actually resemble a lot the ancient roman gladiators on the Colosseum who were cultivated by the aristocracy for the sole purpose of performing wrestling on the Colosseum until they were ultimately killed by one another. They have no other choices at all.

When unfolding a newspaper everyday, you will see a whole bunch of news, vigorous and noisy. However, how many of things we concern take “people-oriented” as the starting point? How many take “country-oriented” as the starting point? After a careful reflection, you will surely to find that most of the hotspot news is created by politicians, and has little to do with common people. Take today’s (May 8th, 2010) CanKaoXiaoXi for example, Japanese and Chinese Investigation Boats Confront Each Other on East China Sea (Following Each Other), Turkey Exports Arms, Russia Revives Its Black Sea Fleet, Responsibility of South Korea’s Sunk Warship, US-Russia Nuclear Energy Dispute, Summit Crisis between the European Union and Latin America, Kim Jong Il's visit to China, none of which start from common people’s interest, and most of which are instigated by politicians who try hard to find fault. Though some events might directly relate to people’s interest, the solutions are mostly "going south by driving the chariot north," and making things more complicated and more difficult to solve. [Page]

Another domestic incident similar to the case of the Russian kid being adopted and then sent back home which resulted in international conflicts is the ethnic brawl in Shaoguan City in southern Guangdong Province. A rumor that Uighur workers had raped two Han Chinese girls brought swift and violent retaliations against Uighurs from the Chinese workers for defending themselves and punishing those Uighur offenders. The conflict then spread to Xinjiang region and turned into a major ethnic crash between Han Chinese and Uighurs, resulting in over 100 deaths. This is originally a very common public security incident, and hundreds of similar incidents are happening everyday. However, when viewed as an ethnic issue, the character of the incident has totally changed. Crooks exist among both young Uighurs and young Han Chinese, so their crime has nothing to do with ethic issues. The people, however, viewed this incident differently, considering the two young Uighurs represented the whole Uighurs to rape the whole Han Chinese women. Han Chinese then felt they should take up the cudgels for a just cause and helped each other in defending themselves. That’s how a major crash between two ethnic groups was brought about. Surprisingly, special investigation after the outburst of violence by the government found no wirepuller planning this incident, and the crash turns out to be a totally spontaneous action of the people. The reason is the habitually country-oriented or ethnic group-oriented spirit, instead of the people-oriented spirit. Any minor disputes among the people might turn into ethnic conflicts in the future if this habitual thinking pattern is not changed. For example, when a Han Chinese robs a Uighur his money, Uighurs can arouse the whole Uighur people to retaliate against Han Chinese. Minor disputes among the people may easily cause severe ethnic crashes once again. Incidents similar to the case of Artyom Savelyev are comparatively easy to be prevented, while disputes among different ethnic groups who live together everyday are impossible to be prevented at all. If we all view these from the ethnic group-oriented perspective, it’s possible that all minor things may turn into big events. 

There are some other examples in which grave international events were caused due to people’s long-standing country-oriented idea. The suspected rape of a Japanese girl by a U.S. Marine on the southern island of Okinawa in February 2008 resulted in severe conflicts between Japan and the U.S., and sparked huge protests by local residents calling on the U.S. military base to dismantled. In fact, whether a military base should be dismantled has no close bearing on the rape case, and the two were associated with each other simply by the country-oriented idea. Another similar case is the rape of a young Peking University student named Shen Chong by two American Marines in Beijing on December 24, 1946. The Communist Party launched large-scale protests which then developed into a nationwide anti-American and anti-government political movement. When committing the crime, the two American Marines might not have any idea that they were raping Chinese female college students by representing the U.S. The people, however, do view this incident that way. [Page]

