Donald Trump’s rise to power, his “America first” policy and the announcement by Chinese President Xi Jinping of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), designed to revitalize the Silk Road, are the three mile- stones demonstrating a radical shift in globalization.
Our globalized world is in fact going through a decisive moment in its history, something that can be seen in the creation of the cult of personality surrounding the Chinese President, the introduction of China’s Social Credit System (SCS) and, finally, the crisis of confidence that has taken hold among the European Union’s (EU) member states, resulting in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU (Brexit), among other developments.
G-2, G-Zero and the Multipolar World
By putting in place protectionist measures, the world’s two superpowers, the United States and China, have begun a trade war. The announcement by the US that it would impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum, among other goods, has prompted China to impose its own tariffs on more than 100 products from the US. By mid-July 2018, the value of the taxed products traded between China and the United States had reached US$100 billion. According to experts, this will reduce world trade by 0.5% and economic growth in China and the United States by between 0.1% and 0.3% (Le figaro and AFP Agence, 2018).
Caught between these two powers, the European Union is responding in a similar fashion, i.e. by imposing customs duties worth €2.8 billion on certain US products (Reuters, 2018). Less united than ever, the EU must contend with Brexit and its impacts throughout the Union. The dissatisfaction Europe’s citizens feel about the EU’s lack of effectiveness continues to grow. The future of Europe, the European identity and the Union’s role in today’s globalized world are all being called into question.
It seems we are living in a G-Zero world, a world in which no country, region or group is able to play a leading role on the international scene. On the contrary, G-Zero means a “free-for-all” in which multiple political strategies are being implemented. Each country or region is trying to find its own effective solutions to the challenges of globalization, very often putting others at a disadvantage.
Will this G-Zero world ultimately lead to a G-2 world in which all depends on how relations between the United States and China develop? More than ever, the EU must formulate common strategies vis-à-vis the two superpowers. Alternatively, will multipolarity prevail? A multipolarity characterized by peaceful cooperation among countries?
If so, the result could be a world in which the various players take action, certainly in competition with each other, but in a complementary manner. New international regulations and standards would provide a framework for this “cosmopolitical” (Nida-Rümelin, 2017) global govern- ance while avoiding military conflicts. This would be a world in which the EU, above all, could define its geopolitical strategy in a way that prevents it from finding itself at the mercy of China and the United States.
After reviewing the main characteristics of globalization, internationalization, the competition among nation-states and transnational forces (see the following Introduction section), this paper analyzes BRI as a geopolitical instrument within China’s overall strategy, which is designed to manage developments and exert power (see the section BRI: A “China First” Strategy). It then explores the impacts of BRI and the “China first” strategy on Europe (see the section BRI and the EU: An Opportunity for Europe). Finally, it discusses the importance of bridging differences and cultivating an “identity of the heart” in keeping with the geopolitical vision of Jacques Ancel.
Introduction: Globalization, Deterritorialization and Transnationalization
Geopolitics — the study of territory and power — is at the heart of this paper. Globalization means the cross-border movement of people, goods, services, capital and information. It is not a new phenomenon. What is new is the increased interdependence between nation-states and the impact of various non-governmental actors (e.g. international companies, interest groups, NGOs) at the international level. In addition, there is greater competition between the national forces that arose from the old world order produced by the Treaty of Westphalia and the new trans- national forces resulting from globalization.
Political responses to globalization, i.e. internationalization, have been very varied, sometimes even conflicting. On the one hand, protectionist measures have been put in place, such as customs duties, border controls and, in Europe, a return to the logic of nation-states. On the other, measures promoting economic openness and expansion are being undertaken, from the re-conquest of the old Silk Roads to the harmonization of European trade and defense policies (e.g. the Common Security and Defence Policy, an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy).
The transnational forces resulting from de-territorialization are competing with traditional national forces, especially when it comes to securing natural resources. This is attributed to the Internet and networking; moreover people all around the world have much more knowledge at their disposal, particularly about globalization’s harmful effects. Indeed, there have been losers in addition to winners. Some countries or regions have massive international trade surpluses, while others are experiencing large deficits. In addition, cross-border economic crime, illicit transactions and money laundering are commonplace. There has been an accumulation of wealth in some regions, often controlled by political–economic elites. This injustice is increasingly fueling citizens’ mistrust of the prevailing political classes. This, in turn, is leading to an increase in social conflicts and protest movements, causing the effectiveness of the democratic system to be questioned.
