They may represent only one of the dimensions of a global network connecting civilizations, but the relations between the West and China are, nevertheless, of the highest significance.

Their importance is not determined by their quantitative exchanges, but derives from the solutions to the global problems that their synergies can offer. The relations are a “creative minority”, to reinterpret Arnold Toynbee’s terminology, much more than a “global elite”, which can better extract from the Sino-Western relationship some of the solutions to the issues of our time.

While the “global elite” rejoice in a globalization which flattens the cultural differences, and by doing so, acts as a generator of conservative populism, the “creative minority” concerned above all by culture finds in the differences the resources to reach new equilibria.

The socio-political realities of the 21st century raise two fundamental questions. How to make sure that the economic globalization remains a fair, sustainable and balanced process? How can its powerful but morally blind engine, the unstoppable advancement of technology, stay at the service of mankind?

Mankind has hitherto survived the entry into the atomic age, it will have to wisely manage artificial intelligence and the applications of quantum physics among other technological disruptions.

The nature of the answers that the West and China will formulate depends on their capacity to reinterpret their humanism, and on their ability, in a world of growing interdependence, to make a full use of the fundamental compatibility between the two traditions. In that sense, China’s opening up to the West and the West’s opening up to China are vital for both sides.

The narrative in which there would be an inevitable clash between China and the West is a construct which has to be countered since they happen to be the most potent co-architects for the building of “a community of destiny for mankind”.

With the proposal of “a community of destiny for mankind”, the Chinese President Xi Jinping reinterprets the Chinese classical cosmopolitanism -- the Confucian notion of Da Tong, 大同 --, and he puts China on a path which is reminiscent of Western universalism.

In the vision of a new humanism ushered by the Sino-Western synergies, it is mankind, and not a part of it, which stands as the highest goal.

Some commentators look at strategic cooperation between China and the West as a mere fantasy arguing that their political systems have different features.

A fantasy it is not. The legitimacy of the Chinese political system, which is real, should not be measured by its level of imitation of the Western modern political forms. Its legitimacy takes its source in its capacity to maintain China on a path of quantitative and qualitative development.

Moreover, it is with the Communist Party of China, the force behind the emancipation, the opening-up and the growing prosperity of the Chinese society, that the West is de facto working to organize a better globalization. The reality is that the West, and beyond, the world, have accepted the forms of the Chinese governance since they are contributors to global order. The Chinese renaissance that the CPC sets as its main objective allows the West to have a solid partner with whom to work for global growth and security.

Besides the objections linked with political science, some observers reject the possibility of long-term Sino-Western strategic synergies for geopolitical reasons.

This is because they assume China’s rapid progress in every dimension of power -- and its systematic underestimating the internal challenges that are typical for a country of China’s size -- will promote geopolitical trends conducive, they believe, to a confrontation between China, the rising power, and the United States on a mission to maintain the status quo.

Such an interpretation ignores that China is less concerned by leadership than by centrality. Also, the fact that the Chinese intentions do not exactly correspond with Western strategic objectives is highly reassuring since violence erupts when both parties are in a race for the same position.

This is a crucial point. It is the difference between the two cultures which could be the best guarantor of peace. If China follows the path that the West took when it modernized, and if it adopts the West’s missionary spirit, a conflict between the two might be unavoidable. But if China behaves in a way which is more in conformity with its history and culture, compatibility and complementarity might prevail. The analysts should remember that this is an imitative China, a China mirroring the West, which could be the real threat to world peace.

It is, therefore, fortunate that the Chinese renaissance does not equal to Westernization. Having said that, while the West should not fear a dominant China, it will certainly have to adjust to a world where China is relevant and influential, for this is what China wants to achieve.

However, it is reasonable to assume that China’s influence will be put at the service of a cooperative internationalism as Xi’s emphasis on “a community of destiny for mankind” indicates.

In order to fully realize the enormous potential of Sino-Western synergies, a constant dialogue aiming at the increase of mutual understanding is necessary. Unfortunately, the level of mutual appreciation between the two civilizations remains low, and the proponents of cosmopolitanism can be concerned by the regression that US President Donald Trump triggers.

The sad symbols of this regression are the narratives around the Chinese students in American universities depicted as threats or even active spies. Such a portrayal constitutes an insane reversal. Young and engaged students are connectors, they embody the effort to better comprehend the other, they are vectors for cross-fertilization.

Wise decision-makers have to create the conditions for having more Chinese students in Western universities and for Western students to make the Chinese universities more pluralistic. Some of them will keep renewing the “creative minority” able to see in each threat an opportunity - the rich notion of crisis, weiji, 危机, in Chinese, or in the words of Friedrich Hölderlin (1770-1843), to understand that “where the danger is, also grows the saving power”.

There is danger in the relations between China and the West, and at the same time, in them can be found what can save mankind. One certainly does not have to choose one of them and exclude the other; we, subjectively and at various degrees, live with both, as, objectively, our world is a laboratory for their transformative coexistence.

One of the expressions used by the Chinese anthropologist Fei Xiaotong (1910-2005) indicates a higher level of wisdom: “各美其美, 美人之美, 美美与共, 天下大同” (ge mei qi mei, mei ren zhi mei, mei mei yu gong, tianxia datong). An acceptable rendering into the English language of Fei’s insight could be: “Appreciate one own’s beauties and those of others, so they do coexist and harmony can prevail.”

Through the confident acceptation of their respective traditions, and with the promise of their mutual illumination, China and the West are the demonstration that the progress toward a greater unity of the worlds started long time ago. Such progress has to be clearly recognized and unrelentingly continued.

David Gosset is the founder of the Europe-China Forum (2002). He is the author of Limited Views On The Chinese Renaissance (2018).

The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.

All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.