Daily News and Analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
In a world facing increasing divisions, how can we build genuine understanding and cooperation across cultures?
Welcome to World Today, the panel discussion with Miike Anna in Beijing.
This week, over 600 guests from around 140 countries and regions have gathered here for the Global Civilization Dialogue Ministerial Meeting, held under the theme Safeguarding the Diversity of Human Civilizations for World Peace and Development.
In a congratulatory letter to the gathering, Chinese President Xi Jinping called on the international community community, to prioritize civilization exchanges and mutual learning over isolation and confrontation.
He pledged China's readiness to work with all nations in building a global network for dialogue and cooperation.
What does this renewed call for civilization dialogue mean for the global governance, cultural innovation and peace building?
To discuss this vital question, we are joined by Gordon Zemeling, consultant and analyst on China Perspectives, an entrepreneur in Chinese medicinal herbs.
Great to have you. Thank you.
Professor Qu Qiang, Fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Minzu University of China.
Welcome, Professor, as always.
Thank you very much. Professor Warwick Powell, Senior Fellow at Taihe Institute and Adjunct Professor at Queensland University of Technology.
Thanks for joining us again, Professor.
Absolute pleasure to be with you.
Gentlemen, before we dive into the big ideas behind civilization dialogue, let me ask each of you personally, what's the moment or experience in your life that made you realize the power of cultural exchange?
Professor Chu, would you like to start?
Yes, the communication of the culture is very, very valuable.
I always have one motto in my teaching to my students because I teach economics.
economics I always tell them that economics always evolve in a circle of decades like 10 years or 20 years but the politics always change according to a longer period of time the circle will usually be like 50 years to 100 years you will see a major change in atmosphere of the politics however the culture will always change or evolve in a period of a much much much longer span of time, usually around the 300 years to 1 ,000 years at least. So that's the reason why Chinese civilization stays as the only old civilization, you know, last from the ancient period of time for 5 ,000 years without being
interrupted and continuously to be like today.
Well, we have a saying that is our Emperor Qin Shi Huang, which is like 3 ,000 years ago, If he wakes up from the tomb and he saw current China, he wouldn't be so surprised because the territory, the size is basically similar.
And also the language, especially the written language we use, is also very, very similar to his period of time.
So it shows that the culture in one country will stay very, very stable for a very long time.
I think not only in China, but also in some other region of the civilization, like in Christianity region of the civilization centered in Mediterranean, or like the Islamic culture centered in the Middle East or some other culture regions.
If you go there, you find out even though the politics and economic models are changing from time to time, but people's behavior, people's belief and civilization and all the behavior based on that remain very, very stable.
That's the foundation to talk to each other between different group of people.
That is something we must pay attention to, respect, and also try to learn more about if we truly want to communicate and talk to a different group of people.
So I think that's the reason why President Xi Jinping always mentioned the people -to -people exchange is the cornerstone of international communication.
It's the cornerstone for mutual respect and win -win cooperation.
I think that's the reason why he got this global initiative of the civilization.
So in the future, I think if we want to really make sure that human community with a shared fate can actually be formed and work, I think this understanding about different civilization and also communication and mutual learning is also very, very important.
Professor Powell, what's your take?
Was there a moment in your own life when you truly felt the power of understanding across cultures?
Well, I was born in Hong Kong, I grew up in Macau, and then I moved to Australia.
My father's Australian, my mother's Chinese, and I've spent my entire life navigating civilizations and cultures.
So in that regard, I'm not sure that there was any single moment where I arrived at a conclusion that cross -civilizational dialogue was important, but it has been a living and breathing part of my own existence over five and a half decades.
What that really means, though, is also an appreciation of the fact that sometimes it's not easy that there are perspectives from different historical experiences that lead people to have different views about how the world is and to ground their understanding of the way that the world works in fundamental ideas that are different to each other.
Now, by and large, in a broad historical sense, this has never been that big of a problem, but in the last 400 to 500 years, it has become a significant problem because we have emanating particularly from the West, post -enlightenment, a worldview or a global ontology premised on the ideas of liberalism that sought to impose itself as the single universal standard. And I guess my own life experiences has been whenever somebody tries to do that, it invariably leads to grief and problems. We do need better ways of dealing with difference that does not result either in the attempt of one party smothering
the difference and trying to destroy something that is different from them, but also in a way in which difference can be harnessed to contribute to common objectives as well.