There are shared challenges, however, that unite all the actors involved in this geopolitical issue: international terrorism; the effects of climate change including on food production; competition for natural resources; chronic economic, social and political crises, due, in particular, to the rise of an illegal and opaque global economy; widespread political apathy; and, finally, digitization, which is leading to a radical change in how people work. Current international institutions and organizations no longer offer effective solutions. The old world order, an after-effect of the Second World War, is in decline, while a new world order has yet to take shape.
BRI: A “China First” Strategy
Xi’s announcement in 2013 that China intended to revitalize the ancient Silk Roads marked a turning point in the country’s national policy.
Indeed, this vast project targeting infrastructure and commercial net- works will extend throughout Eurasia, an area of great geopolitical and commercial importance. The project is strengthening the links between China and countries all along the “belt”. It is, in fact, not a single project, since there is no master plan, but is comprised of a multitude of roads, railways and waterways. It includes the Pacific Silk Road, which passes through the Arctic Ocean, and the Digital Silk Road, which covers cyber- space (The Economist, 2018). BRI is also considered “the road of Xi Jinping” which only reinforces the cult of personality surrounding him. BRI focuses on major infrastructure projects (Figure 1). The 2015 action plan presented the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) and the Maritime Silk Road Belt (MSR) with a total of six corridors. According to the initiative, roads and sea routes are to connect China to Central Asian countries, Russia and, ultimately, Europe — but especially to Africa, in order to secure natural resources, particularly oil. In Eurasia, BRI covers more than 65 countries with a population of more than three billion, in keeping with the leitmotif advanced by the Communist Party of China (CPC) of “developing the region’s wealth and preserving peace, friend- ship, trust and understanding”.
In order to ensure financing for this vast infrastructure project, China has established two institutions that are complementary to, as opposed to competitors of, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (World Bank) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB):
-The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): The Asian investment bank for infrastructure projects, with 57 member countries (in addition to European countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg).
-The Silk Road Fund: A Chinese sovereign fund.
Many political leaders in the countries along this belt are welcoming this vast project with open arms, since it will improve infrastructure, ensure connectivity and, subsequently, promote economic development. However, as with any Chinese investment, compliance with standards and regulations is not a priority for Beijing. The corruption and opacity relating to the investments flowing from China are likely to benefit political elites more than the populations of the respective countries.
In addition, dependence on the investment flows generates an imbalance in China’s favor, preventing recipient countries from maintaining their economic autonomy.
The driver behind this commercial project is, above all, a new ideology being advanced by the CPC. Indeed, the main purpose of BRI is to secure and control transport routes for natural resources, particularly oil and gas. This basically means the transport routes that connect African resource-producing countries to production sites in China. The most important corridor is the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This route connects the city of Kashgar in China to the port city of Gwadar in Pakistan and is an integral part of China’s overall strategy. Almost 80% of all Chinese imports of oil pass through the Strait of Malacca (Figure 2). As a result, CPEC will significantly reduce transport time. In addition, it will improve Pakistan’s infrastructure due to the massive Chinese investments it entails. Not only will this help develop Pakistan’s economy, reduce the country’s energy shortages and boost its productivity, it will also increase Pakistan’s dependence on China. At the same time, the infrastructure projects are being financed through concessional and commercial loans, which will fuel the corruption already prevalent in Pakistan (Luchnikava-Schorsch, 2018; Hussain, 2017).
