In a glowing hagiography of Xi Jinping in November last year, China’s Xinhua used a wide range of fawning words and titles to depict the country’s president. One of these was “a world leader,” whose “extensive knowledge of literature and the arts makes him a consummate communicator in the international arena.”
To illustrate that, the official news agency’s opus recalled Xi’s “impressive speech” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in January 2017 and quoted a comment by in the president in that address: “Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. While wind and rain may be kept outside, that dark room will also block light and air. No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war.”
It then obsequiously observed: “In 47 minutes, Xi won more than 30 rounds of ovation. At key parts of his speech, almost every sentence was greeted with applause.”
If one watches, listens or reads Xi’s WEF speech without knowing or examining China’s domestic and foreign policies under his rule, one may agree with Xinhua.
Indeed, Xi’s speeches at the WEF, as well as many international forums – such as the Asia-Pacific Cooperation (APEC) summits in 2016, 2017 and 2018, the Boao Forum for Asia (BFA), the Beijing Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), and the China International Import Expo (CIIE) in China this year – are replete with axioms and advice on how global affairs should be conducted.
It may be safe to say that when it comes to preaching about how international relations should be approached, very few, if any, other world leaders could do better than him.
For instance, in the address at the Davos-based WEF, the first of its kind by a Chinese leader, Xi quoted Charles Dickens: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” He also shared an old Chinese poem that goes, “Honey melons hang on bitter vines; sweet dates grow on thistles and thorns,” and another Chinese adage that reads, “Victory is ensured when people pool their strength; success is secured when people put their heads together.”
In the 2016 APEC speech in Peru, the officially atheist communist leader of the one-party state orated: “As an ancient Chinese saying goes, ‘Bringing benefit to the people is the fundamental principle of governance.’ There is also a Peruvian saying, ‘The voice of the people is the voice of God’.”
Addressing the United Nations Office in Geneva in 2017, Xi said, “An ancient Chinese philosopher said, ‘Law is the very foundation of governance’,” lecturing: “It is thus incumbent on all countries to uphold the authority of the international rule of law, exercise their rights in accordance with law and fulfill their obligations in good faith.”
In all those speeches, he always bulleted a number of points that the countries of the world or the international community as a whole should – or shouldn’t – do in order to achieve stability, security, harmony, equality, amity or prosperity, and often used Chinese and international sayings to support or demonstrate his points.
For example, in his Geneva speech, entitled: “Work together to build a community of shared future for mankind,” he said that to achieve such a goal “the international community should promote partnership, security, growth, inter-civilization exchanges and the building of a sound ecosystem.”
Five actions
He then proposed five actions all nations should take, and the first among these is to “stay committed to building a world of lasting peace through dialogue and consultation.” To make his point, Xi argued: “When countries enjoy peace, so will the world; when countries fight, the world suffers” and recalled past conflicts, “from the Peloponnesian War … to the Cold War,” stating: “History, if not forgotten, can serve as a guide for the future.”
He also alluded to “the Swiss writer and Nobel laureate Hermann Hesse [who] stressed the importance of serving ‘not war and destruction but peace and reconciliation’” and advised, “Big countries should treat smaller ones as equals instead of acting as a hegemon imposing their will on others.”
Xi’s status as a well-informed global leader is also apparent in his so-called “signed articles.”
It has become the norm that before departing for a foreign country, the Chinese president writes an op-ed specifically aimed at its people. Such a commentary is carried by some chosen newspapers of the visiting nation and widely disseminated by China’s key news outlets, such as Xinhua, the China Daily and the Global Times.
It has become the norm that before departing for a foreign country, the Chinese president writes an op-ed specifically aimed at its people
If one types in “Full text of Xi’s signed article” on Google, one can find many such articles, with most of them appearing in those Chinese state-run papers. Xi has done so before all his recent trips, such as to Senegal, Rwanda and South Africa in July 2018 and Papua New Guinea, Brunei, the Philippines, Spain and Argentina this month.
Those op-eds often follow a similar pattern. In the first part, Xi lavishly praises his host country’s landscape, culture, history, people or its current leadership. Then he focuses on China’s millennium- or century-old interaction with the concerned nation and their recent cooperation. In the second and most important part, he explains why China and the concerned country should elevate their bilateral relations to a new level and suggests how and what they need to do to improve them.
Ahead of his current Argentina trip, during which he attends the G-20 summit and a high-stakes meeting with American President Donald Trump on its sidelines, Xi penned a piece, headlined: “Opening up a new era in China-Argentina relations.”
To demonstrate that China is a good friend and partner of the South American country, he quoted “an ancient Chinese poem [that] reads, ‘If you have a friend afar who knows your heart, distance cannot keep you two apart’.”