We'll explore that in details later.
But before that, Gordon, what's your story?
You've spent years working on promoting Chinese traditional medicine to international audiences, right?
That field isn't just about health.
It carries centuries of philosophy, worldviews and values.
So how have you navigated the cultural skepticism or or misunderstandings from West, especially around concepts like balance, chi, or holistic wellness.
Well, it's a similar story as Professor Powell, but the other way around.
I was brought up in the Netherlands, born in the Netherlands, brought up in the Netherlands, brought up in a home where a lot of cultures came to my home because of my parents' business.
They invited a lot of people from across the world including asia including china so i was aware of the cultural rates to a very superficial level but it was more of an exotic thing interesting and i was curious but that was the level at that time but the moment for me when i really started to realize the power of cultural exchange cultural understanding was when i was decided to live in china in 2009 even Even though I thought there was a lot of baggage of cultural knowledge, but that baggage was soon dropped on the floor.
Because it's a very different thing when you experience culture as a visitor, whether for business or for tourism, or you are going to live in a culture, distinctively different civilization.
And this is when you start to realize how you have been brought up.
It's not how the whole world has been brought up.
It is exactly on how people deal with each other, how societies, groups of people work together, how people view not only the world, but just particular situations, how they are trying to solve that.
So the reality that really even we think, especially in the West, we think there is one worldview, there isn't.
There are really very distinctive differences.
And it's impossible to make a template.
fates. At the beginning, you really start to compare your own culture, where you have brought up and the culture you are living in.
But the comparison is not the right way to do things.
In a way, you have to emerge and you have to start understanding.
Most important, you have to start practicing the culture, understand why people do what they do, think what they think.
And in my business, in the traditional Chinese medicine and trade, of course, this is a very interesting interesting topic because TCM is a very nice, so to say, metaphor and how Chinese people view in many ways or approach in many ways situations, whether these are problems or opportunities or views of the world.
You cannot expect different cultures to fully understand each other.
But the most important is the reality and the understanding that people think very different.
And this reality is often lacking and causing the problems in today's situation.
Gordon, you also bring a unique business perspective into this, I think.
In your view, how can entrepreneurs play a more active role in bridging civilizations today, not just through trade, but through values or worldviews embedded in their products and missions?
I think entrepreneurs or students or maybe other smaller entities, they already play a very crucial role in the mutual understanding of different cultures.
Because those smaller entities, they have a mission to make a mutual benefit for each other between different cultures.
So they are forced to try to understand what the other culture wants or needs.
And at the end of the day, of course, you want the business relation to last. So you have to find a way of mutual benefit.
I think they already play a significant role in today's situation when you go across different nations, whether I'm from Europe.
Usually, the entrepreneurs, they have a different view on China or Asia more in general or other cultures.
They have a more balanced view because they have the experience and they have the need to understand the other.
The problem in this way is that, of course, their reach as a usually smaller or medium -sized enterprise, their reach is less than those of the multinational giants who have a larger reach of reaching people either through media or otherwise.
And moreover, those multinational giants in the business world, they even have their own culture.
For example, when you go to a multinational in Europe, go to a multinational in China, of course, you see back some culture from that civilization, but they also have their own culture.
They are immersed in that own culture.
When I go to, for example, Philips in the Netherlands, when I go to Philips in Eindhoven, I see the Philips mentality.
I don't see the Dutch mentality.
I don't see the Dutch culture.
They have their own culture.
So that also misrepresents the culture of a society or of a civilization and the culture of multinational entities, which, of course, also control and manage a significant chunk of the world.
So it's not what can they do more.
I only could say more entrepreneurs, more smaller and medium -sized enterprises, and other entities like students come to China, Chinese students or enterprises come to the rest of the world, that would spread a more balanced view of each other.
That's an interesting observation.
And I think that also brings us to a deeper reflection.
Gentlemen, more than two decades ago, Samuel Huntington put forward the idea of a clash of civilizations, arguing that future conflicts would be driven not by ideology or economics, but by cultural and religious differences.