It is therefore necessary to view BRI not only as an instrument for asserting China’s power but also as a global meta-strategy that proposes an alternative world order, at least at the commercial level, to the liberal order established by the West. It is also why geopolitical, strategic and military aspects should be considered more than economic aspects. New waterways and port construction serve more than just commercial ends. Ports can serve as military bases for the Chinese navy. For example, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) inaugurated its first overseas maritime naval base in Djibouti in 2017 (Lagneau, 2017). Dispatching 400 troops, the PLA stated that it wants to support UN peacekeeping operations and its own naval operations, particularly in the Indian Ocean. China’s military presence, however, is of concern not only to the United States but to India as well. China–India relations are already tense due to disagreements over territories in the Himalayas, among other issues. CPEC passes through high-risk areas such as the autonomous region of Xinjiang and the northwest Pakistan–Afghanistan border region. The Chinese army is therefore securing infrastructure construction sites, transport roads and ports all along the corridor. In this context, BRI is a strategy that primarily serves Chinese interests. Certainly, this new Silk Road offers business opportunities to companies both in Asia and in Europe. Nevertheless, two aspects are important here: BRI is an ideological tool designed to maintain China’s internal stability, i.e. control by the CPC, while also serving as a strategy that brings together civil and military interests under the rubric of “security”.
While Europe tries to identify a new vision, China has provided its geopolitical strategy with a second wind. Capitalism got its start in modern China when the country opened to foreign investment in 1978 and when peasants were granted permission to keep their surplus production. By unleashing its citizens’ entrepreneurial spirit, the country hoped to overcome its technical and technological backwardness. Mobilization of the often-inactive Chinese population ensured national unity in keeping with the motto of “becoming rich”. After years of economic growth and accumulated wealth, the CPC is using BRI, among other activities, to give itself not only new justification for maintaining its power but also a new ideology capable of ensuring party unity, internal stability and national cohesion. President Xi is strengthening his position, supported by the Chinese people. The country’s authoritarian regime, moreover, is tightening its grip. Internationally, the Chinese economy is an integral part of global production chains. Remarkably, China is also increasingly becoming a source of innovation, especially digital innovation.
Externally, China is flexing its muscles in a number of locations, including in the South China Sea, transforming “a number of islets in the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos into military bases, where the government is building ports and airstrips” (RFI, 2017).
Assured by its strong position on the geopolitical level, the Chinese government is embarking on a more assertive foreign policy. Domestically, the country’s government manages the country as a global enterprise. Five-year plans are a management tool used to set the economic strategies of Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), both internally and externally, to ensure that standards of living increase for the Chinese population. This legitimizes the CPC’s ongoing rule. The BRI vision thus mobilizes the nation, safeguarding the unity, stability and harmony of China as a whole. At the same time, however, the growing cult of personality means that China is increasingly becoming a revisionist power.
New security strategy
As mentioned above, BRI is above all a “geostrategic–military” initiative since it brings together civil and military interests under the rubric of “security”. Indeed, these interests are at the center of all decisions and actions on the political and economic levels. Using the term “security”, China’s political strategy aims to safeguard national interests both domestically and internationally. Several dimensions of “security” are differentiated: national sovereignty and national unification, along with military, economic, cultural, social, scientific and technological security, as well as the security of information, security of environment and resources and, finally, nuclear security (State of Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2015). The main objective of this major security strategy is to preserve the country’s unity, prevent social unrest and legitimize the power of President Xi and the CPC.
In conclusion, we can see that the countries interacting with the European Union are pursuing a strategy that places national interests at the center of their respective political actions. The United States and Trump’s “America first” vision, the strengthening of the authoritarian regime in China, the new cult of personality surrounding Xi Jinping, the return of Mao’s personality cult and BRI are all ultimately driven by national ideologies. On the international level, the global community could thus be dominated by superpowers such as China, the United States and Russia. Due to the weakness of international organizations, ideologies are prevailing, determining the world order. The failure of the European project could become a cruel reality if Europe does not quickly find a new vision while avoiding ideological tendencies — formulating its interests as it does so.
BRI and the EU: An Opportunity for Europe?
Diplomatic relations between Europe and China began in 1975. Since then, there have been regular ministerial meetings and Sino-European summits. More than 60 sectoral agreements have been concluded. China and the EU trade goods are worth more than €1.5 billion each day (Eurostat, 2018). The EU is China’s main trading partner; for Europe, China is second only to the United States.
