In China, big companies are outdoing each other with big donations right now. Alibaba set the bar with the equivalent of 13 billion euros – two-thirds of its last annual profit. Our team in Beijing has been investigating whether the money is really benefiting “general prosperity,” as state and party head Xi Jinping has recently pressed for. Perhaps the philanthropic generosity also serves as an effective strategy to dampen the party leadership’s ire toward billionaires and large corporations?
Michael Schaefer, former ambassador to China, regards civil society relations with China with concern and hope. Concern, because the channels of communication have narrowed considerably, even though dialogue is crucial right now. Hope, because there are still access points. In Monday’s interview with China.Table, he explains how these may be accessed. Schaefer, meanwhile, warns against the idea that China will yet become a democracy along Western lines. He nevertheless calls for respectful dialogue at eye level. There is simply no alternative.
The IAA Mobility trade show starts today in Munich. So this week, we take another look at various car trends.
I hope your week starts well,
Disclaimer: This interview has been translated into English and is not considered an official translation by any party involved in the interview.
Mr. Ambassador, over the past ten years, the “Zukunftsbrücke” program has brought more than 240 young people with professional experience from China and Germany together. However, the channels of communication with China have also become very narrow during this time. Can you tell us again what was possible back then?
I had the idea for this project back in 2008, one year after my arrival as ambassador to China. Even then, there was a lack of informal channels for discussing contentious issues between Germany and China in a spirit of trust. We, therefore, wanted to establish a process that would open up new avenues of sustainable understanding. The Atlantic Bridge served as a model. It was to be a program over a longer period of time, bringing together future leaders from both countries. Each year, 15 young leaders from each country, not just “one-track specialists” but exciting people from all parts of society. In this way, we wanted to bring as many different perspectives as possible to the exchange on topics of common interest.
That sounds ambitious.
Quite, but it came to fruition surprisingly quickly. During his visit to China at the end of 2008, then-Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was very fond of the idea. Together, we were able to use this opportunity to win over Bernhard Lorentz, then head of the Mercator Foundation, to realize the project. In the declaration issued by the two heads of government during Chancellor Merkel’s visit to China in 2010, the “Zukunftsbrücke” was then welcomed by both governments for the first time – alongside the bold exhibition on the “Art of Enlightenment” by the three state museums in Berlin, Dresden, and Munich. The German-Chinese “Zukunftsbrücke” was officially launched at the first German-Chinese government consultations in Berlin in 2011.
The support from the very top worked out then?
Yes, that was very important. Both governments have thus assumed patronage. The first “Zukunftsbrücke” camp took place in Hangzhou in 2012, then annually, rotating once in China and once in Germany. In addition to Beijing and Berlin, the camp always went to a second location in the province of the respective country. From the very beginning, the focus was on sustainability issues – with different facets. In addition to energy and climate, for example, the social dimension or the reorganization of international partnerships were up for discussion. Even controversial topics such as the respective understanding of human rights were discussed intensively and excitingly.
To what extent?
Both sides repeatedly discovered misconceptions about their own society in the other. Therefore, it was all the more important to listen actively and engage with the other perspective. The focus was always on personal understanding, what was called bonding. Regular alumni meetings, such as the one now taking place this weekend, serve to deepen these bonds. It’s not meant to be a one-off thematic exchange, but the creation of a sustainable network.
That’s a beautiful goal – but exchange with China has proven to be increasingly difficult. How is the program doing today?
We held a camp every year until 2019, but due to COVID-19, we couldn’t do it in 2020 and 2021. This year, the ten-year period originally envisioned by both governments has come to an end. Whether the process will go into a second phase is currently still open, but given the current tensions between the two sides rather unlikely…
…because of the hostility and sanction rounds.
We will have to wait and see when the situation will ease up again. I am convinced that both sides understand the value of such an exchange process. We in Europe need to understand better what drives China – conversely, we need to explain what makes our societies tick and what our visions are.
There are also prejudices in China?
Of course. For example, it is not understood at all where our interest in individual human rights comes from. In China, the discussion is often seen as an excuse to pillory the Chinese social model. This changes when it is explained to the Chinese that it was precisely the massive human rights violations in and by Germany in the 20th century that created a special awareness among us of the importance of individual rights. If I personally tell them how my German origins have shaped me, they are more willing to listen to me.
