The positive signs currently coming from the Korean Peninsula, and especially from North Korea, are definitely encouraging.
In fact, the 23rd Winter Olympics, scheduled for February 9-25, will take place in the Pyeongchiang County, which is located in South Korea, or in what is officially called Republic of Korea.
Since the designation of South Korea in June 2017, the International Olympic Committee has always said explicitly it wanted North Korea to participate officially in the Winter Olympics. Hence it has obviously welcomed – although with some surprise – North Korea’s announcement of the “probable” sending of a small team of ice skaters.
Indeed, North Korea’s luge athletes and skiers had not technically qualified for the Olympics.
From the beginning, South Korea had proposed a joint team for all the specialties in South Korea’s Olympics. It had also suggested to North Korea a joint women’s team for ice hockey, as well as the sharing of costs for the participation of both countries in the 23rd Winter Olympics of Peyongchiang- and indeed the latter has been an open issue since December 2014.
At that time North Korea had refused only for organizational time reasons, without ever raising matters of principle – and this is by no means of secondary importance.
For obvious reasons of national dignity, North Korea has explicitly refused to share the participation and organization costs.
It is worth recalling, however, that, from the very beginning, North Korea had strongly supported only the candidacy of South Korea to host the 23rd Winter Olympics of 2018.
Hence the Winter Olympics will see the participation of the North Korean athletes Ryom-Tae-Ok and Kim Ju-Sik, who had both qualified for the 2018 Olympics during the competitions held in Oberstdorf, Germany, in September 2017.
Later some problems arose in the relations between the North Korean Olympic Committee and the Lausanne’s International Olympic Committee, the highest body responsible for world sport.
However, it was the Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un, who personally announced the possibility of sending North Korea’s athletes to the 23rdWinter Olympics in South Korea – an explicit permission given on a special and highly symbolic occasion, namely the speech delivered by the Supreme Leader for the New Year.
The primary theme of the North Korean Supreme Leader is “national pride”, which counts very much for both countries – the most tragic relic of the old Cold War, a silly conflict that both Koreas want to overcome, albeit in a different way.
From this viewpoint I believe that Mao Zedong’s theory of the Cold War as a “paper tiger” holds true for both Koreas.
However, the way of overcoming it is often not too different.
Hence the meetings between the two Koreas to tackle the issue of North Korea’s participation in the 23rd Winter Olympicsare scheduled for January 9.
Both Koreas are fully aware – even in the smallest political, symbolic and ceremonial details – of what is really at stake in this negotiation, which is only apparently a sporting negotiation.
What is at stake is an agreement between the two Koreas before solving, once and for all with Japan, Russia, the United States and China, the issue of North Korea’s full return – with equal dignity -ontothe international scene and hence onto the world market.
If all goes well, in the coming years we can probably talk about a strategic and military sharing between South and North Korea – the establishment of a “nuclear and chemical-bacteriological potential” throughout the Korean peninsula, whose keys will also be held by Japan, Russia and probably the United States, if it does not make further mistakes.
As usual, the EU will have a wait-and-see attitude, believing to have a role to play in the negotiations while only practicing nursemaid diplomacy – thus ridiculously getting worked up for no purpose and pretending to have powers it has not – by probably providing “humanitarian aid” to the parties(aid possibly not even required by them).
We had already said so on other occasions in the past when no one was even barely thinking about that.
We had referred above all to the joint exercises between Russian and Chinese forces carried out last November in the Sea of Okhotsk.
For both China and Russia that sea is the optimal area to launch attacks on US bases in the Pacific.
The message was very clear: to quickly and strategically regionalize the North-South Korean issue; to strengthen Russia’s and China’s ties with both of them; to make the United States leave all hope regarding the disagreements between Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping that can never be a useful wedge for the United States.
Hence a further message to the United States making it clear that any further increase in the US military presence in South Korea would not absolutely be accepted either by Russia or by the People’s Republic of China.
And not as protectors of North Korea, but as powers directly bordering on a nuclearized area.
We have already said so, but it is worth repeating it: China does not accept in any way a US military hegemony cancelling North Korea’s nuclear and conventional potential – the only possible rampart between China and South Korea, namely a US staunch ally.
But, in economic terms, also China’s ally.
The US military balance in the region is well known: 35,000 North American soldiers and officers in South Korea; 40,000 in Japan; nearly 4,000 in Guam, a small island 2,100 kilometers away from Pyongyang, with a surface of only 544 square kilometers.
Not to mention the five US bases in the Philippines, as well as the four US warships based in Singapore, in addition to the overflight and docking permits granted by Thailand to the North American forces.
It is also worth recalling the US significant strategic positioning in the Hawaiian islands, with further 400,000 soldiers, sailors and officers and as many as 200 military ships available, with over 1,000 thousand warplanes of various sizes and functions stationed in the atoll that saw the successful surprise attack by the Japanese Admiral Togo.
There is also the US naval base in Kadena, on the island of Okinawa, as well as some stealth bases, also located in the Japanese archipelago.
Hence, it should be honestly said to our US friends that the fact that North Korea feels to be strategically closed and severely threatened is not a paranoia of North Korea’s ruling class – it is an incontrovertible fact.
To do what? “To bring democracy” to North Korea? Most of the mistrust with which North Korea looks to US statements regards, in fact, the unpredictable, self-destructive and basically improper behavior the United States had with Saddam’s Iraq at first and with Gaddafi’s Libya later.