For years, the EU’s trade balance (Figure 3) with China has been in deficit, with the shortfall reaching €176.4 billion in 2017. This has been a constant conflict between Europe and China. Despite numerous discussions between Beijing and Brussels, the imbalance persists for most member states, although not for Germany, Finland and Ireland (Eurostat, 2018).
In 2016, the EU adopted a new strategy on China that tries to respond more effectively to the scale of China’s economic power and its role as an increasingly important global player (Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council, 2016). The strategy complements the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation, which marked its 15th anniversary in 2018 (Press and information team of the Delegation to CHINA, 2016). In addition, the EU is negotiating an investment agreement with China to ensure fair opportunities for both sides. The EU also wants to encourage China to give a greater role to market mechanisms and reduce state intervention. The 2020 agenda does not seem to be succeeding. China is not really interested in accepting European norms and standards and is pursuing a “divide and rule” strategy in Europe instead. Indeed, BRI further amplifies the 16+1 meetings, which China is using to negotiate with Eastern European countries. The 16+1 format risks are loosening the ties between Eastern Europe and Brussels. China is pursuing this tactic by negotiating on three levels: with European institutions, with individual member countries and with Eastern Europe as a whole (16+1). An examination of Chinese foreign investment shows that the government continues to invest massively in Europe, always to some extent in “freeloader” style. China’s preferred targets are the United Kingdom (financial sector), Germany (Mittelstand/machine-tool, automotive sector), France (tourism, cosmetics, leisure, wine), Greece (infrastructure) and Portugal (real estate). Trade is growing steadily and with it the interdependence between EU member states and China.
Investment flows into Europe from China amount to €10.2 billion (2016) with EU investments in China totaling €12.8 billion in 2016 (Eurostat, 2018). Yet even if China is investing more and more in Europe, the scope must be put into perspective: of China’s total FDI, only 5–6% has been made in Europe. The majority of Chinese investments still take place in Asia — notably Hong Kong (75.5%), Singapore (3.7%), Taiwan (3.6%), South Korea (2.8%) and Japan (2.5%). The United States accounts for 2.4% of total Chinese FDI, the Netherlands 1.7% and Germany 1.2% (Otte, 2018). In the Asian region, BRI infrastructure projects will have a very significant impact in coming years. Even if Europe is more or less at the end of this new Silk Road, Eastern European nations have become, since BRI, the center of China’s interest. Especially Poland and the Baltic countries can serve as a point of entry for goods transported via the Silk Road. BRI can then serve as a catalyst to rebalance trade relations in favor of Europe as a whole, but only if the EU finds a common strategy for this initiative. It is therefore important not to fall into the trap of intra-European competition, or to be divided by China. On the contrary, common European interests must be identified in order to protect key EU sectors and give priority to European actors.
Above all, closer cooperation with pro-European countries is necessary, as is monitoring and guiding Chinese investments throughout the European continent. BRI will change the foundations of world trade in the medium term, and the EU risks granting even greater access to European high technology. This poses a real threat since China, as discussed, links its civil and military interests. China’s influence and geopolitical–military power could thus have an impact in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. First and foremost, BRI is a Chinese ideology that is making it possible to pursue the Chinese dream, modernize state- owned companies and facilitate their financing by promoting access to international credit. Additionally, the increased prosperity of the countries along the BRI routes will ensure Chinese trade remains stable, a key aspect given that the Chinese economy is heavily dependent on exports.
Areas of action for the EU
In view of BRI, not only must European companies act, so must all EU institutions. A new vision for Europe must be articulated if Europe is to avoid being taken hostage by Chinese interests. The strength of the European Union is directly linked to how it manages its diversity. In Europe, freedom of thought reinforces creativity, which is necessary for technological progress. The high quality of Europe’s companies is the result of their innovative power. Due to its democratic structures, respect for human rights, rule of law and high social standards and norms, the EU acts within a regulatory framework based on ethical and human values. On the commercial level, BRI offers many opportunities for European companies as investors, experts, consultants and managers. Potential activities include the following:
-Investing in infrastructure projects, such as construction of railways and roads.
-Supplying equipment, such as that needed for ports.
-Serving as partners in the areas of engineering, procurement and construction (EPC).