So my next question is, do you agree with Huntington's view?
And has the road moved closer to his prediction?
Or have we proven that civilization can, in fact, coexist peacefully through dialogue and mutual learning?
Professor Chu -Ciang, would you like to start?
Well, I love Simon Hamilton.
I agree with him and the major principle, but I'm not fully agree with him in the actual observation because there are many differences has been popping out in this new era of the world.
So I think he is very acute to understand the clash of the civilization, but also he failed to observe that there are corporations between different civilization or even within the one civilization.
civilization. So I think that is some shortage of his theory.
Well, I think my colleagues here, they all shared with us about their cross -culture experience.
Myself actually will represent another type of cross -culture experience.
I think that will help you to understand the right and wrongs of Mr. Huntington.
Actually, I'm Chinese for generations.
But in my DNA, in my family tree, it shows that perfectly.
What is the clash of civilization and what is the emergence of the civilization?
Look, 1 ,000 years ago, my family was born in the northern part of China.
Actually, we are the Serbs.
We're the Serbians, the nomad.
We're the enemy of the Midland.
But when our tribes try to move in into the China 1 ,000 years ago with the Tang, the royal family, probably the most important dynasty in China, the Tang dynasty, well, Well, they are a hybrid family.
For example, the founding emperor of the Tang Dynasty, Li Yuan, actually his mother is a Serb, but also his father is a Chinese.
So this mixed blood actually ruled China.
And my family actually marched together with the family of Li and as their officers.
Then after another 100 years, we have switched from a nomad, from a Serbian, actually changing into the gentry in the mid -China.
We speak Chinese. We believe Confucianism.
We believe in loyalty.
We believe in filial piety, this kind of beauty, the merits.
And later on, at the end of the Tang Dynasty, part of my family marched together with the royal family again into the Korean Peninsula.
And some of them actually resided in the Korean Peninsula ever after that.
So some of my family become the Korean.
And also my branch of the family actually, at the late of the Tang dynasty, moved to Vietnam, become the military governor of the Vietnam and then started their own ruling in Vietnam.
So we become actually one of the rulers in the ancient kingdom of the Vietnam.
Well, we have a little bit of independence of Vietnam.
And the governor named is also Mr. Chu, by ancient pronunciations called Mr. Ku.
So actually, it shows that in the past 1 ,000 years, the Chu family, or by ancient pronunciation, the Kok family, actually used to be a Serbian and then become a Chinese, and then some of them become Korean and also some of them become Vietnamese.
And all this circle actually belongs to the Confucian culture circle or grand Chinese culture circle.
circle. By DNA, I'm not quite Chinese, but by culture and by civilization's DNA, I'm purely Chinese.
And we formed a grand community of the Chinese culture.
And after 1 ,000 years, when I am a pure Chinese citizen, when I go to South Korea, I immediately understand what's going on, you know, without speaking the language.
I understand all the social etiquette.
When I go to to Vietnam, within three days, I learned Vietnamese.
I suddenly just know how to speak Vietnamese because more than 60 % of the verbal information are conveyed without the use of the language itself.
You can use a gesture.
You can use your facial expression.
You can understand each other, and you can learn faster about the verbal language after that.
So I think that's the power of the culture.
I never tell this story to many people.
But it shows that even after 1000 years, the culture is very stably performing itself and help this whole region actually to be integrated with each other again, even though China, Vietnam, South Korea, North Korea are very different nation with independent sovereignty right now.
But I can tell you that These countries are more than ever, even more closer linked to each other than Tang Dynasty or Ming Dynasty.
By what? Not by royal ruling anymore, not by military presence anymore, but by economic ties, but by the cultural links.
The K -pops, the Vietnam music, the Chinese soap operas become the new currency linking all these whole regions.
And the young people in this grand and vast land and region are more than ever turned to understand each other.
It shows that the magic of civilization is always there.
But I think Huntington didn't expect that.
It's because they probably will say, okay, this Confucian region will have the clash of the civilization with the surrounding.
founding, for example, with India, with the Hindu culture region, or with the other, the orthodox culture region from the north of the Russian.
But it didn't happen.
Actually, even after hundreds of years, all this region from time to time have conflicts with each other.
But we didn't have this kind of a large scale, you know, religious or something.
