Congratulations for setting up the first tangram – and in the eve of the Year of the Wooden Snake, too, which is supposed to be a year of transformation, growth and introspection.
The first outcome of arranging the six tans – it does not matter their number is one less than the mandatory seven – is mostly inspiring, hence the following respectful comments:
1. To my mind, the answer to the question is fundamentally conditioned by the ability of the Communist Party to strike the right and sustainable balance between ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ factors. Mr. Parton’s remarks hit the mark, and the ‘home’ affairs are clearly addressed by Ms. Osman, while the ‘foreign’ ones are present in the lines of other distinguished authors.
2. The relevance of this balance is increasingly under pressure following the evanescing separation lines between home policy and foreign policy, albeit the final say remains deeply rooted in the national authority. As far back as the 19th Congress of the Party, Mr. Xi Jinping proclaimed that the ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics is blazing a new trail for other developing countries to achieve modernization’. This seems to be another ‘contrast’ to join Mr. Magnus’ one, as it emerges from China’s exceptionalism Ms. Osman rightfully highlighted. China’s foreign policy actually mirrors the domestic platform of the Party by virtue of the self-convincing exceptionalism.
3. The osmosis between the ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ policies is a general trend. It follows that more self-examination of one’s own challenges and failures, not China’s only, is strongly needed to successfully participate in the systemic competition. The tension Mr. Parton identifies as dominant theme of the first half of the 21st century includes the task to ‘embrace our capacity to effect change in a progressive direction’ in liberal democracies, as Mr. Pollard states, because the threat comes from within as well.
Thank you, again, and looking forward to next Tangrams.
Doru Costea, Romania, former ambassador to Beijing, now retired.
Many thanks for these perspectives. As a humble non-specialist, I found the contributions of Charles Parton, and Keven Rowlands and Emma Salisbury to be the most informative; apart from the latters' use of the ugly and unnecessary term 'sustainment'.
Ruby Osman's contribution was also most interesting, mostly because it defies what we know of the history of the past half-millennium. States which become economically powerful based on overseas trade, inevitably seek global dominance: Portugal, Spain, France, Britain, the United States. The fact that the PRC is rapidly building the world's largest blue-water navy, rather points to such an intent. All, of course, in defence of one's legitimate economic interests.
I am also puzzled at Ms Osman's reference to five thousand years of Chinese history. Who may one ask was the king of China in 3000 BC? Archaeology, legendary accounts such as the earlier chapters of the Shujing, and CCP propaganda, are not history.
Doru Costea, Romania
Congratulations for setting up the first tangram – and in the eve of the Year of the Wooden Snake, too, which is supposed to be a year of transformation, growth and introspection.
The first outcome of arranging the six tans – it does not matter their number is one less than the mandatory seven – is mostly inspiring, hence the following respectful comments:
1. To my mind, the answer to the question is fundamentally conditioned by the ability of the Communist Party to strike the right and sustainable balance between ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ factors. Mr. Parton’s remarks hit the mark, and the ‘home’ affairs are clearly addressed by Ms. Osman, while the ‘foreign’ ones are present in the lines of other distinguished authors.
2. The relevance of this balance is increasingly under pressure following the evanescing separation lines between home policy and foreign policy, albeit the final say remains deeply rooted in the national authority. As far back as the 19th Congress of the Party, Mr. Xi Jinping proclaimed that the ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics is blazing a new trail for other developing countries to achieve modernization’. This seems to be another ‘contrast’ to join Mr. Magnus’ one, as it emerges from China’s exceptionalism Ms. Osman rightfully highlighted. China’s foreign policy actually mirrors the domestic platform of the Party by virtue of the self-convincing exceptionalism.
3. The osmosis between the ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ policies is a general trend. It follows that more self-examination of one’s own challenges and failures, not China’s only, is strongly needed to successfully participate in the systemic competition. The tension Mr. Parton identifies as dominant theme of the first half of the 21st century includes the task to ‘embrace our capacity to effect change in a progressive direction’ in liberal democracies, as Mr. Pollard states, because the threat comes from within as well.
Thank you, again, and looking forward to next Tangrams.
Doru Costea, Romania, former ambassador to Beijing, now retired.
Many thanks for these perspectives. As a humble non-specialist, I found the contributions of Charles Parton, and Keven Rowlands and Emma Salisbury to be the most informative; apart from the latters' use of the ugly and unnecessary term 'sustainment'.
Ruby Osman's contribution was also most interesting, mostly because it defies what we know of the history of the past half-millennium. States which become economically powerful based on overseas trade, inevitably seek global dominance: Portugal, Spain, France, Britain, the United States. The fact that the PRC is rapidly building the world's largest blue-water navy, rather points to such an intent. All, of course, in defence of one's legitimate economic interests.
I am also puzzled at Ms Osman's reference to five thousand years of Chinese history. Who may one ask was the king of China in 3000 BC? Archaeology, legendary accounts such as the earlier chapters of the Shujing, and CCP propaganda, are not history.