North Korea does not want “Korean” springs, characterized by forked tongues, leaving only rubble and splitting the old national units – well tried and tested by history – for a crazy project of continuous war.
Furthermore China did not even accept that the United States naively puts pressures on itso as to diminish the significance and scope of the North Korean nuclear missile program.
As happens in the whole Chinese and Eastern sapiental tradition, China certainly does not want to be “second” to the United States.
And, despite recent coldness, it does not even want to appear hostile or distant from North Korea, an ancient “brother country” that Xi Jinping’s leadership will never leave in Western hands.
Conversely – if and when the global equilibria allow it -China may want a rational balanced reduction of North Korea’s nuclear umbrella.
This is meant to reduce a real danger of unwanted or casual attack and to show benevolence – when needed – vis-à-vis South Korea and North America.
Hence the North Korean nuclear system is a bargaining chip that China will use at its poker table, but never against the old North Korean “comrades” that, indeed, could obtain good economic advantages from this balanced reduction of the nuclear missile and bacteriological-chemical potential, without particular reductions in the value of their threat south-eastwards.
China accounts and will account in the future for over 90% of North Korea’s trade with the other countries but – as excellent readers of Marx’s works -the Chinese never behave like “common materialists” in the analysis of international relations.
Ironically for ideologies, which have never died, currently only the big business liberals think in terms which were typical of the Communist vulgate.
Moreover there is a clear message coming from the latest joint Russian-Chinese sea operations.
The clear strategic message that we hope the United States will understand is that the first US attack parade will be almost entirely covered by the Russian-Chinese threat or reaction, which will probably oppose and cancel it before its reaching North Korean waters. Conversely, Russia and China will leave North Korea’s response on Guam free and, in all likelihood, on other US bases in the Pacific – a response which will be fully developed by North Korea alone.
Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State of Donald J. Trump, who has always been in favor of negotiations with North Korea, knows all too well to what extent it is important for the United States not to trigger an uncontrollable and useless chain reaction in Southeast Asia-a region that has never brought luck to the United States.
Why? To set fire – without any result for the United States, if not ashes – to the whole Central Asian region and get to war on the Russian-Chinese land borders?
May God protect them.
Later Russia and China will protect North Koreadiplomatically, at the level of international organizations, thus avoiding the worst of the new sanctions.
Or, even worse, the excessive reactions of some US late restless aides, of those who – as has already happened in the EU – want to repeat the Cold War at the new borders of the Russian Federation.
They emasculate themselves on their own, at least as far as the energy market is concerned and hence -almost without realizing it – they will find themselves recreating a very costly dependence only on the United States, which will certainly make no concessions or discounts for the EU powerless naivety.
Hence currently the real problem is how to get out of this second phase of Cold War – and the key is to be found once again in the Korean peninsula.
If all those who will be called upon to deal with North Korea heal the Cold War wound where it was created (in fact, the Berlin Wall came later), namely at the 38th parallel, many things will change and not only in Southeast Asia.
South Korea will never want to become a nuclear ossuary to cover the North Korean subsequent attacks on the US nuclear parade and its military positions and installations in the region.
Furthermore, Russia and China will never accept a US military operation before or after the Panmunjom line, which is still technically a “ceasefire”.
Nevertheless both Russia and China will quickly accept the proposal to reduce the relevance of the North Korean nuclear apparatus, if there are rational and verifiable exchanges.
However, in this new triangulation, even North Korea must reap its benefits, which could be ensured by a new treaty that should make North Korea enter the worldmarket without hesitations, dissimulations and pretenses and without post-factumpunishments. Why?
Obviously there should also be a treaty for mutual recognition between the United States and North Korea, in addition to the restoration of a long, but credible, sequence of joint actions between South and North Korea.
At the end of the diplomatic negotiation, the United States should be in a position to accept a North Korean share of total defense to be defined.
While, at the same time, North Korea shall agree on a wide secondary protection area for its own defense apparatus, namely a new Panmunjom line.
As already recently noted, this would mean strong gradual integration with the Russian and Chinese economies, just now that the great ride of the new Silk Road is beginning westwards.
However, I have recently become very optimistic about the whole North Korean issue.
It has happened when I learned that the negotiation, which will start with the symbolic and hence highly political Olympic issue, will be led for North Korea by Ri Su-Yol, also known as RiChol.
A high-profile institutional leader who enjoys Kim Jong-Un’s full trust – a diplomat with great culture and experience about Western and Eastern issues.
He speaks excellent French, but his professional experiences have led him to learn also the German language very well.
Obviously his English is perfect.
He served as Minister for Foreign Affairs from April 2014 until May 2016 – and this is the first aspect to consider.
Ri is a refined weaver and negotiator, as happened in the diplomatic tradition of the countries born from the continuity and break with Marxism, which was represented by the creation of the Third Leninist International.
He is a tireless man, without the inflexibility that characterized many Eastern diplomats, at least those I met when Italy still had a foreign policy – which is no longer the case.
A “revolution against Capital“, against the Third International just to use the title of an old and perhaps still famous article by Antonio Gramsci on the “New Order”.