That is because I think this grand Chinese culture circle have its own merit that is continuous, inclusive, and peaceful and harmonious.
This is very different.
Second thing Huntington failed to observe is that there are clashes within the culture itself.
For example, in the past hundreds of years in Midland and Vietnam Peninsula and also Midland and Korean Peninsula, we have from time to time some small scale of the conflict.
Well, that is something Huntington never understand.
Well, I think he failed to observe so.
But because even in Europe, in the past 100 years, there are several major war happening.
But still, after the major war happening, Europe is just still united as one, still under one banner, under one belief.
And I think Asian region, especially the Eastern Asian region, will go to the same route, same will happen in North America and etc. And also, it doesn't mean all this culture region will confront confront each other or have a war with each other.
So peace is also a very strong choice facing the whole human community into the future.
So I think President Xi Jinping having a deeper understanding about what's going on in civilization, cooperation, harmonious coexistence will be the future theme.
I think Huntington will probably be limited by his growing up period of time and his backdrop.
So he's a little bit pessimistic.
I think we should be more optimistic, like what China is advocating.
Indeed. In you, I think I have to say we can really see the blend and inclusiveness of Chinese civilization.
Professor Powell, how do you view Huntington's view?
Looking at the geopolitical back job, how do you see civilizations aligning or clashing with the realities of today's power politics, you know, where values are often weaponized?
Look, I think it's important to try to firstly understand what it is that Huntington means by civilizations and how that particular conceptual approach shapes his analytical frame and how perhaps we can have quite a different way of understanding civilizations that is less reductive and less deterministic as the Huntington view of the world.
Huntington, I think, tends to conceptualize civilizations as standalone with a certain kind of agency as something that has an ahistoric permanence and coherence about it.
And I think it tends to be quite a seductive way of approaching history, because it paints a big picture that in many ways has some resonance for many people when they look at the history in a broad sense.
But I think it has some problems as well.
Its problems are that it does tend to see civilisations as almost permanent and non -dynamic agents that sit on top of history, are detached from the material circumstances and geographies and other considerations of the time.
ultimately leads you to thinking that you can reduce or explain conflicts by reference to some grand historical ontology.
It seems to me that's a particularly, ultimately a misleading view of history.
It tends to ignore the fact civilizations are actually far more dynamic, far more material and grounded, that they involve interactions with others continually, and also that that the sources of conflict that have taken place throughout the course of human history are actually not reducible to some grand idea of civilizational conflict.
So that's probably the first reaction I guess I've always had to the Huntington frame.
I think in the end it's a little bit too grand but also a little bit too shallow as a way of approaching the material complexity of social and, dare I say, civilisational history.
The other thing, though, that I think is worth bearing in mind is actually what does hold this sense of civilisation as being, to some extent, cohesive, notwithstanding their historical change and evolutions, And why it is that certain frameworks have lent themselves more to conflict as a way of resolving differences, as opposed to other approaches to understanding the world that tend not to lend themselves to conflict as a way of resolving differences.
And I guess we can get into this a little bit more later on, perhaps.
But I think that particularly the post -Enlightenment Western traditions that view the individual in an ahistoric sense and in a socially detached way also positions that as somehow part of the grand unfolding of history itself.
So that Western civilization or Western culture and the idea of individual freedom that emerged through the Enlightenment then came to be seen as the pinnacle of human historical evolution.
And therefore it became necessary for that particular view and the institutions that come along with that view of history to ultimately overcome the resistance of other ways of viewing the world.
So I think Huntington's view is problematic.
It doesn't really help us understand the complexities of human historical existence.
It really makes civilizations into static and simplistic things as opposed to dynamic, lived and material things.
Thanks for the insightful opinion.
Still ahead, how to safeguard the diversity of human civilizations in the pursuit of global peace and development.
This is World Today.
Stay with us. Welcome back to World Today.
I'm your host, Ke 'ana.
Anna, let's continue our discussion on cultural diversity and cooperation in a world grappling with turbulence and uncertainty.
Gordon, from your personal experience, how do you see Huntington's idea of clash of civilizations in today's context?
You know, we are living in a time when the world often feels divided by war, by values, even by algorithms. In such a moment, moment, do you believe civilization dialogue is still powerful?
