China not a 'risk' for Germany or Europe: German sinologist
GT: What are your expectations for Chancellor Scholz’s trip? How do you evaluate the China-Germany relationship, especially in the economic and trade area, under the current global changes?
Schmidt-Glintzer: I think the bilateral relationship is good, and it should become better in the future. During this trip, I think Chancellor Scholz should try to identify and strengthen the relations between our two countries and also discuss ways how Germany, China, and maybe others could contribute to ending the war in Ukraine.
The economic cooperation between Germany and China was good and very intense, and it will be flourishing, as it should. In the future, on an equal playing field, there will be some discussions and some problems also to solve. But the cooperation, in general, should flourish. And I think both sides have an intense interest in cooperation in all economic and other fields, including science and technology.
GT: How do you understand the “derisking” advocated by some politicians in Europe? Is China really a risk to Europe?
Schmidt-Glintzer: The “de-risking” in the friendly sense is very natural. We all know that we should minimize the risks, and this is general advice for every entrepreneur. So the “de-risking” in itself is not bad and it’s understandable for all sides. There was also this discussion on “decoupling,” and some people understand the “de-risking” as a kind of a “small decoupling.” I think this is not good.
There are different kinds of risks [ for Germany and Europe], and they stem from [issues, such as] the usage of coal and carbon, among others. We can overcome the risks that we are confronted with only in a common endeavor. But China itself is not a risk for anybody. China has its own problems, some of which will take a long time to solve. But I don’t see China as a risk for Germany or Europe.
GT: In recent years, we observed such a trend in the West: There are fewer and fewer “China hands” in the West, especially in the political sphere. Moreover, anyone who says anything good about China is highly likely to be criticized or even attacked by mainstream Western public opinion. As a world-renowned sinologist, how do you understand this phenomenon?
Schmidt-Glintzer: We have sometimes seen double standards in the official discourse [in the West], which is not good. There are many things [Western] people do not understand about what is going on in China.
At the same time, they also do not understand what is happening in other countries, but they may, in a specific way, regard China as an issue and focus on China. This is a kind of one-sidedness, which is inappropriate. There is now the narrative of labeling China as “an authoritarian country” and I think this is an oversimplification and not adequate to describe China. There aren’t many people who realize the historical development of China and where China comes from.
Both Europe and China have their own history and difficulties, so one should just look for a dialogue between these different heritages and, of course, maybe the different visions concerning the future. And we should also have a dialogue on what will be our future. If we want to have a common future, we have to reorganize ourselves in all areas.
The main fear I have is that the dialogue [between China and Europe] will break down and that China will react in a way that it doesn’t have to. And if there are contradictions, then they will put impulses on each other. What we need is more dialogue.
GT: You said last year that “we in Europe have to start a long march ourselves and learn from China, as China has already learned from Europe.” Can you elaborate on this idea? What kind of “long march” should Europe embark on?
Schmidt-Glintzer: Cooperation with Europe can be useful for China, because China can learn something from Europe. Regarding internal organization, Europe has a vast amount of experience in this area, for example, in terms of the federal constitution and the intercourse between central and local powers.
On the other hand, it’s two-way traffic, so to speak. Europe can learn how China is solving certain problems which can only be solved in the greater area. So, for example, Europe could work on its own infrastructure by learning from China’s experience in this area. And China has made enormous educational strides in the last few decades, bringing people to schools and universities and educating its people. So in this respect, Europe and Germany can also learn from China.
GT: How do you see Europe’s role in today’s world, especially regarding global governance?
Schmidt-Glintzer: US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen once said that the world is big enough for both the US and China to thrive. But the question is, where is Europe [in this world]? Europe has to make up its mind about which role it will play in the future.
And then the other thing is we have to deliberate on how we envision a coming future. This is still a global issue and it cannot be only the problem of the G7 or the G20. In this multipolar system, mankind is not just an undefined mass. China, as I understand, wants to play a role and it should play a role. China is important because of its size, population and cultural heritage. It can contribute to a common future and especially because of that, the dialogue must go on and mutual learning should be pursued. And this also includes scholarly, technical and intellectual exchanges.
GT: Last year, an article written by you and another German sinologist Thomas Heberer after visiting Xinjiang sparked controversy and was even criticized by some forces as “whitewashing” China’s policy in Xinjiang. Could you tell us more about this trip?
Schmidt-Glintzer: I myself have been working on the Chinese minority aspect since 1989. When I was asked to join this group [to visit Xinjiang], I thought it would be worthwhile. What I experienced told me that compared to the reports I read in the newspapers, something must have been changed and is still being changed. And therefore, we wrote this short article to look at this region. Concerning all other insights, I will not say more because we are preparing for a publication in the foreseeable future.
Human rights are important for all of us all over the world. But I would not want to make human rights a tool to isolate China or even to weaponize human rights. Human rights in all their aspects are important, and I’m the last to “whitewash” or neglect these things.