In this respect, we note that by Capital we only mean the title of Karl Marx’s fundamental work, not one of the means of production that Marxism has always considered – with some exaggeration, but also with some good intuitions – a means of production very different from the others.
However, these are just digressions typical of an economist.
Ri was also Vice-President of the Committee for Investment and Joint Ventures, as well as Vice-President of the Communications Committee of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
He also had another key post in the North Korean’s political system, which is based on “collaborative competition” among leaders, created especially in the institutions for training and selecting the North Korean ruling class – an “alternate” candidate of the Party’s Central Committee, a role never to be forgotten in a Third International system.
He also heldanother important post, namelyVice-Director of the Organization and Guidance Department, the control axis with which Kim Jong Un, but also his predecessors, spoke with the Party’s Leadership, thus controlling it.
In short, he is Kim Jong-Un’s real trusted man and this makes us realize how important the negotiations that will begin on January 9 are for North Korea’s leadership.
We can be certain that, from the beginning, the negotiations will get off track, albeit without exaggerating.
The issue lies above all in talking by symbols and signs – just as the Gods of the ancient Latins did, according to Lucretius, persymbolum et per aenigmate.
For several yearsYi Chol also served as Ambassador to Switzerland, the country in which also Kim Jong-Un studied.
It is also worth recalling that he was also the Supreme Leader’s official representative in the EU, as well as a prudent and very cautious administrator of Kim Jong Il’s personal assets and financial affairs.
Kim Jong-Un is Kim Jong-Il’s third son.
Ri Su-Yol, also known as Yi Chol, was born in 1940. Hence he is a man of experience, without the useless haste typical of young people.
Indeed, he does not look his age.
Therefore he had an elitist and revolutionary training, but he was never the expression of a family or group tradition existing before the Party, nor was he the son of a trusted official.
In fact he studied at the Revolutionary School of Mangyo’ndae and later at the Namsan School where he was Kim Jong-Il’s classmate.
Later Riwent to study at the Kim Il Sung University and probably finished his studies at the University of Moscow.
Soon after completing his studies, he started to work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In 1972 he was already Head of a Ministry Desk.
In 1974 he became Director General of the Office for Protocol and International Organizations.
After the Party’s Sixth Congress held in October 1980, Ri became one of the deputy-Directors of Kim Jong-Il’s Personal Secretary – a real key post.
At the same time, he took up the post of Vice-Director of the Party’s Organization and Guidance Department and, again in 1980, he was appointed Ambassador to Geneva.
It is therefore by no mere coincidence that Riwas sent to represent his country in the capital city of International Organizations which, as in the past, arethe favorite ground of confrontation or negotiation for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
In Switzerland he worked for the entire community of North Korean Party Leaders, in addition to taking care of the personal – and hence political -interest and affairs of both Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il.
Hence we can say that Ri has also become Kim Jong-Un’s trusted man, the essential advisor, the one who knows how to speak to the Westerners, to North Korea’s Friends and to the opponents.
Ri’s career continued in 1987, when he became Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mission in Geneva.
He was later recalled to his home country in March 2010 and appointed Ambassador to Iran, a place of absolute importance for those who know the particular relations existing between North Korea and Iran.
Upon returning to North Korea after his Iranian mission, Ribegan working in the Supreme Leader’s Personal Secretary’s Office.
Finally he led – with absolute correctness, propriety, wisdom and refined knowledge of Western laws and customs – the organization attracting capital into the North-Eastern region of the country.
Hence it is really easy to understand the emphasis laid by Kim Jong-Un on the new negotiations due to start on January 9, 2018.
It is worth recalling that in 2014 Ripaid, for the first time, an official visit to India, in his capacity as Foreign Minister. He was also elected as a full member of the Party’s Politburo by the 7thCentral Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea – another extremely important post for those who know the particular North Korean power elite.
It is also worth noting that the Party always prevails over the State in the political regimes resulting from the “revolution against Capital” that created the Third International.
Hence something different from traditional Marxism which – according to the so-called Austro-Marxism, much loved and studied by Giuseppe Saragat- would have resulted in socialdemocracy.
Ri is also Head of the Party’s International Relations Office and in 2017 he was appointed President of the Diplomatic Committee of the Supreme People’s Assembly.
Said Assembly is the only representative House since there is no Senate in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Hence what would I like to happen if these negotiations were successful – as I sincerely hope – also on the basis of the profile and caliber of the personality to whom North Korea has entrusted this diplomatic round of negotiations?
Firstly, the mutual recognition between North Korea and the United States of America.
Secondly, an agreement between China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States for the planned reduction of North Korea’s nuclear missile and bacteriological-chemical saturation.
A nuclear missile network that could be controlled by an ad hoc Agency with specific procedures, different and more up-to-date than those used by the IAEA.
Thirdly, an agreement on North Korea’s controlled opening to international capital, with the creation of a North Korean Commission for Foreign Exchange, with a view to avoiding speculative transactions such as those that characterized Russia after the CPSU’s fall.
Fourthly, a fully operational plan of targeted foreign investment for the autonomous economic zones and later for the whole North Korea.
Considering Ri Su-Yong’ skills, if all goes well, we could reach these results sooner than expected.