I think it's more powerful than ever.
And that's why, in this way, glad that Huntington mentioned civilizations.
Because I want to cut this slogan, clash of civilizations, I want to cut it in two parts.
The first part is civilizations.
I'm glad he mentioned that, but that I follow up also on Professor Powell, the reduction of civilization is more than problematic.
Civilizations are very complex, multidimensional, and they are constantly moving.
It's not a static. What I feel was civilization.
And when you want to see civilizations, I sometimes use the metaphor of shareholders and stakeholders.
When you have, for example, shareholders of civilization, it means that people benefit from a civilization.
It can be an individual profit or benefit, it can be maybe to a larger extent.
But on the other hand, you have stakeholders of civilization, which means that people are accountable for their civilization.
Accountable, not in a subconscious accountability, people feel it and people live it.
That's the accountability.
So here you have these different kinds of civilizations that, for example, shareholders, they select typical typical civilizational aspects which i believe huntington does to to make a case well stakeholders are unable to do that because um stakeholders have the civilization in in the skin in their blood and so you are unable to make a case of civilization it's just there so in this case civilizations are very important and they are crucial uh the way civilizations are in being being here in the world.
So different civilizations.
About the second part, the clash, I do not agree with a clash.
This is actually a typical shareholder civilizational aspect of making a case when you see a clash that is typically a Western culture view.
You can trace that back in history when you for example in the past few centuries history, history, most people in the West cannot trace back further than those few centuries.
They always have seen a clash of existing powers and emerging powers.
We look at the Spaniards, we look at the Dutch, we look at the British, we look at the Americans.
But we tend to forget in the West, people tend to forget that until the early 19th century, there were two civilizations in the world which were the two largest economies of the world as well, and they lived alongside alongside those clashes of, call it powers or civilizations from the Western Hemisphere.
And those were China and India.
So they have always, for 1 ,800 years, they have lived more or less peacefully alongside any clashes in the Western or among the powers from the Western Hemisphere.
And you can see this civilization also in a, or the clash, you can also see this in a different way, that the West, now they often use the metaphor playing chess.
So you have a chess play board with hierarchy, with fixed moves, with rules and the rules -based order, etc. But the West is still bewildered, actually, that they don't see what game China is playing.
And that comes from civilization, and they are playing wait -see or goal.
And this game board is very different, and it originates from civilization and from Chinese culture.
It has very different rules where all the pieces are identical and they are fluid.
And it's not about clash, but it's about space.
You tend in this game, while in the game of chess, you try to win, to conquer the other, to destroy the other.
while in the game goal, you try to manage your own space and, of course, manage that other cannot enter your space.
And this is coming from the culture.
And we see this actually when you look at the cultural dimensions and you see the universal culture versus the particularist culture in Asia and the universal culture in the West. And they all things like Huntington, they think in that way, while they do not even realize that China but also other Asian countries are playing a different game in this way.
That were great metaphors.
It gave us a better understanding of your perspective and the concept of Huntington's clash of civilizations.
Gentlemen, let's move to the global civilization dialogue and ministerial meeting taking place in in Beijing.
President Xi Jinping said in his congratulatory message that we must transcend civilization barriers through exchanges and transcend civilization clashes through mutual learning.
I think this is a clear counterpoint to Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations theory.
So Professor Qu, earlier you touched upon a bit on this point.
Could you please elaborate in today's turbulent global environment, what real -world significance does this vision offer for resolving governance challenges and rebuilding international cooperation?
Well, I think I fully understand and fully agree with what President Xi Jinping has mentioned about the global initiative of civilization.
So why in this turbulent international backdrop, this is more than ever important.
It's because I think understanding each other's culture will help us to understand we are same people even though we have a different you know formalities we have different languages different flows we have different beliefs we have different you know family style living standard and etc but we are the same people we eat you know the same kind of food uh we have we breathe same kind of air and we have same kind of the kindness and the jealous scholars and we love similar things when we hate similar things and that makes up same people on the same earth but a lot of people trying to use the differences
of the culture to label different group of people and then to amplify our differences and use them as an excuse to hate each other to fight against each other but actually behind that is just different political or beneficial agendas so i think without understanding each other's culture people will turn to generalize and simplify you know different people as a different group of you know opponent or rivalry and so we will just uh project our own feeling especially the bad feeling onto the other people and turn them into an excuse to confrontation into confrontation uh or the hostilities i think
this is something we really don't need it right now so i think uh in today's turbulent international backdrop if we can form a you know a mechanism or many mechanisms or platforms for different nations regions, to talk to each other through dialogue, through cooperation, through exchanges, and that will help us, you know, to solve the root of our current confrontation international geopolitics in the first place.