-Serving as consultants for project management, especially in the area of operational security and the application of international and local laws.
-Managing infrastructure operations (Wijeratne et al., 2018).
There are many opportunities and risks here. As with any transnational project of this magnitude, major differences in the relevant corporate cultures must be overcome. Above all, trust between the various international actors plays a crucial role.
In addition, different legal frameworks exist which can lead to conflicts between international and local laws. Moreover, the “time” factor should not be overlooked, since BRI is a massive project that will only be completed in the long term. In short, there are myriad factors which could hinder European companies from serving as partners within the framework of this initiative.
French President Macron — Hope for Europe?
The election of Emmanuel Macron as President of the French Republic gave, for a brief time, new momentum not only to France, but also to the EU. Macron’s visit to China was closely watched, especially by the French and German press. The French President was the first European leader to welcome the initiative to create a “new Silk Road”. Yet a comparison of the outcome of his visit to China with that of Chancellor Merkel’s in 2015 is less than satisfying. Only 39 of the 50 envisaged contracts have been signed and half are mere declarations of intent. Thus, the French President did not truly introduce a new approach to dealing with China. With all due respect, he only highlighted the importance of the historically friendly relations between China, France and Europe. Macron’s mistake was to invoke France’s rivalry with the United States. Alluding to the Chinese proverb “When the wind of change blows, some build walls, others build mills”, the French President referred to the con- struction of the wall between Mexico and the United States. From the perspective of a G-2 scenario, China will always measure itself against superpowers like the US and consider France and Europe medium-sized actors instead. In addition, Macron has not addressed the problems resulting from France’s and the EU’s lack of geopolitical impact given the overwhelming power of players such as China and the US. What future thus awaits the EU as a new era of global governance dawns?
As globalization’s pace slows, the need increases to belong to a territory, region or country. The dynamics of transnational flows erase neither borders nor the places delimited by those borders (Zajec, 2016). On the contrary, it is clear that the geopolitical powers of nation-states such as China, the United States and Russia are growing. This growth has been accompanied by resurgence of personality cults (e.g. those surrounding Xi and Putin) and of ideologies guided by national interests. BRI is a good example, since it is the ideological pursuit of the Chinese dream. The strategy behind Trump’s “America first” campaign follows the same logic, being a call to revitalize the American dream.
European identity crisis
The EU, on the other hand, lacks a dream. Following the massive inflow of refugees to the European continent, Europe’s citizens have been legitimately demanding that border controls be restored and strengthened. It is necessary to define the European identity as a result. The EU is also an arena where national and transnational forces (e.g. global companies, interest groups) interact. And precisely these transnational forces, especially international companies, often behave more or less autonomously, regardless of the regulations issued by nation-states. The EU is an inter- mediate actor, at best a forward-looking one. It is not a “United States of Europe”, neither can it boast of being a true global force. After all, European power is clearly limited in economic terms. Being a global player requires a shared vision on the economic, political, military, social and cultural levels.
Globalization in its current form has given rise to a kind of new, highly conflictual bipolar world, one that requires a redefinition of the world order. The resulting rivalry is playing out on several levels:
-Institutional: Democratic system versus authoritarian regime, even dictatorships.
-National versus transnational forces.
-Nation-states versus global companies, business alliances and interest groups (lobbying).
-Within the EU: Nation-states versus European institutions, and Western Europe versus Eastern Europe.
The identity of the heart, a nation of the heart and the strength of differences
The leaders of European institutions should not underestimate the national strengths of the member states and their respective populations. According to this logic, President Macron is wrong to want to pursue the strategy of “even more Europe” without taking into account legitimate feelings of belonging and national identity. Jacques Ancel (1879–1943) contributed the notion of identity to geopolitics. According to Ancel, groups of individuals take shape based on a common memory, history, culture and language, eventually defining themselves within a border: “He defends a nation of the heart in and of itself that is non-rational” (Gauchon and Huissoud, 2008, pp. 7–11). In this sense, the EU can act as an avant-garde player, questioning a power’s sustainability — values versus mercantilism. A new “cosmopolitical” order of this sort must ensure fair trade relations, transparency of transactions, social justice and, above all, a more equitable distribution of natural resources and goods on a global scale. More precisely, it is the human dimension and the application of moral and ethical values that are essential if there is to be an evolution towards a cosmopolitics, a process that must respect borders and, thus, national sovereignty (Banik, 2016).