“Mask Diplomacy” and Understating China’s Confucian Strategy in International Relations
It is by no means a hyperbolic phase to call the year 2020 as Anus Horribilis by virtue of the events that have befallen from the very first month. The new year bells rang amid the bush fires in Australia and within seventy-two hours after new year eve the US assassinated Iranian top General Soleimani in Iraq creating an extremely tense situation. Then within a week, the greater disturbance escalated into a worse scenario when Iran launched an attack on the US bases in Iraq.
However, all the above-mentioned events became less significant and probably forgotten when COVID 19 became an unmitigated disaster creating chaos around the world. But when it emerged in China at the end of 2019 the morbid fascination shown by the US foreign policy analysts was a palpable factor as the US perceived that repercussions of COVID 19 in Wuhan may inevitably stagnate the magic economic growth that China has been witnessing. But this irrational jubilation was short lived as it ultimately turned to irrational disappear with rapid spread of COVID 19 as a global pandemic which has now brutally wounded the USA making it as the current epicenter whereas China has slowly begun to recover from its eleventh-hour moment. The unexpected situation erupted in the West before coping with the corona virus was followed by China’s evasive global aid campaign against Coronavirus as Chinese opted for “mask diplomacy” by sending medical supplies to European countries and the portrayal of China as the scapegoat was vindicated by these actions.
So, it is intriguing that, especially the growing emphasis on China’s liability for concealing the corona virus when it emerged in Wuhan from the global community, that China gleefully clung to its mask diplomacy across Europe when European solidarity was at stake. Especially, China’s gusto in supplying medical aid and masks to Italy was a notable factor as it has altered the hostile public perception pervaded in Italian society towards China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). For example, there was a massive criticism on Chinese BRI project in Italy, particularly in relation to its potential threat to debilitate Northern Italy’s economy. China seized the moment in such a berating atmosphere towards them in Italy as the good Samaritan. China’s massive medical supply and masks to Italy even as European Union failed to rally around one of is leading economies played a crucial role in China’s position in Italy. In fact, Italy was just one example showing the astuteness of China’s mask diplomacy amid many COVID crisis.
Nevertheless, the causes rooted in Chinese bonhomie seems to have been propelled by Xi Jin Ping’s biggest dream of leading China to the global political realm and the apathy shown by the USA contrary to its historical Atlantic alliance with Europe boosted China’s “Mask’s Diplomacy” significantly. While ascertaining the Chinese strategy amid the COVID crisis to uplift their good name in the Western world, one cannot forget the trajectories shaped up Chinese foreign policy that have mainly derived from Modern Chinese infatuation with their ancient Confucian values in diplomacy. The Gift giving has been depicted as rather essential feature in Confucian ethics and it was well applied by several dynasties in imperial China to expand Chinese influence beyond its frontiers. China’s ethical guru Confucius venerated ethics over law.In emulating the principle of virtue, the importance given to ritual has played a significant one, because in the Chinese ancient book of rites, the governance and giving were linked to ritual. It was believed that gift giving as a ritual was filled with reverence and sense of generosity and also it was expected to receive blessings from the receiver.
The Confucian ethics prevailed in imperial China reached its nadir after the formation of People’s Republic of China grounded on Communism. Yet, its importance came back to the practice with steeping growth of China as a global political, economic and military power in the late 20th century. In particular, the famous gift giving strategy adopted by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in the 80’s to make comity with the USA was known as Panda Diplomacy which resulted in a considerable diplomatic triumph for China.
From a vantage point the Chinese strategy of sending medical aid and masks to foreign countries, especially to EU states is akin to how Chinese approach to develop foreign relations under Confucian values, but its deeper political expectations seem to have been envisaged by the west with a sense of doubt. Especially, China’s act of sending masks and medical aid was seen as a way to extend Beijing’s political leverage to other countries and divert world attention from discussing China’s culpability for spreading corona virus. The Chief of the European Union Joseph Borell has described this phenomenon as “the politics of generosity”, simultaneously the West has lampooned China for conducting provocative campaigns against neighboring countries from Taiwan to Japan by taking the advantage of corona chaos. The criticism focusing on Beijing’s actions are been propelled by China’s contemporary attitude to increase its participation in global politics contrary to its initial claim on peaceful rise, which used to be the mantra of Chinese depiction of their yearning to become a super power under Hu Jintao.
Given this situation of West’s ambivalence to view Chinse “Mask Diplomacy” as an evasive action to change the global attitude towards China, the Confucian ideals need to be reexamined as it guides foreigners to fathom how Chinese vision works. As I stated above gift giving culture played a dominant role in ancient China under Confucian ethics to underpin the social harmony. Throughout its civilizational saga, China always called herself the middle kingdom and kept paternal relations with the neighboring states. Thus, it is justifiable to argue the way Chinese have been using the the Mask Diplomacy is not entirely an act of manipulation of opportunities as it has been vehemently critiqued by the West. Indeed, its roots have derived from China’s unique civilizational approach to international affairs.
China and Hong Kong
The real crucial event in China’s current policy, not only for Hong Kong, was the document on “State Security in the Hong Kong Territory”, voted in the recent National People’s Congress at the end of May.
The document drafted by the National People’s Congress regards above all the Chinese national security and hence the internal security of the Fragrant Harbour, as well as the direct control of the strategic and public security situation of the anti-Chinese political opposition in Hong Kong, and, in particular, the reform of Article 23 of the Basic Law which governs the former British colony.