I used to teach many international education programs in China and outside China as their lectures, and we find out before the students come from different nations or regions, you know, they really meet each other in person.
In my class, a lot of people have lots of stereotype and, you know, biases.
And sometimes they really hated each other.
But when they really meet each other, well, they find out actually they are the same kind of people.
They are very easy to understand each other.
And when you really stay with each other, sometimes the imaginary Big labels are just going to be disappearing.
For example, our differences on the face, our differences on living standard or on the lifestyle, that's going to fade away.
But what more things will bring you together is like, okay, what's your problem with your children's education?
transportation, what about your wife is nagging you?
How about your mortgage?
And what kind of car do you like?
Do you like picnic?
And all these kinds of the daily things I observed from Gaza Strip to Tel Aviv, to from Kiev, to, you know, Moscow, from Beijing to Tokyo, from, you know, Islamabad to, you know, Delhi, I think people actually are the same people.
By talking to each other with this kind of the same you know topics people immediately understand each other well i saw in my class is more of the laugh more of the talking more of eating together and toasting to each other then confrontation then you feel this label actually matters and make me feel more angry than i met these people in before so i think president xi jinping actually pointed out a right way is that you know different country with different civilization actually they can share you know a common way of development and especially we understand that there is another level of meaning
here is that everybody understand that is our behavior sometimes will be decided by our economic operation and activities and also we need to understand the current economic motto is also very very different from like 100 years ago like like before First World War or Second World War, is that, you know, at that time, yes, a nation, if they want to rise up and want to get richer, they probably need to have colonies.
They have to conquer the other people, defeat the other religion.
You know, it's the same like 1 ,000 years ago.
But current 100 years, especially in the past 40 years, the whole world changed, as China and Chinese example showed the whole world.
I always ask my students to ponder on this fact.
I say, well, if you are China, just to give me your consideration, if you are China, the largest factory manufacturer and service provider in the whole world, do you want to have poor, hostile neighbors in chaos?
Or do you want to have friendly, peaceful, and rich neighbors who have really good friendship and relation with you so that you can sell your product, your high -end product to them?
100 % of the students, their answer is that, well, if I'm China, I surely want to have my neighbors richer, more peaceful and more friendly because I want to sell my product to them.
And only well -off neighbors, peaceful neighbors and friendly neighbors would like to buy something from me and also to sell me the precious product they can produce, right?
So win -win cooperation is the theme of the modern economy.
You don't need to defeat your enemy.
Actually, the modern economy is 1 plus 1 bigger than 2, this kind of economy.
The improvement of the modern value -added is based on the brainpower.
It means one iPhone worths the value of conquering one acre of the land of the Aboriginals or Native Americans.
So, the whole logic has changed.
So before you want to smash your idea onto the other culture, before you want to hard sell your idea to some other civilization, before you want to strong arm your military force upon the other smaller nation or tribe, you probably would think, well, cooperating with them and enjoy this diversity will bring you more economic benefit and influences more than ever.
So why do you choose to sabotage the others while destroying your own?
So I think this is going to be stupid, but the right thing is to cooperate, to exchange, and to communicate with other civilizations, as President Xi Jinping always mentioned.
That's a really clear and well -structured explanation.
Professor Powell, based on the message President Xi Jinping sent out, How does the concept of civilisation dialogue differ from traditional diplomacy or cultural exchange programs, in your opinion?
What unique value does it bring in today's world?
I think it's a very important way of framing the issue because this question of cross -civilisational dialogue is actually a lot more than cultural exchange or diplomatic niceties.
It's also more than laying out the groundwork for some kind of lowest common denominator universals.
There's something much more to this than those ideas.