In our globalized world, neither the EU, China nor the United States is an isolated island paradise. No actor is privy to the absolute truth. The challenges of climate change, growing global competition (for natural resources, food, water, etc.), the rivalry between national and transnational forces and, above all, international terrorism are forcing us to face new realities. The illusions must be relinquished that underlie today’s ideologies (those found in Europe; patriotic Chinese-style capitalism;
“America first”; personality cults; a return to revisionist power structures). We must bridge our differences and move towards a cosmopolitical global governance based on human values — towards an “identity of the heart”. As Europeans, let us begin evolving towards a “Europe of the heart” in keeping with Jacques Ancel’s geopolitical vision (Banik, 2016).
“It is the heart which is worthwhile and which must be considered above all.” (Jacques Ancel)
Notes: This paper was originally published in “China and the World: Ancient and Modern Silk Road, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1–18 DOI: 0.1142/S2591729319500032, reproduced with the permission from the author.
The American politicization of the Beijing Winter Olympics, and the “post-truth era” theory
Since the Egyptian researcher has begun her academic major in “contemporary Chinese political affairs and contemporary communist studies”, I have focused on tracing the map of the spread and expansion of communist parties around the world, and the forces of the new left in Europe, the region and the world, and then my subsequent focus – according to the current situation to confront contemporary events – in tracing the features of American conflict and competition with China, I immediately realized that we, as academics specializing in political science, Chinese studies, and all other studies and various social sciences are in an urgent and urgent need to extract and present new analytical and interpretive theories, and after the spread of the Coronavirus pandemic “Covid-19”, and the consequent American and Western attempts to “Politicize the pandemic and achieving political goals behind it against China”. I immediately realized, after all these successive events, that we had actually moved academically and theoretically to the “post-post or beyond the post stage”, which is meaning that:
“We have gone beyond the stage of democracy to “post-American and Western democracy”, which is authoritarianism”, according to my vision of the nature of the current real events, and even according to my new perception that China is now living in a new stage, which is the “post-communist stage”, and it is the responsible stage that has become requires the Chinese, leaders and comrades of the ruling Communist Party in China to extract new epistemological theories to confront the state of “the emergency liberal authoritarianism and democracy”, led by the United States of America and the West in confronting China, developing, marginalized and poor countries, in favor of the increasing gap between the rich north and the poor countries of the south”.
Perhaps, the gradual US withdrawal from the Middle East to Asia, near the areas of direct Chinese influence, requires us, as academics and specialists in Chinese political affairs, to develop new theories that fit the nature of the stage. Perhaps my agreement with many of my academic colleagues around the world who are experts and researchers in the Chinese issue, about the need to move to China in the coming period to understand all the changes and data taking place there, which will allow me academically to work with the Chinese comrades analytically and research in many important files, related to the nature of the exact world stage, according to what it requires of interpretations and theories different from the previous stage.
I have become more convinced now, that we live in a period of real challenge, even at the academic and research level, that requires planning for the production and analysis of new theoretical and explanatory approaches, or an “analytical revolution to produce a set of contemporary theories”, which I personally called it that (we are currently now living in a phase of interruption). And I am urging all of my other new colleagues in my same area of expertise in Chinese Politics to continue the academic work and their researches to create such new theoretical backgrounds, as the Egyptian researcher identifies that there’s a “theoretical separation gap”, which is completely different from what preceded it from the many other stages, given that we, according to my personal belief and my analytical and interpretive vision as an expert in Chinese political affairs, have reached the “post-post stage or beyond the post stage”, that is, after everything, which requires a new look at the shape of the future. The present is from different angles than before.