Nevertheless, many Germans mainly want to lecture their Chinese interlocutors. That is probably not very helpful?
This also applies to other countries in the West. We paint our picture of the other side prematurely. The representatives of the West often lack the will to see common opportunities and interests. But the cautionary language is also increasingly found on the Chinese side.
Currently, relations are pretty sour, the EU and China are imposing sanctions on each other, and exchanges are at an all-time low. How do we break this up again now?
We have to utilize existing channels. One example is a cooperation between environmental ministries. Climate and the biosphere are a global common good, a global common property. There are concrete common interests here between the Europeans and the Chinese, but also with the Americans.
However, institutions with a connection to China are currently complaining that there are no longer any events where they can signal their willingness to talk.
That’s true; the scope for civil society, in particular, is becoming ever narrower in China. We should always offer a dialogue from the German side. In the preparatory phase, we can tell our Chinese interlocutors without any form of paternalism: we are interested in real exchange. A patronizing attitude only causes harm here. Instead, we should try to understand where China’s interests lie and explain our own interests. We must approach China with a critical and constructive eye, by no means naively blue-eyed, but knowing that we must continue to have an exchange with such an important society in the future, and ask ourselves how to achieve this?
So, how do you do it?
We must always be aware of the importance of honest dialogue and mutual trust – especially in the face of such great differences. China is a partner, competitor, and strategic rival all in one, as the EU has learned. We must abandon wishful thinking that China shares our interests and values. Let’s be frank: China has never been a democracy, has never been a constitutional state, and the likelihood of it becoming one is low. We have always been systemic rivals; what has changed is that China has become a great power.
So we’re supposed to rubber-stamp everything China does?
Of course, we don’t. But we need China, and China needs us to tackle key challenges. Cooperation remains essential. But China must not, of course, place itself outside international law. The ban on torture or the protection of human rights lawyers applies to China just as they do in European countries. China must also abide by international law in Hong Kong, in other words, the handover treaty with Great Britain. At such points, Europe must not only be prepared to draw a clear red line, but also communicate clearly what happens if China crosses that red line.
Where is the next red line?
A violent unification of Taiwan with China marks a red line. In this case, Europe should be ready to support Taiwan. And it should make clear what measures it is ready to take to back up its promise. Europe must also be credible here. We should approach the rivalry with China with a sense of proportion, but also with self-confidence.
This makes civil society exchange all the more important before such crisis scenarios even arise. On which side do you see more goodwill for dialogue?
At the government level, goodwill is currently very limited on both sides. At the civil society level, it is much greater. The German foundations, for example, are prepared to make their contribution and support an exchange in whatever form it takes. In China, this is more difficult because civil society is increasingly restricted in its free development. That is very regrettable, and I believe that the Chinese Government is not doing itself any favors here.
Are there any suitable contacts left in China at all?
In China, there are still numerous organizations and institutions willing to talk. For example, think tanks such as the Center for China and Globalization or universities. We should always try to open up dialogue formats that are supported by both sides.
Do you mean big professional conferences?
No, I am much more in favor of small dialogue formats. Large conferences are too public to be able to talk freely. These events should be topic-related but should allow for a confidential exchange. Over the past few years, we have developed the “Global Table” format with the BMW Foundation, in which we bring around 30 bright minds from different regions of the world to one table. Of course, you can also do something like this within a region or bilaterally.
The process of setting topics probably plays a role as well?
It is about focusing on common interests. The environment and climate are such issues. Each individual should be willing to work on the necessary processes of change. In any case, it is essential that a respectful dialogue takes place on a level playing field.
As a former diplomat and head of a foundation, Michael Schaefer (72) is a consummate professional in the sphere of German-Chinese exchange. From 2007 to 2013, he was ambassador to Beijing, then chairman of the BMW Foundation board for eight years. He is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, a think tank for exchange between America, Europe, and Asia.
For anyone who wants to trace the decline of the German Rhine metropolis Duisburg as a former mining town, the site of former Krupp steelworks in Rheinhausen is the wrong place. Since the late 1990s, the site has been telling the story of the difficult structural transformation from coal and steel metropolis to a global logistics center. The problems, however, such as high unemployment and debt, are far from over. Despite this, or perhaps precisely because of it, Rasmus C. Beck took over as managing director of Duisburg Business Innovation, this spring.