He then talked about the current state of the world, which “has been undergoing tremendous changes … unseen in a century” and “a crucial stage of development” at which both China and Argentina are, and urged the two sides to “seize historical opportunities, move forward with the times, and join hands to open up a new era in China-Argentina comprehensive strategic partnership to the greater benefit of our peoples.” To achieve that he (again) suggested a number of points that the two countries need to focus on.
In fact, through his international speeches and signed articles, Xi apparently shows off that he is not just a sage who knows [almost] everything about the world and how to better it, but also a responsible global leader who deeply cares about humanity.
Xinhua’s Xi opus itself claimed that his idea about “a community of shared future for mankind” that is “an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world with lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity […] is a philosophy long held by Xi, out of an emotional commitment to serve people worldwide as his duty.”
If Xi’s international pronouncements and China’s propagandistic works, such as Xinhua’s “Xi Jinping and his era” profile are taken at face value, Xi and the communist-country he is leading are, without doubt, very benign, if not the most benevolent, actors on the world stage.
In his Geneva speech, the now so-called ‘president for life’ stated, “China remains unchanged in its commitment to uphold world peace,” vowing: “No matter how strong its economy grows, China will never seek hegemony, expansion or sphere of influence. History has borne this out and will continue to do so.”
To emphasize that the Asian behemoth is a good, peace-loving neighbor, in his Philippines op-ed, titled: “Open up a new future together for China-Philippine relations,” the strongman leader quoted Confucius: “Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you.”
In an apparent effort to assuage the concerns of the Filipinos, most of whom remain suspicious of their giant neighbor and its aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, China’s “core” leader further stressed: “We Chinese believe that peace and stability is the only way to development and prosperity. This is neither a choice of expediency nor a diplomatic rhetoric.”
Diplomatic rhetoric
But all this is diplomatic rhetoric that sounds too good to be true.
Under Xi, China’s most powerful and authoritarian leader since Mao Zedong, it is widely noted that the communist regime in Beijing has become more regressive at home and more aggressive abroad.
For instance, since he came to power in 2012, Xi has tightened the ruling party’s – if not his – control over the 1.3 billion-plus-people country’s cultural, social, economic and political life. The tightly censored country “was the world’s worst abuser of Internet freedom in [Freedom House’s 2018] Freedom on the Net for the fourth consecutive year.”
Under his watch, Beijing has carried out land reclamation and a military build-up in the contested waters of the South China Sea. It has also rejected a landmark ruling by a United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which invalidated many of its contentious claims and unlawful actions in the resource-rich and strategically vital sea.
Had his regime not done all this, the world might believe that Xi’s China is a benign power – that has “worked hard to advance and uphold human rights” at home, “uphold[s] the authority of the international rule of law,” loves its smaller neighbors as itself, or “never seek[s] hegemony, expansion or sphere of influence” – as Xi has publically preached.
All in all, while it is unclear whether the 65-year-old autocrat is an omniscient statesman, it is evident that his communist-ruled country isn’t as altruistic and benevolent a power as he would like the world to believe.
Does the writer has a problem with President Xi? Does he understand how the system in China works? It is not a small state, even that also takes time for thing to change. 2 years sounds like a very long time to you but very short in the chinese calander with its 5000 year history.
Does the writer has a problem with President Xi? Does he understand how the system in China works? It is not a small state, even that also takes time for thing to change. 2 years sounds like a very long time to you but very short in the chinese calander with its 5000 year history.
Banana Loc writes again.
Loc wrote " …..it is widely noted that the communist regime in Beijing has become more regressive at home and more aggressive abroad."
He is referring to his own articles to support his present argument.
Loc wrote: "……. It has also rejected a landmark ruling by a United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which invalidated many of its contentious claims and unlawful actions in the resource-rich and strategically vital sea."
In the 1952 Treaty of Taipei, Japan ceded to China the Paracels and Spratly Islands. This treaty gave China the legal and sovereign right to erect installations she deems fit on these islands. Nothing aggressive to erect forward defences on China’s legal territory.
Loc: " The tightly censored country “was the world’s worst abuser of Internet freedom in [Freedom House’s 2018] Freedom on the Net for the fourth consecutive year.”
Loc wants internet freedom in China to spread fake news, chaos and disruptions by its own people and and foreign meddlers like the CIA who are masters in using misinformation to subvert foreign countries.
US is looking to China for controlling the internet :" But China’s experience shows that policy tweaks probably won’t be enough to weed out fake news. And it is an example worth taking seriously: Beijing has been dealing with misinformation—or what the Chinese government refers to as “rumors”—for a much longer time, going back to at least the spread of the internet in late 2000s."
Go to https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/06/chinas-lessons-for-fighting-fake-news/
Loc quoted freedom house as the beacon of " freedom."