According to my “new international academic analyses, and in my humble scholarly and academic capacity as an expert in contemporary Chinese political affairs and studies of the Communist Party of China”, I can provide several “analytical and interpretive approaches”, as an attempt to understanding the file and the reasons for the “American and Western politicization of the file of hosting the Winter Olympics in Beijing and linking it to new international theories of the Egyptian researcher, according to my comprehensive vision and analysis of events”.
So, I will try to present and formulate some “new explanatory theories” to link it to the issue of “the American politicization of the Beijing Winter Olympics ideologically”, and then apply them in practice to analyze the mechanisms and foundations of the new Chinese role in dealing with these events, by proposing some new creative theories and interpretations linking the past and the present to the future, as follows:
The world now lives according to my meticulous follow-up and analysis of events at a stage that has become far removed from what we previously studied in terms of political and international theories in our universities and academic specializations in political science departments in the entire Arab world, which I realized after my graduation and specialization in “the Chinese file, contemporary Chinese and Asian political affairs, the studies and theories of the Communist Party of China”, that the entire Arab world and our entire region have fallen into the American and Western trap in the studies of political science and theories of international relations, and it became clear to me that – and perhaps unintentionally – we were directed to study American and Western theories mainly in the fields of political science and its contemporary international relations, but from a completely one and biased point of view.
Therefore, I was perhaps the only Egyptian and Arab academic that paid the price dearly by asking it to “modify all research methods and theories in political social sciences and introduce all Chinese and Asian political theories alongside those American and Western studies, to achieve a real research and academic balance, and so that our researchers do not live in an academic gap.” and deep knowledge”, especially with the disconnection between them and the Chinese and Asian academic and research theoretical schools specialized in conflict and region studies, which provide different analytical and interpretive approaches to studies of international and regional relations and how to manage them in a balanced and profound manner.
Some may wonder about the reasons for confusing things by presenting an analysis of the “issue of American and Western politicization of the Beijing Winter Olympics and its relationship to the work of a new comprehensive research and analytical review in all branches of social, political and international theoretical sciences, in order to take into account the renewal in international affairs by using the Chinese and Asian explanatory theories side by side of the other international theories ”. Because I’m becoming more believed and fully realised now that:
“We actually are living in the era of “post-truth stage”, specifically the era of post-truth in everything”
Here, we can identify that what is meant by the “post-truth era” is that era in which the dominance is not for those who tell the truth, but for those who know how to spread what they say on a large scale by following different means of communication that affect public opinion, even assuming their inaccuracy. The era in which the virtual reality, or the virtual reality, may be more influential than the actual reality, and is even able to move all the existing events, so that they are (the rule is the lie and not the truth), and from here, everyone knows the extent of the possibility of American and Western use of some events, and then recycling them, putting or even taking or cutting it as an appropriate truth, and that is the truth that the United States of America wants to promote around the world, and this applies in the current confrontation between Washington and Beijing, especially in the (file of politicizing the Winter Olympics in Beijing, in favor of an American anti-Chinese agenda). The spread of the other means of communication in the modern era has become easier than the traditional written press, and even all other media. Therefore, we can easily understand that (the truth has become lost and has been lost between the parties, it is not in lies, nor is it in a fact that is easy to verify).
I think that the form of practical application that I mean specifically now regarding the issue of American politicization of the Beijing Winter Olympics, and the attempt of American politicians to distort the image of China, as the form of the current battle now between the United States and its allies and the People’s Republic of China has become a (battle related to not who owns the truth, but rather who is able to spread what he wants from lies, fabricated and false narratives in a broader and more effective way than others), even if that is not the truth as the United States of America is doing in confronting China and hosting the current Winter Olympics.
By following this pattern of “post-truths”, according to our understanding of that as before, you will find that “the truth itself does not matter”, because we have actually moved to the (post-truth era), which requires a greater degree of awareness from the receiving public. Unfortunately, public opinion and the ordinary public at all its different levels do not have this awareness enough to research and analyze behind all that is published, and this is (what the American media machine is good at exploiting well for the crowd behind it), and behind all those false lies pursued by the American administration and American politicians in Washington to counter the growing Chinese influence globally.