Today, however, what troubles us most is not war but terrorism. Some terrorists put bombs on themselves to attack other innocent people. Obviously this sort of behavior is good to none but worse to the terrorists themselves. Even with the least reasoning, hardly anybody would fail to see the absurdity about it, yet there are those who sacrificed themselves for such an extremely absurd goal. Thank God there are not many of them, or we will find it very hard to manage to live. However, behaviors similar to that of terrorists, when changing their forms a little in a disguised way, can cheat the public easily. A most recent example is China’s class struggle which is represented by the Culture Revolution. To preserve proletariat’s permanent leadership, we ordinary people were then made to frame up one another, and people of the whole country got fooled. In a big country with a population of several hundred million, this trick encountered no restraint from anyone, and hundreds of thousands were forced to lose their family or even commit suicide. There were also those who carried out violence by using machine-guns and cannons to kill one another. The theory basis behind it is “Country-Oriented” logic. If we all understand the real meaning of “People-Oriented”, we would never have come into such absurd situation. The Culture Revolution has passed, and nobody will frame one another any more. However, the idea of “Country-Oriented” has not been eradicated, and might counterattack at any moment, the people then will suffer for it again.

You might feel like to ask, why is the “country-oriented” idea so deeply ingrained? The reason is rather complex. However, in the final analysis, this responsibility rests mostly with the politicians. It’s them who had been promoting and enhancing this idea, asking the common people to sacrifice for the country, and in fact, for themselves. They intentionally ingrained this idea into common people’s mind, so that they could easily make use of common people to fulfill their own aims. In both dictatorships and democratic countries, the chief aim of politicians is to continue their regime over the country and to remain in power as long as possible, so that they have more money to use and more dignity. Though seemingly all they did is for the common people, while actually they did everything just for themselves. Only when “people-oriented” idea gradually takes the place of “country-oriented” idea and when politicians are under effective supervision by the people, will the relationship between politicians and common people be able to change. Then politicians will not be able to use “country-oriented” idea to deceive the people any more, and everything they do must conform to interests of the people, even if not in accordance with national interests. When national interests conflict with people’s interests, national interests should be sacrificed for people’s interests, not the other way round. Ultimately, the concept of a country will gradually fade, and organizations of people and community will take the place of country. By then, there would be no more wars, and nobody would feel like making atomic bombs or carriers, even machine guns will have no use anymore, and in terms of weapons guns will satisfy all our needs to cope with gangsters and thieves. Also, by then, arms factory, important military and national defense positions, military academies, military scientific research, military camps, and military reviews, will all become the past. By that time world peace will have its ultimate safeguard. Certainly, it seems we are still quite far away from this goal. If we mankind are still able to live another one or two hundred years, and not wiped out by nuclear wars, the ultimate world must have such a structure. Only in this way will world permanent peace be guaranteed. In fact, a few countries have come very close to this ideal state, all of which are small countries, such as, Liechtenstein, San Marino, and Monaco. According to Transparency International, eight out of ten most incorruptible countries are small countries; thirteen out of twenty-three countries which rank high in Human Development Index (HDI) are small countries; eight out of ten richest countries are also small countries. These small countries have negligible defense spending, no bureaucratic government, and very few policemen. Therefore, these countries are very efficient and people there live a wealthy life.[Page]

After talking so much about great truths, let’s get back to the case of Artyom Savelyev. Why diplomats and even presidents are so interested in such a trifle? They have one thousand and one things to do everyday, then why they still bother themselves for such a minor matter? The truth is, this is not a trifle for them, it is actually something that concerns the national dignity of a country they represent. I suppose a series of meetings will be held over this matter afterwards. And naturally, several dozens of people will fly from here to there by first-class, stay in luxurious hotels, and then argue with each other about rights and wrongs with the guidance of so-called “country-oriented” spirit, all using money of us tax-payers. The ultimate result scarcely would be from common people’s interest, but the belief that a country’s national dignity surpasses everything else. Still, common people are those who suffer most. After all, they are forbidden to do things which they’re free to do before.  Luckily, this is a small matter any way. However, since this rule is also true with big things like war and peace, and that will be what we should really worry about. 




Upcoming Events
Unirule and Fairbank Cent...  
A Seminar on “Tax Burden...  
An Urbanization Salon Hel...  
The Sixth Session of the ...  
Seminar on “Theoretical ...  
The Sixth Session of West...  
The Third Session of Haye...  
The New Economy Salon Ses...  
unirule
        Unirule Institute of Economics
        Floor 6, Zhengren Building, No. 9, Chong Wen Men Wai Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100062, China
        Tel: 8610-52988127 Fax: 8610-52988127