Beck is well aware of the challenge: “Everyone knows Marxloh because the chancellor was here.” In 2015, Angela Merkel was booed during her visit to the area. At the same time, Beck thinks that the city’s potential is completely undervalued: “There is still the last industrial core in the Ruhr region here, and this is where the transformation of steel production towards climate neutrality will take place.” There is also another important partner to help with the city’s resurgence: China.
The Silk Road project forms an important building block in the concept with which Beck wants to move the city forward: “I don’t know of any success story in economic development that is not embedded internationally.” The two other cornerstones are a good university that develops know-how and city-owned land that can be made available to business. Beck sees the fact that the endpoint of the new Silk Road is at the port of Duisburg as a gift. However, it is not a coincidence, says Beck: “It fits in well with the competencies we have as a trade city. Trade has defined the city ever since it was founded.”
The 41-year-old is not afraid of being taken over by Chinese investors; Duisburg is too broadly positioned for that. At the same time, cooperation with China and participation in the new Silk Road is also a cultural project, Beck believes: “Ideas and know-how don’t come in containers. But these containers are a good basis for us to start a cultural exchange as well.” Beck welcomes the work of the Confucius Institute at the University of Duisburg-Essen, as well as the Institute of East Asian Studies; he also points out that Duisburg was the first German city to establish a city partnership with a major Chinese city.
During his last visit to China, Beck stayed in Shenzhen in 2019. During his visits to China, he is particularly impressed by the speed of the country’s development. “By that, I mean in particular also the rate at which the standard of living has improved for the poorer population,” says Beck. He also says that the Chinese are already further ahead in terms of openness to digital solutions in everyday life – whether it’s autonomous driving or 5G technology.
In the end, Beck is convinced that the differences between Germany and China are actually not as great as often assumed. “Of course, China has a different political system and is a huge country with different development needs,” says Beck. The authoritarian structures in China do help to speed up processes, but the quality of development in the country is now on a par with the West. This is the case in the construction industry, for example. Now, Germany can learn from China when it comes to future topics such as smart cities. “I think we should use mutual admiration to engage in exchange. Also about the critical issues, but above all about the common opportunities.” David Renke
In China, big companies are outdoing each other with big donations right now. Alibaba set the bar with the equivalent of 13 billion euros – two-thirds of its last annual profit. Our team in Beijing has been investigating whether the money is really benefiting “general prosperity,” as state and party head Xi Jinping has recently pressed for. Perhaps the philanthropic generosity also serves as an effective strategy to dampen the party leadership’s ire toward billionaires and large corporations?
Michael Schaefer, former ambassador to China, regards civil society relations with China with concern and hope. Concern, because the channels of communication have narrowed considerably, even though dialogue is crucial right now. Hope, because there are still access points. In Monday’s interview with China.Table, he explains how these may be accessed. Schaefer, meanwhile, warns against the idea that China will yet become a democracy along Western lines. He nevertheless calls for respectful dialogue at eye level. There is simply no alternative.
The IAA Mobility trade show starts today in Munich. So this week, we take another look at various car trends.
I hope your week starts well,
Disclaimer: This interview has been translated into English and is not considered an official translation by any party involved in the interview.
Mr. Ambassador, over the past ten years, the “Zukunftsbrücke” program has brought more than 240 young people with professional experience from China and Germany together. However, the channels of communication with China have also become very narrow during this time. Can you tell us again what was possible back then?
I had the idea for this project back in 2008, one year after my arrival as ambassador to China. Even then, there was a lack of informal channels for discussing contentious issues between Germany and China in a spirit of trust. We, therefore, wanted to establish a process that would open up new avenues of sustainable understanding. The Atlantic Bridge served as a model. It was to be a program over a longer period of time, bringing together future leaders from both countries. Each year, 15 young leaders from each country, not just “one-track specialists” but exciting people from all parts of society. In this way, we wanted to bring as many different perspectives as possible to the exchange on topics of common interest.
That sounds ambitious.
Quite, but it came to fruition surprisingly quickly. During his visit to China at the end of 2008, then-Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was very fond of the idea. Together, we were able to use this opportunity to win over Bernhard Lorentz, then head of the Mercator Foundation, to realize the project. In the declaration issued by the two heads of government during Chancellor Merkel’s visit to China in 2010, the “Zukunftsbrücke” was then welcomed by both governments for the first time – alongside the bold exhibition on the “Art of Enlightenment” by the three state museums in Berlin, Dresden, and Munich. The German-Chinese “Zukunftsbrücke” was officially launched at the first German-Chinese government consultations in Berlin in 2011.