It should be recalled that two Opium Wars started from there only against mainland China. The opium was cultivated by the British East India Company in its territories in Bengal.
From 1839 to 1842 and from 1856 to 1860, as many as two trade and military conflicts allowed the actual British monopoly of the British and Indian opium throughout the Chinese territory.
Let us revert, however, to Article 23 of the Basic Law, which formally prohibits any act of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the State of the People’s Republic of China, as well as the theft of State secrets.
Therefore, the Chinese government now acts autonomously, in the territory of Hong Kong, for the defence of its interests. This also paves the way for a wide geopolitical transformation, in some ways more “radical” than the one which Deng Xiaoping carried out in 1978 with the Four Modernizations. It should be recalled that they ended with the most important Modernization for China, namely the military one.
The first attempt to adopt national security legislation in Hong Kong was made as early as 2003, when at least half a million people demonstrated against said legislation – very similar to the present one – proposed and established by China. Later there were several other security bills and, again, other large mass demonstrations.
Until the demonstrations of April 2019 against the Chinese bill to stop the extradition of PRC’s citizens to the Fragrant Harbour.
At the time demonstrators shouted “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”.
Certainly China has often stated it sees Hong Kong’ security severely affected by the operations of various and unspecified “powers”, which (undoubtedly) use Hong Kong to penetrate China and later possibly carry out separatist operations (Uyghurs, Tibetans and other riotous and unruly minorities),as well as infiltrations – sometimes military ones – and finally what China calls “harmful operations”.
Certainly these “harmful” operations also include those by Europe and the United States, which already repeatedly urge many “partners” and companies of the Global Value Chains (GVC) already present in China to move to the small territory of the Fragrant Harbour. This is also an objective cause of the improbable request for an “independent” investigation on the causes of the outbreak and spreading of the Covid-19 pandemic from the Chinese laboratories of Wuhan, Hebei.
A real attack on global economic development, and on China’s economic security, right now that China is quickly transforming its production formula.
China wants to thwart such a move by bringing many production chains directly back into its territory, and by increasing the Chinese strategic (and hence financial and economic) pressure on the U.S. traditional allies in South-East Asia and the Pacific.
Not necessarily the Southern Pacific only.
However, we will come back also to this point. As can be easily guessed, for China this is a strong point for the direct control of the Fragrant Harbour’s territory.
However, a historical and ancient condition is no longer in place, i.e. the separation of Hong Kong’s legislation from Great Britain’s and currently China’s.
Obviously the Chinese decision is also a clear heave-ho given to Governor Carrie Lam and to the entire government in Hong Kong, by-passed in a few hours by the very clear Chinese diktat.
China has probably calculated the pros and cons of this move very well.
The cons, which are not insurmountable, include the reduced importance attached to Hong Kong as the only financial and industrial hub in the Chinese territory, which is also fully Westernized and globalized. This also greatly serves the PRC’s direct interests.
The U.S. interests in the Fragrant Harbour will no longer be safe and this is not a negligible issue: 1,300 medium-large North American companies and 82.5 trillion U.S. dollars in direct investment.
Not to mention the dozens of NGOs that support democratization in Hong Kong against China and the many large global media headquarters in Hong Kong, as well the several operations of infiltration, intoxication and information manipulation (including some financial and industrial ones) that the West has carried out against the People’s Republic of China, starting from the Fragrant Harbour.
From now on, for the whole West, Hong Kong’s gateway will be closed with seven seals.
Certainly, when the People’s Republic of China feels threatened, it always sacrifices the economy to global strategy.
Certainly Hong Kong has always been China’s financial lifeline, especially in difficult times.
Currently, however, Hong Kong is an irreplaceable global financial hub in Asia. Nevertheless, I imagine that China will soon want to use other less dangerous and, above all, less close channels to connect to global finance.
Moreover, for the first time since 1992 – and, probably since 1978, the year of the Four Modernizations, if we analyse older time series – the Chinese economy is slowing down considerably due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, although with less severe damage than in the United States and in some E.U. countries.
The PRC’s first objective was to resume economic and industrial activities in full swing, while the second one was to make the Fragrant Harbour safe.
But, once again, there is a pro versus a con: while Hong Kong and, for other respects, Macao and Singapore, have been the destination areas of huge amounts of capital resulting from the corruption and embezzlement of many Chinese elites, Hong Kong’s closure will probably also mark the end of the great hunt that President Xi Jinping and his power group have focused on corruption within the Party and Beijing State.
The old strategy of “Power putting down roots”, as recommended in The Prince by Machiavelli.
Hence President Xi Jinping wants to directly control the Fragrant Harbour, the original site of China’s forced Westernization, from the beginning of the “century of humiliation” (precisely with the first Opium War) to its end, with the PRC’s declaration of independence by Mao Zedong – “the Chinese people have stood up!” -at the Gate of Heavenly Peace Square, in 1949.
The countries that are bound to win in the world arena are those with long and very long memories, while the post-modern and childish forgetful ones are always bound to lose.
Obviously – as was also seen in the very recent National People’s Congress in Beijing – Hong Kong is also a powerful sign for regaining Taiwan politically and economically.
Recently, China has announced a 6.6% increase in the Defence budget from 1.72 trillion yuan (187 billion U.S. dollars) and Li Kekiang, Beijing’s Premier, has made it clear that “China resolutely opposes and will deter any separatist activity seeking Taiwan’s independence”.