And it's actually grounded on the idea, in my view, that there is an extent to which there is incommensurability.
In other words, persistent difference across people and civilizations, that different civilizations are grounded in distinct ontologies, different metaphysical assumptions, and distinct ethical frameworks.
works. So what we're talking about is a recognition that there is actually difference, but that's not the end of the matter.
The challenge then is how, notwithstanding these potential incommensurabilities, people from different parts of the world with different civilizational and cultural backgrounds and experiences are able to find resonance with each other, to recognize that there are analogs across different traditions that enable a form of philosophical and cultural mutuality.
So for example, the Aristotelian idea of a virtuous person has analogs with the Confucian idea of the Junzi.
They aren't the same thing, but nonetheless they provide a space in which a dialogue can take place.
And that dialogue then enables the reimagination of modernity, not as a single pathway from traditional world to progress, but as a field of multiple or plural trajectories that are shaped by distinct civilizational experiences, as well as moral priorities.
So in that regard, I think that the civilizational initiative is actually a call for the transcendence of liberal hegemony, but in a way that doesn't descend into what we could call cultural relativism or even nationalist exceptionalism.
It's an invitation to think about the world order not as a project of homogenisation, making everything the same, but as a framework for the existence or the coexistence of different peoples by way of a negotiated ethical intelligibility.
We're finding ways of having mutual intelligibility in a world of difference.
So this is the issue of seeking commonality whilst recognising difference and how that manifests itself as relationships between peoples and also relationships between civilisations.
we need to, I think, use this question of a cross -civilisational dialogue to rethink the way in which we even understand modernity and to recognise that the West's modernity is not the only modernity and nor is it an inevitable or the inevitable modernity, That in fact, we must transcend, as I mentioned earlier, this sense that liberal modernity as defined by the experiences of the post -Enlightenment West is the story of humanity per se.
And there's some very specific examples where I think we can explore how this works.
And so I touched on this idea of moral cultivation and Jinzi in the Confucian tradition and how that opens up a dialogue actually with a pre -enlightenment tradition in Western philosophy, which can be traced back to Aristotle.
And so we can acknowledge the presence of difference whilst at the same time looking for these windows that open out a conceptual, ontological and philosophical bridge that enables communication to take place, notwithstanding the fact that, in fact, the experiences have been different.
So that that's why I think the civilizational dialogue matters.
It's you know, that word dialogue is so important in understanding what this initiative is all about.
And for dialogue to be able to take place in a deep and substantial way requires people to think deeply about what it is in their own philosophical and cultural traditions that allow us to understand each other.
but at the same time not compel us to subvert each other.
There is a common thread that ran through all human civilizations.
Professor Powell, building on that, earlier you mentioned the Global Civilization Initiative.
It has inspired a number of concrete projects over the past two years from heritage protection to cross -cultural education.
Among them, are there any standout cases of international cooperation precision that you find especially meaningful?
Look, I think there've been quite a lot.
And I think the one that I particularly like actually, and perhaps it's not a big grand initiative, but it's actually the way in which a very particular part of Chinese social tradition, which is tea, has played an important role in the processes of contemporary diplomacy.
And we have seen how President Xi Jinping has hosted other world leaders in Beijing where they've had discussions over tea.
At the same time, recently, when President Xi was visiting President Putin in Moscow, they had a discussion while sharing a cup of tea.
And I think that sometimes it's even the very simple things that give us a material way of understanding how notwithstanding differences, we also have much that enables people from different traditions and backgrounds to engage in dialogue, right?
So that you're not talking past each other, but you're engaging with each other.
You're not seeking to overturn the other by compelling the other to subordinate itself to you, but you're creating a space in which collectively what you both bring to the table transcends the limitations.
And as Professor Chu mentioned, this is the idea of one plus one being equal to more than two.
It's that ability for dialogue through commonality and difference to transcend the limitations of each element itself.
And so for me, sometimes you can think of the big initiatives, but I often like to think of how the small things that we can all experience and live ourselves can become part and parcel of the way that individuals can experience this challenge of cross -civilisational dialogue.
Indeed, it lies in the little things like food, gestures, humour, that really matters.
Gordon, what are some vivid examples you've observed that showcase how this initiative is being implemented?