The support from the very top worked out then?
Yes, that was very important. Both governments have thus assumed patronage. The first “Zukunftsbrücke” camp took place in Hangzhou in 2012, then annually, rotating once in China and once in Germany. In addition to Beijing and Berlin, the camp always went to a second location in the province of the respective country. From the very beginning, the focus was on sustainability issues – with different facets. In addition to energy and climate, for example, the social dimension or the reorganization of international partnerships were up for discussion. Even controversial topics such as the respective understanding of human rights were discussed intensively and excitingly.
To what extent?
Both sides repeatedly discovered misconceptions about their own society in the other. Therefore, it was all the more important to listen actively and engage with the other perspective. The focus was always on personal understanding, what was called bonding. Regular alumni meetings, such as the one now taking place this weekend, serve to deepen these bonds. It’s not meant to be a one-off thematic exchange, but the creation of a sustainable network.
That’s a beautiful goal – but exchange with China has proven to be increasingly difficult. How is the program doing today?
We held a camp every year until 2019, but due to COVID-19, we couldn’t do it in 2020 and 2021. This year, the ten-year period originally envisioned by both governments has come to an end. Whether the process will go into a second phase is currently still open, but given the current tensions between the two sides rather unlikely…
…because of the hostility and sanction rounds.
We will have to wait and see when the situation will ease up again. I am convinced that both sides understand the value of such an exchange process. We in Europe need to understand better what drives China – conversely, we need to explain what makes our societies tick and what our visions are.
There are also prejudices in China?
Of course. For example, it is not understood at all where our interest in individual human rights comes from. In China, the discussion is often seen as an excuse to pillory the Chinese social model. This changes when it is explained to the Chinese that it was precisely the massive human rights violations in and by Germany in the 20th century that created a special awareness among us of the importance of individual rights. If I personally tell them how my German origins have shaped me, they are more willing to listen to me.
Nevertheless, many Germans mainly want to lecture their Chinese interlocutors. That is probably not very helpful?
This also applies to other countries in the West. We paint our picture of the other side prematurely. The representatives of the West often lack the will to see common opportunities and interests. But the cautionary language is also increasingly found on the Chinese side.
Currently, relations are pretty sour, the EU and China are imposing sanctions on each other, and exchanges are at an all-time low. How do we break this up again now?
We have to utilize existing channels. One example is a cooperation between environmental ministries. Climate and the biosphere are a global common good, a global common property. There are concrete common interests here between the Europeans and the Chinese, but also with the Americans.
However, institutions with a connection to China are currently complaining that there are no longer any events where they can signal their willingness to talk.
That’s true; the scope for civil society, in particular, is becoming ever narrower in China. We should always offer a dialogue from the German side. In the preparatory phase, we can tell our Chinese interlocutors without any form of paternalism: we are interested in real exchange. A patronizing attitude only causes harm here. Instead, we should try to understand where China’s interests lie and explain our own interests. We must approach China with a critical and constructive eye, by no means naively blue-eyed, but knowing that we must continue to have an exchange with such an important society in the future, and ask ourselves how to achieve this?
So, how do you do it?
We must always be aware of the importance of honest dialogue and mutual trust – especially in the face of such great differences. China is a partner, competitor, and strategic rival all in one, as the EU has learned. We must abandon wishful thinking that China shares our interests and values. Let’s be frank: China has never been a democracy, has never been a constitutional state, and the likelihood of it becoming one is low. We have always been systemic rivals; what has changed is that China has become a great power.
So we’re supposed to rubber-stamp everything China does?
Of course, we don’t. But we need China, and China needs us to tackle key challenges. Cooperation remains essential. But China must not, of course, place itself outside international law. The ban on torture or the protection of human rights lawyers applies to China just as they do in European countries. China must also abide by international law in Hong Kong, in other words, the handover treaty with Great Britain. At such points, Europe must not only be prepared to draw a clear red line, but also communicate clearly what happens if China crosses that red line.
Where is the next red line?