" Freedom House is usually described as an independent research agency. In fact it is funded by the US Government, through the US Agency for International Development, and the US Information Agency, and it has long-standing links to the intelligence services. Conservative foundations also contribute to Freedom House. Its assessments of ‘political freedom’ are pure propaganda, intended to present western countries in the best light. The scores are manipulated in a crude and racist way."
Go to : http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/freedomhouse.html
And " Several scholars have criticized the Freedom House democracy ratings as being politically biased. Do countries indeed incorrectly receive better ratings that have stronger political ties with the United States? "
Go to:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13876988.2013.877676?src=recsys
Loc, like all western writers, want the ChInese people to listen to their propaganda. They never go to the ground in China and listen to the views of the Chinese on internet freedom, political freedom, aggression, etc. Whose views are more important, when it comes to freedom in China ? The Chinese people or the westerners ?
Banana Loc writes again.
Loc wrote " …..it is widely noted that the communist regime in Beijing has become more regressive at home and more aggressive abroad."
He is referring to his own articles to support his present argument.
Loc wrote: "……. It has also rejected a landmark ruling by a United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which invalidated many of its contentious claims and unlawful actions in the resource-rich and strategically vital sea."
In the 1952 Treaty of Taipei, Japan ceded to China the Paracels and Spratly Islands. This treaty gave China the legal and sovereign right to erect installations she deems fit on these islands. Nothing aggressive to erect forward defences on China’s legal territory.
Loc: " The tightly censored country “was the world’s worst abuser of Internet freedom in [Freedom House’s 2018] Freedom on the Net for the fourth consecutive year.”
Loc wants internet freedom in China to spread fake news, chaos and disruptions by its own people and and foreign meddlers like the CIA who are masters in using misinformation to subvert foreign countries.
US is looking to China for controlling the internet :" But China’s experience shows that policy tweaks probably won’t be enough to weed out fake news. And it is an example worth taking seriously: Beijing has been dealing with misinformation—or what the Chinese government refers to as “rumors”—for a much longer time, going back to at least the spread of the internet in late 2000s."
Go to https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/06/chinas-lessons-for-fighting-fake-news/
Loc quoted freedom house as the beacon of " freedom."
" Freedom House is usually described as an independent research agency. In fact it is funded by the US Government, through the US Agency for International Development, and the US Information Agency, and it has long-standing links to the intelligence services. Conservative foundations also contribute to Freedom House. Its assessments of ‘political freedom’ are pure propaganda, intended to present western countries in the best light. The scores are manipulated in a crude and racist way."
Go to : http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/freedomhouse.html
And " Several scholars have criticized the Freedom House democracy ratings as being politically biased. Do countries indeed incorrectly receive better ratings that have stronger political ties with the United States? "
Go to:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13876988.2013.877676?src=recsys
Loc, like all western writers, want the ChInese people to listen to their propaganda. They never go to the ground in China and listen to the views of the Chinese on internet freedom, political freedom, aggression, etc. Whose views are more important, when it comes to freedom in China ? The Chinese people or the westerners ?
I would like to remind Loc about the implications of " freedom " in the US for China: " In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its “exceptional” virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law. In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power."
There is no China aggression, only US aggression which is there for all the world to see except for Loc who maybe is in self-denial. Witness the unending wars in the Mid East, Afghanistan, Yemen and Africa. Before the year is out, the US has, in 2018 to-date, dropped more bombs on the poor Afghans than any other year.
The US government by controlling the media in the US keeps its own people deaf and blind to its wars of aggression. So, that is freedom in the US.
I hope Loc can cite an instance of China bombing other countries.
I would like to remind Loc about the implications of " freedom " in the US for China: " In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its “exceptional” virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law. In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power."
There is no China aggression, only US aggression which is there for all the world to see except for Loc who maybe is in self-denial. Witness the unending wars in the Mid East, Afghanistan, Yemen and Africa. Before the year is out, the US has, in 2018 to-date, dropped more bombs on the poor Afghans than any other year.
The US government by controlling the media in the US keeps its own people deaf and blind to its wars of aggression. So, that is freedom in the US.
I hope Loc can cite an instance of China bombing other countries.
Right from the start of the fight for independence, starting with Ho Chi-minh, China had helped Vietnam in very many ways. The US, however, were the ones who helped the French to re-colonise Vietnam after the Japanese had been defeated. The US even, by some accounts, offered nuclear bombing of Dien Bien Phu when the French were under siege.
For more than 30 years, China steadfastly supported the Vietnamese against the US, even though she herself was struggling to modernise. Would Vietnam have been able to prevail against the US had China not provided the vast support – material, political, diplomatic, emotional, etc?
Yet, today, we have such an ungrateful Vietnamese who seem to denigrate and demonize China with almost every article he writes!