Normally, the Chinese authorities speak of “peaceful reunification”, but this time Li Kekiang omitted the adjective. It was not a distraction.
In Mao Zedong’s time, the always synthetic and enlightening formula of the Chinese leadership was available for Hong Kong: “long-term planning, full use”. Later the “one country, two systems” formula initially developed by Deng Xiaoping was used, later reaffirmed by the various leaders and so far supported by President Xi Jinping himself.
This Chinese choice on the Hong Kong Security Law, therefore, means only one thing: the end of the old Cold War between the West and the PRC, and hence the beginning of a new phase between China and the United States, which will be “hot” or “cold” depending on the circumstances. Therefore, China has no need in the future – not even financially – to have Hong Kong as a buffer zone with a relatively peaceful, but always radically adverse West.
Both the USSR and Mao Zedong’s China have always regarded the “Cold War” as an unstable phase in which victory is decided by the amount of arsenals, their doctrine of use and the political will to use them as instruments of credible pressure.
Certainly, Mao knew all too well – and it was one of his most enlightening strategic insights – that the “Cold War” was a paper tiger and those who believed in it could only consume themselves, politically and economically, against the United States and its allies – something that punctually happened with the USSR, which collapsed because it had not renounced in time to a clash impossible to win and which, at most, would give it the “great European plain”, as Hegel and Raymond Aron called it.
Hence China quickly closed its accounts with the Fragrant Harbour, pending the closing of the subsequent operations also with Taiwan and all the other controversial areas, from the Philippines to the South China Sea, from South-East Asia to Malaysia and the Indian Ocean.
The old map – born with Kuomintang, but which was also very popular among Chinese Communist leaders in the 1950s, in which the new Chinese territorial waters beyond the Philippines’ line and throughout the Eastern Pacific could be seen -has not been forgotten at all.
The United States has obviously “condemned” the Chinese decision, while Great Britain, Australia and Canada have signed a common document expressing “deep dismay” at China’s decision.
Furthermore, the United States already has the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Actof 2019 available – pending the great demonstrations which characterized that year and are currently collectively called the Water Revolution.
Therefore, by virtue of that Act, the United States could remove the preferential trade status of Hong Kong, possibly with the extension to Hong Kong of the tariff and trade sanctions already in place against China. It should be recalled that these restrictions are worth67 billion U.S. dollars per year.
Hence China’s goals for its actual regaining of the Fragrant Harbour are manifold and complex. Firstly, there is the closure of the financial closed circuit between China and Hong Kong, to be put into effect with the minimum international reaction. Secondly, there is also China’s need to rebuild the central and decisive position of the Chinese economy in the Global Value Chains – a position which, even before the “taking” of Hong Kong, had diminished in importance, but which would currently be fatal, especially if it arrived as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Obviously China also regards Hong Kong as a strategic, unavoidable and essential location for controlling the South China Sea militarily. The Chinese always reason with what De Gaulle called the “two caps”, i.e. the civilian and the military one, which must always be kept together.
Certainly, the peaceful regaining of Hong Kong is also a breaking point of the current U.S. geopolitics in the region: from the Far East probably to the Middle East, the United States has always thought of a long strategic-military continuity that would encircle Russia and close China in its hardly controllable terrestrial mainland.
Hence China’s full control of regional seas will no longer enable the Russian Federation to depart from the project hegemonised by China, the New Silk Road, while the “small silk road” already planned by Russia, mainly with Japanese but also U.S. capital, will be either integrated into the Chinese one or destroyed.
Finally, as already mentioned, China wants to speed up the process to separate Taiwan from the Japanese and North-American military “umbrella” protecting it.
Here we need to carefully examine the relationship between “Xi Jinping’s policy line” and the 1998 theory of unrestricted warfare.
China, which is aware of not yet being clearly superior in terms of “conventional” or traditional warfare, even if technologically advanced, must absolutely win its total war, its new unrestricted warfare.
Hence another reversal of the Cold War theorem: while, during the whole conventional phase of the Cold War, China depended on Russia for military technology, currently it is Russia that depends on China for orders and financing-purchases – although with its own often excellent and innovative war technology.
Hence if China, which has also acquired – both legally and in other ways – excellent Western, and not only post-Soviet military technology, wants to wage war – even regionally and indirectly – against the United States, it must necessarily do so in time, before the United States rising up to China’s technological-doctrinal challenge, with the weapons it would like to have and has not yet, instead of those it already has.
Furthermore a war game conducted by the RAND Corporation in early March 2020, demonstrated that, in an armed conflict, the United States would lose both against China and the Russian Federation, obviously considered separately.
As also the U.S. analysts maintain, on the neo-technological – and hence also doctrinal level – the United States lags behind China with regard to strategic and missile precision weapons, hypersonic systems and guidance systems for all theatre ballistic weapons. While the United States is still superior in tactical weapons and in conventional medium-high technology weapons.
The United States, too, has suffered the conceptual impasse of the “Cold War”.
Also the F35 missile could be an excellent weapon for air supremacy, but – as a U.S. analyst said – it could be bombed to the ground by China or Russia.
Other always accurate and updated war games, conducted by U.S. analysts, show that the United States would be clearly defeated even in the South Pacific, or by Russia in the Baltic, but certainly China would win in a regional clash to take Taiwan, while both Russia and China are working on the new anti-access/denial area weapons (A2A) quite successfully.
Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping has shifted his strategic interest from the ground forces of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to the PLA’s Navy and then to the Air Force, but especially to the Strategic Missile Force and the more recent Strategic Support Force.
Today there is still a window of opportunity, which will last until the end of 2020, so that China can neutralize the U.S. fleet more than a hundred nautical miles from its coast and from the coast of Hong Kong, Macao and Singapore, as well as neutralize the U.S. missile systems both in Guam and Japan and in the small islands of the South Pacific.
Here is the strategic pendant of China’s choice on Hong Kong’s internal security.
Taiwan could also be the operation that makes the war escalate up to its nuclear level, but it is not said that the Chinese supremacy, still viable in a clash with the United States, decides to get to that point, although, probably, it will strike first and, hence, harder. But it will try to stop operations before the U.S. decision to go for the nuclear blow.
Nor should we forget the regional war that China waged with India precisely in May 2020, in the area of Lake Pangong Tso and the Galwan Valley, with a quick peace negotiation for controlling Ladakh, a border area still disputed by China, as well as an always very fast operation of the Chinese Forces in the north of Sikkim, again at the beginning of May 2020.
We do not know yet whether all future Chinese operations will be lightning ones.
Hence we need to place the Hong Kong issue within this line of thinking.
A comparative analysis of the socialist and the capitalist approach towards COVD-19: China and the U.S.
“Our greatest strength lies in our socialist system, which enables us to pool resources in a major mission. This is the key to our success.” -President Xi Jinping
The COVD-19 pandemic was first reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. The COVD-19 cases drastically dropped in China as a result of robust measures; however, the diseases rapidly spread across the globe. The results of the study revealed that although China indicated early warning of COVID-19 many countries were caught unaware. These include the UK, Italy, Spain, the US, and the majority of African countries. Most countries delayed detecting the COVD-19 virus and this their ability to respond efficiently and effectively. However, some of the lessons learned from the COVD-19 pandemic might contribute to better preparedness in the future. The study recommends that the US should prioritize the right to life before profit. This commentary shall make a comparative analysis of the socialist and capitalist approaches towards COVID-19
The World health organization declared the COVD-19 a global pandemic in March 2020. Currently, the COVID-19 has topped 6, 056, 021 deaths neared, 367,305 and 2,681,569 recovered The US recorded approximately 104,548deaths and China 4,634 deaths (Wordometer May 30, 2020).China had controlled the COVD-19 epidemic by early March. However, Europe and America became the new epicenter of the pandemic. The COVD-19epidemic exposed the gap in the capitalist nations’ commitment to fighting large scale infectious outbreaks. These include lack of effective strategies, play-back approach, underestimation, and uncoordinated health system. Major outbreak has been recorded in the US, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Germany. As such, most countries adapted lock-downs, curfews, social distancing, travel restrictions, and canceled public gatherings. However, intervention measures were inefficient in the absence of a coordinated health care and strong support system. Many socialist states were able to flatten the COVD-19 curve in their countries due to ideology and commitment. For instance, China, Vietnam, and Cuba. Socialism maintains the principle of right to life before profit. Further, it entails the provision of the best health-care, decent shelter for the homeless, safe water, education, and life for all. Nevertheless, the capitalist upholds profit before the right of life.
History teaches us that many countries implemented social distancing amid of the 1918 Spanish Flu. Nearly 675 000 people died in the US and millions around the world (Lopez, 2020). Further, the 2009 A (HINI) pandemic also led to the cancellation of public gatherings such as universities and schools. As a result, the transmission rate reduced by 30% (Kelly, 2020). However, the rate of infection increased when normalcy was resumed. Moreover, Americans failed to respect experts control measures such as social distancing leading to increased rates of infections and the death of thousands of people.
President Trump has blamed China for deliberately provoking a disease that caused widespread suffering. However, despite China’s efforts, western anti-communist attitudes make it difficult to acknowledge China’s successful and intensive efforts. President Donald Trump ushered anti-Chinese sentiments and referred COVD-19 as the China virus rather than drawing lessons from China’s successful containment of the pandemic. However, scholars have blamed President Trump for spreading some political lies. So far the virus is unknown, might have occurred naturally or bats can be the host of the virus ( Kindrachuk, 2020).
Noteworthy, China gave advance notice of the impending crisis of the COVID – 19 to the world several weeks before it spread to other countries. Chinese Centre for Disease Control was committed to international cooperation and immediately published the entire COVD-19 genome virus after being identified. However, most countries responded lately to the pandemic. Despite possessing vast resources, developed countries failed to upgrade the health care delivery system. For instance, increasing human and physical resources such as protective clothing, ventilators, and test kits. Public health responses were intensified by the end of February and early March 2020. These included tracing detention, quarantining of people returning from highly infected regions, physical distancing, and shift-work. However, cases had already multiplied. The US was unsuccessful in taking necessary precaution measures in time.
Moreover, unrecognized cases contributed to the acceleration of the COVD-19 epidemic in many capitalist states. For instance, in the US COVD-19 cases were difficult to identify because the pandemic started during the influenza season. Furthermore, large gatherings, travel-associated importations, pre-symptomatic spread, densely populated areas such as New York and Texas led to the rapid spread. High-risk workplaces such as the meat market further exposed workers.