A violent unification of Taiwan with China marks a red line. In this case, Europe should be ready to support Taiwan. And it should make clear what measures it is ready to take to back up its promise. Europe must also be credible here. We should approach the rivalry with China with a sense of proportion, but also with self-confidence.
This makes civil society exchange all the more important before such crisis scenarios even arise. On which side do you see more goodwill for dialogue?
At the government level, goodwill is currently very limited on both sides. At the civil society level, it is much greater. The German foundations, for example, are prepared to make their contribution and support an exchange in whatever form it takes. In China, this is more difficult because civil society is increasingly restricted in its free development. That is very regrettable, and I believe that the Chinese Government is not doing itself any favors here.
Are there any suitable contacts left in China at all?
In China, there are still numerous organizations and institutions willing to talk. For example, think tanks such as the Center for China and Globalization or universities. We should always try to open up dialogue formats that are supported by both sides.
Do you mean big professional conferences?
No, I am much more in favor of small dialogue formats. Large conferences are too public to be able to talk freely. These events should be topic-related but should allow for a confidential exchange. Over the past few years, we have developed the “Global Table” format with the BMW Foundation, in which we bring around 30 bright minds from different regions of the world to one table. Of course, you can also do something like this within a region or bilaterally.
The process of setting topics probably plays a role as well?
It is about focusing on common interests. The environment and climate are such issues. Each individual should be willing to work on the necessary processes of change. In any case, it is essential that a respectful dialogue takes place on a level playing field.
As a former diplomat and head of a foundation, Michael Schaefer (72) is a consummate professional in the sphere of German-Chinese exchange. From 2007 to 2013, he was ambassador to Beijing, then chairman of the BMW Foundation board for eight years. He is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, a think tank for exchange between America, Europe, and Asia.
For anyone who wants to trace the decline of the German Rhine metropolis Duisburg as a former mining town, the site of former Krupp steelworks in Rheinhausen is the wrong place. Since the late 1990s, the site has been telling the story of the difficult structural transformation from coal and steel metropolis to a global logistics center. The problems, however, such as high unemployment and debt, are far from over. Despite this, or perhaps precisely because of it, Rasmus C. Beck took over as managing director of Duisburg Business Innovation, this spring.
Beck is well aware of the challenge: “Everyone knows Marxloh because the chancellor was here.” In 2015, Angela Merkel was booed during her visit to the area. At the same time, Beck thinks that the city’s potential is completely undervalued: “There is still the last industrial core in the Ruhr region here, and this is where the transformation of steel production towards climate neutrality will take place.” There is also another important partner to help with the city’s resurgence: China.
The Silk Road project forms an important building block in the concept with which Beck wants to move the city forward: “I don’t know of any success story in economic development that is not embedded internationally.” The two other cornerstones are a good university that develops know-how and city-owned land that can be made available to business. Beck sees the fact that the endpoint of the new Silk Road is at the port of Duisburg as a gift. However, it is not a coincidence, says Beck: “It fits in well with the competencies we have as a trade city. Trade has defined the city ever since it was founded.”
The 41-year-old is not afraid of being taken over by Chinese investors; Duisburg is too broadly positioned for that. At the same time, cooperation with China and participation in the new Silk Road is also a cultural project, Beck believes: “Ideas and know-how don’t come in containers. But these containers are a good basis for us to start a cultural exchange as well.” Beck welcomes the work of the Confucius Institute at the University of Duisburg-Essen, as well as the Institute of East Asian Studies; he also points out that Duisburg was the first German city to establish a city partnership with a major Chinese city.
During his last visit to China, Beck stayed in Shenzhen in 2019. During his visits to China, he is particularly impressed by the speed of the country’s development. “By that, I mean in particular also the rate at which the standard of living has improved for the poorer population,” says Beck. He also says that the Chinese are already further ahead in terms of openness to digital solutions in everyday life – whether it’s autonomous driving or 5G technology.
In the end, Beck is convinced that the differences between Germany and China are actually not as great as often assumed. “Of course, China has a different political system and is a huge country with different development needs,” says Beck. The authoritarian structures in China do help to speed up processes, but the quality of development in the country is now on a par with the West. This is the case in the construction industry, for example. Now, Germany can learn from China when it comes to future topics such as smart cities. “I think we should use mutual admiration to engage in exchange. Also about the critical issues, but above all about the common opportunities.” David Renke