This is NOT the Vietnamese culture I know.
Right from the start of the fight for independence, starting with Ho Chi-minh, China had helped Vietnam in very many ways. The US, however, were the ones who helped the French to re-colonise Vietnam after the Japanese had been defeated. The US even, by some accounts, offered nuclear bombing of Dien Bien Phu when the French were under siege.
For more than 30 years, China steadfastly supported the Vietnamese against the US, even though she herself was struggling to modernise. Would Vietnam have been able to prevail against the US had China not provided the vast support – material, political, diplomatic, emotional, etc?
Yet, today, we have such an ungrateful Vietnamese who seem to denigrate and demonize China with almost every article he writes!
This is NOT the Vietnamese culture I know.
Loc cited Feedom House criticism of China for controlling the internet. I suppose Loc wants a free internet to spread fake news, rumours , misinformation, and being used as a tool by outside meddlers like the CIA who are masters in this game to subvert and stir up discontent.
Freedom House is funded by the US government and its reports on other countries have a heavy racial and political bias.
Even in the US, the journal Foreign Policy are favourable to China for restricting the internet :
" But China’s experience shows that policy tweaks probably won’t be enough to weed out fake news. And it is an example worth taking seriously: Beijing has been dealing with misinformation—or what the Chinese government refers to as “rumors”—for a much longer time, going back to at least the spread of the internet in late 2000s."
Loc cited Feedom House criticism of China for controlling the internet. I suppose Loc wants a free internet to spread fake news, rumours , misinformation, and being used as a tool by outside meddlers like the CIA who are masters in this game to subvert and stir up discontent.
Freedom House is funded by the US government and its reports on other countries have a heavy racial and political bias.
Even in the US, the journal Foreign Policy are favourable to China for restricting the internet :
" But China’s experience shows that policy tweaks probably won’t be enough to weed out fake news. And it is an example worth taking seriously: Beijing has been dealing with misinformation—or what the Chinese government refers to as “rumors”—for a much longer time, going back to at least the spread of the internet in late 2000s."
In a paper about his visit to the Philippines, the Chinese president Xi Jinping said, 600 years ago a Chinese Zheng He had visited the Philippines multiple times. This history was immediatly refuted by the acting chief justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippines calling it a fake. Carpio said, Zheng He never visited the Philippines.
In a paper about his visit to the Philippines, the Chinese president Xi Jinping said, 600 years ago a Chinese Zheng He had visited the Philippines multiple times. This history was immediatly refuted by the acting chief justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippines calling it a fake. Carpio said, Zheng He never visited the Philippines.
Did you mean China had never "bombed" other countries in her 5000 year history? If so, how come there exist 56 minority nations in today’s China? China herself acknowledged that Tibet and Xinjiang were "bombed" handreds of years ago, and China "bombed" them again in 1950.
According to you, the US is able to keep its own people deaf by controlling the media. But the US is not able to keep you deaf and blind. What a control was that ?
Did you mean China had never "bombed" other countries in her 5000 year history? If so, how come there exist 56 minority nations in today’s China? China herself acknowledged that Tibet and Xinjiang were "bombed" handreds of years ago, and China "bombed" them again in 1950.
According to you, the US is able to keep its own people deaf by controlling the media. But the US is not able to keep you deaf and blind. What a control was that ?
Tony Tan, I believe today’s Vietnamese are like the North Koreans, who hate China who helped them against the US. So do the Vietnamese hate China who helped them against the US. Both would rather be allies with the US than being allies with China. I think the same phenomenon exists with some Chinese also, who hate the Chinese communists but do not hate the US.
When you charged that the US "continues to cause death and destruction in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, your charge told us that you had used an irrelavent cause to call for Vietnam’s hatred toward the US. Only when the US continues to cause death and destruction in Vietnam, the Vietnamese should hate the US.
Unfortunately, there is widespread hatred toward the Chinese today in Vietnam; the author Dr Xuan Loc Doan is not alone. Both the Vietnamese people and their government would rather love the Americans but not the Chinese.
Tony Tan, I believe today’s Vietnamese are like the North Koreans, who hate China who helped them against the US. So do the Vietnamese hate China who helped them against the US. Both would rather be allies with the US than being allies with China. I think the same phenomenon exists with some Chinese also, who hate the Chinese communists but do not hate the US.
When you charged that the US "continues to cause death and destruction in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, your charge told us that you had used an irrelavent cause to call for Vietnam’s hatred toward the US. Only when the US continues to cause death and destruction in Vietnam, the Vietnamese should hate the US.
Unfortunately, there is widespread hatred toward the Chinese today in Vietnam; the author Dr Xuan Loc Doan is not alone. Both the Vietnamese people and their government would rather love the Americans but not the Chinese.