Well, for me, it's the accountability, what it entails, that it's not about sharing each other's views and going home afterwards.
But it's about the accountability.
It's about it's greater than the sum.
It's maybe I can tell it's like a mosaic.
It's a mosaic of culture.
At the end, when you lay all the small little broken tiles together, it becomes something more, it becomes something more beautiful.
You know, at least also from my experience living here in China, it's not just about sharing what I experience, but it's also about a sense of responsibility that, you know, something is not right in the individual sums. You know, we are the same.
And we have the same emotions.
We have the same desires.
You know, we cry the same.
We laugh the same. We have the same pains.
We have the same pleasures.
And there is so much commonality among each other.
And as Professor Powell is saying, this is going back deep philosophically, both in China, but also in Europe.
Europe. It's about the initiative brings forward especially the responsibility of the initiative itself.
It's not about positioning whether people or whether governments are deciding to join the initiative.
It's not about their positioning and it's not about their shareholders' perspective and what they can get out of this, whether materialistically or philosophically.
It's about creating the greater sum.
The parties and the countries or the civilizations involving in this initiative, they should approach it like that and not like a what I could benefit from that, or what is my position, or how much I could lay in as a result of the bigger piece.
Professor Chiu, as an expert on the Belt and Road Initiative, we know it has long emphasized infrastructure and trade.
And increasingly, we are seeing people -to -people exchanges and cultural ties being placed front and center.
How do you see the BRI evolving to support this idea of civilization dialogue in practice?
And can you share any example where cultural understanding helped resolve tension or build trust in a project?
I am glad you asked a question.
This is very important.
A lot of people, when they're mentioning about the BRI and also people -to -people exchange, they always see that as two different things.
But actually, they're not.
A lot of people say, okay, BRI is about infrastructures, about trade, and also people -to -people exchange is that you have all kinds of exhibitions, you know, student exchange programs and, you know, Confucius Institute, something like that.
No, actually the real culture exchange and the people -to -people exchange actually are not happening in the museum, not happening in the Confucius Institute, but happening on the construction site, in the trade places, in all kinds of the economic corporations.
Why is that? because one confucius uh philosopher named is wong yang main in ming dynasty he mentioned very important theories called you know theory in practice which means you have to combine your mind with your hands i think that's also the model of the uh massachusetts institute of technology um what is that because you're telling people what you know or you're telling people how to understand each other that is not enough even though good but not enough uh for example i observed that if i invited uh you know to a group of students one come from country a one come from country two ask them
to sit down for an afternoon and have some seminar well they will understand a bit more of each other but that kind of the depths and that kind of a feeling is not very direct and not very deep so it's just very superficial but what actually bonding people together is that if you go to the belt and wrote projects in africa you find out many uh people from china they can speak african expressions languages and african people they can speak chinese and sometimes very strong local chinese dialects very funny you can see a lot of this kind of video clip on the tick And people really understand each
other. We've been seeing that on one of the Chinese fishing boat or transportation boat.
Actually, all the crew members actually are Africans, and they have a full or pure 100 % lifestyle like a Henan Chinese captain and speak the same language.
And the Chinese Henan captain are very getting used to the African dance.
So that is when in a real practice, in a real business, in a real thing, when people are working with each other, they will have the real culture communication.
So actually, let me tell you, the Belt and Road Initiative and the millions of big and small projects, trade and the real deal things happening every day are actually the real venue that will support and foster this kind of the real deal communication over the culture of the daily life, over the language and etc. etc. So I think this is the really I don't think people in China or anything they designed this, but somehow they will generate the most precious, you know, consequence or the result of mutual understanding and a mutual communication.
I think that is the biggest beauty of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Really big and really beautiful.
As the world faces growing uncertainty, dialogues like this remind us of the power of mutual understanding and the value of diverse perspectives.
And that brings us to the end of today's discussion.
A big thank you to our listeners for joining us and to our guests for their valuable insights.
Gordon Zimling, consultant and analyst on China perspectives, an entrepreneur in Chinese medicinal herbs.
Professor Chu Qiang, fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center at Mindu University of China, and Professor Warwick Powell, senior fellow at Taihe Institute and adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology.
That's all the time we have for this edition of World Today with Mika Anna in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