China responded aggressively in the absence of a vaccine and adapted rigorous testing, social distancing, contact tracing, isolation of patients, and closure of Hubei Province. This was one of the greatest efforts in history. China also adopted a non -negotiable top priority of meeting people’s needs. More than 30,000 health care providers were deployed to Wuhan from all over China and forty-five hospitals were designated for COVD-19 treatment. More so, other buildings and exhibition centers were converted to 12 temporary hospitals. Two new hospitals that had a carrying capacity of about 1,300 beds were constructed. However, the US downplayed and failed to place contingency plans after a handful of case such as testing facilities, and self -isolation of immune-compromised people like old and HIV positive. Later, a task force to fight the spread of the disease led by Vice President Mike Pence was formed.
The Chinese government announced free testing and treatment including the sophisticated and expensive techniques such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The latest developments in artificial intelligence were adapted such as the use of medical imaging and robots. Efforts were made to mitigate the effect of the crisis on people’s daily lives. The Communist Party of China (CPC) ensured that all people on medication received their prescriptions and every household was given food handouts. Furthermore, payment of wages continued provision of subsidies and credit card payment. Online shopping of food, was also encouraged in China and online education. The US issued home orders starting in April; however, people could go out to purchase medicine and food. Therefore, Americans were further exposed to the virus. Further, these restrictions were to expire end of April and American cities were to reopen for business. As such, the majority of the American cities announced re-opening for businesses as they are capitalist oriented. China eased the restrictions of the look down gradually city after city thereby flattening the cave of COVD-19 cases.
Artificial intelligence was widely deployed in China such as a prediction model-assisted authorities in Shenzhen and Chongqing. Outbreaks were predicted before they occurred and the accuracy rates were almost 90%. AI computing capabilities were provided for free by Alibaba Cloud to public research institutions and to support protein screenings and virus gene sequencing. China did set up temperature checking stations throughout the country. Every person was asked to have a health code application on his or her smartphone and the user could report symptoms. Therefore, health officials were enabled to check and trace the spread of the virus quickly. Nonetheless, in the US the Coronavirus Aid Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was signed into law on 27 March 2020. Stimulus payment was offered by the CARES Act to the US citizens. Furthermore, the US government encouraged telehealth services, employer-sponsored health plans to cover part of COVD-19 testing, and no co-pays. However, all these policies lacked proper coordination by the government leading to the rapid spread of the disease.
The main point of departure between the capitalist countries and socialist countries is the control of capital. Capitalist countries are under the control of capital, whilst socialist nations control of the capital. The economy is directed by the state. For instance, finance, energy, heavy industry, transport, communications, and foreign trade. The centralized system of China enabled it to mobilize resources easily.
China embarked on a program to assist other affected countries. For instance, it sent medical teams, tens of thousands of testing kits, ventilators, and millions of surgical masks. Countries that benefited includedItaly, Cambodia, Poland, Spain, France, Poland, and the Philippines. African countries such as Zimbabwe, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Algeria DRC among others also benefited. Likewise, the US also assisted the most at-risk countries including humanitarian assistance to 10 members of the Association of Southern Asian Nation(ASEAN). Further, the US provided funds to multilateral organizations such as World Health Organizations.
The COVD-19 epidemic does not respect the economic status of nations. Socialism has appeared superior to capitalism as far as protecting the fundamental human right of life. Wealthy countries are struggling to contain COVD-19 due to a lack of coordination in the health sector and delayed mitigation measures. The COVD-19 pandemic has exposed the ruthless nature of the western capitalism.
Global manufacturing production drops sharply due to economic disruptions caused by COVID-19
World manufacturing production already indicated an overall economic slowdown in 2019 but, in the first quarter of 2020, manufacturing output...
The power of love: comparison of two romantic relationships
The article illustrates the role of love in two romantic relationships based on two novels. Conrad and Jeanine are the...
“Mask Diplomacy” and Understating China’s Confucian Strategy in International Relations
It is by no means a hyperbolic phase to call the year 2020 as Anus Horribilis by virtue of the...
Top Paying Careers In Criminal Justice
Crime is at large, now more than ever. We get to hear of unimaginably heinous misdeeds every day that can...
Dearth of Humanity
A significant portion of the world is recovering from Covid-19, however there is a place where people not only fears...
Chinese soft power winning hearts and minds
Soft power cheaper than hard power, winning hearts and minds of the people, is prerequisite for the state in international...
Who are the real betrayers of Egypt, Critics or Sycophants?
“You are betraying your country by exposing its defects!” is a common accusation made by the sycophants to the ruling...
Economy3 days ago
Bangladesh’s Graduation: A Ray of Hope for India’s Garment Industry?
South Asia3 days ago
Populism: Effects on Global Politics and Pakistan
Europe3 days ago
UK’s post-covid foreign policy
East Asia2 days ago
Sino-India clash: A crisscross of geo-politics and geo-economics
African Renaissance3 days ago
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Triumphs And The African Renaissance
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Eminent Scholars discuss India-ASEAN Engagements through Video Conference
Newsdesk2 days ago
New $25 Million Support Will Help Djibouti Grow its Economy and Improve Access to Services
South Asia2 days ago
NOTA: A Step Forward Or Just A Toothless Tiger?