By saying “Huawei very much is the spearhead,” David P. Goldman in an interview he gave to a Swiss publication described Huawei Technologies, a Shenzhen-based company, as the pioneer of siege. What he meant was that the Western world is facing a much bigger crisis than Europe faced in the 13th century, because the “Yellow Peril” that historically made the Europeans tremble now owns unstoppable technology.
However, no matter how scary Goldman’s historical comparison was, he still couldn’t find any real evidence to characterize today’s China as an expansionist country, similar to Mongolia in the Middle Ages and Russia in modern times.
He acknowledged that “China is not the Soviet Union.” He also pointed out that the key goal of China’s military strategy was to protect its territorial integrity – “but apart from that, they’ve shown no interest.”
This is why he believed that there won’t be any military confrontation between China and the United States.
When talking about China’s military capabilities, he compared the equipment carried by the Chinese and American soldiers. He said the technical content of equipment used by an American infantry was very high.
The cost of equipment for an American infantry soldier is more than 10 times that for a Chinese counterpart. The United States Army also has a strong capability in air transport ad can send its troops across a long distance.
“The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) infantry is one of the most poorly-equipped and badly trained in the world,” Goldman said, adding that the PLA’s strengths are mainly in the areas of missiles, satellites, and submarines. This comparison also shows that the Chinese army is defensive while the US army is invasive
When an army that frequently invades the territory of other countries often finds itself surrounded by local soldiers and civilians, it has to equip its soldiers with complete sets of advanced equipment.
On the contrary, the Chinese army, which adopts a proactive defense strategy, mainly develops deterrent weapons and equipment with strong counterattack capabilities.
Goldman knew it clearly but he did not express it. The belligerence and aggressiveness of the United States are collective taboos of Western media people, and can never be pointed out directly.
Therefore, Goldman’s arguments showed a dilemma in logic. If the United States is peace-loving like the passively defensive Baghdad City in 1258, and if China has never been an expansionist country, who now corresponds to the ancient Mongolians? Where does the Yellow Peril come from? What’s to feel nervous about?
Because of this logical dilemma, Goldman was asked about what China’s strategy is and what China wants. He talked through his hat with an answer that raised a hot debate online:
The Chinese “want to have everybody in the world pay rent to the Chinese Empire. They want to control the key technologies, the finance and the logistics, and make everyone dependent on them. Basically, make everyone else a tenant farmer.”
This is a shocking comment. It showed that he did not really know about China, and it also revealed his Jewish mindset that everything is commercial.
For a long time in the past, Jews did not have their own country. After each wave of the diaspora, the entire nation could only live in different countries as small Jewish communities. They relied on doing business.
With no political support behind them at all, the most successful parasitic business model of the Jews was nothing else but to “control the key technologies, the finance and the logistics, and make everyone dependent on them. Basically, make everyone else a tenant farmer.”
Goldman must take it for granted that as China is not a Western-style hegemonic country or a Russian-style expansionist country, it must be a Jewish commercialist country. He could not figure out another way in Western history that a country could control the world
In the matter, Goldman’s comments reflected the boundary of Western strategic mindsets.
This is why many people in the West have taken a skeptical and even hostile stance towards China’s proposal of the Belt and Road Initiative; the principle of “wide consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits”; and the vision of “building a community with a shared future for mankind.”
After all, according to westerners’ mindsets, any global initiative that does not seek control, does not exploit and pursue self-interest, is incomprehensible.
David Goldman is the same. Even if he knows China better than many others, he still is a western media person and cannot get rid of the narrowness and limitations of western centralism.
Although this interview includes a lot of impressive comments, overall it is basically some sort of self-talk with a western mindset. The duty of understanding and presenting China accurately falls on Chinese scholars.
This article was written by Wen Yang, a professor at Fudan University, and was translated by Jeff Pao. It is part of a 3-part series. This is the concluding third part. Read part 1 here and part 2 here. Read the referenced interview with David Goldman: ‘You can never be China’s friend’: Spengler