This is what it applied analytically and interpretively to the file of “politicizing the Beijing Winter Olympics” and the relationship of Washington and the West with it, through “the misuse and exploitation of facts, distracting attention and vision from several aspects of shortcomings internally, and inventing a foreign, communist enemy of China to escape from all irrefutable confirmed facts”, which states that “there are internal shortcomings in all the American and Western political systems that attacked China”, which subsequently politicized all issues and events related to the Chinese and its ruling Communist Party.
According, to my analytical and interpretive vision, this is logically in line with what was confirmed by the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service “Sergei Naryshkin”, in public statements to him on January 18, 2022, assuring that:
“Russia has a lot of information about the actions of the United States and its allies to discredit the Winter Olympics in Beijing, and how Washington and its allies engaged in a large-scale provocation, with malicious interference in the preparations for the Winter Olympics in Beijing. The hero of these operations was the “US State Department” itself, which was coordinating all anti-China activities, related to the Winter Olympics through its use of all non-governmental organizations, the media under its control, and the United States of America followed exactly the same methods with Russia when announcing its organising of the Winter Olympics in Sochi in Russia during the year of 2014”
This American boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing in 2022, by the administration of “Joe Biden”, recalls that previous American boycott that occurred in 1980, when Washington withdrew its athletes from the “Moscow Winter Olympics”, in order to (protest immediately after the previous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979). On the other hand, the former Soviet Union mobilized its allies in the face of American policies, as (the former Soviet Union and its allies boycotted the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles), which was hosted by the United States of America in 1984.
The Chinese response to the “American politicization of the Beijing Winter Olympics and its sporting events” came by describing this as a “failed American wish”, as China described the possibility of boycotting the American politicians to the Winter Olympics that it hosts as wishes, given that (no American officials were invited by the Chinese government in the first place to Winter Games in Beijing).
China also rejected all those false American measures and the campaign of American lies and falsehoods in the face of China, and this was confirmed by “Zhao Lijian”, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, during the regular press conference that the Chinese Foreign Ministry invites all foreign media to cover, by implicitly affirming that:
“The Winter Olympics in China is not an arena for American political positions and manipulation against China. If the United States is determined to have its own way, China will also take resolute countermeasures”
Finally, we can explain here the impact of the American boycott on the current Winter Games in China, as I believe that “the American diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics will not affect the sporting events of the Games at all”. Evidence for the correctness of this is what was officially announced by the White House spokeswoman, “Jen Psaki”, who has been emphasizing that:
“All American athletes have the right to participate and compete in the Beijing Winter Olympics, they are free to do so, and the United States of America will support them 100 percent with their encouragement from the homeland, instead of being by their side in Beijing”
Based on those official US statements allowing athletes to participate in the Beijing Winter Olympics, we can conclude that the United States of America follows an “open door policy with China”, knowing that the comprehensive US boycott decision will definitely have a broader impact on relations, which may complicate the efforts of The Biden administration is making progress with Beijing on issues, such as: (trade and economic talks and negotiations, arms control talks, efforts to de-escalate tensions over Taiwan), and others.
The role of China in fighting of fascism and racism
Not only did China’s distortion and damage to its interests in the field of sports and the politicization of world sports, such as China’s hosting of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, stop, but this deliberate distortion of history extended from the United States of America and the West, by deliberately ignoring and ignoring China’s role in World War II with Western countries and allies to get rid of Japanese fascism. This is a (deliberate attempt for stigmatizing China now with the same old Japanese fascist accusations), and perhaps that was what stopped me the most analytically, is that despite the alliance of communist China with the liberal West at the time to eliminate tyranny and get rid of the Japanese occupation of China itself in World War II, but (the memory of American and Western history has been deliberately neglecting and completely dropping China’s role in World War II with Western countries and allies to confront Japanese fascism and authoritarianism). This can be understood through the following points:
The issue of the “deliberate politicization of the Beijing Winter Olympics” has become clear to us another problem, which is the “falsification of facts and the intentional intentional distortion of China’s positive role in World War II with the foreign powers of the West to achieve global stability and security”: Here, the major obstacle to China has become. It is its endeavor to use history to defend its legitimacy, and even the constant annual concern of the leaders and officials of the ruling Communist Party in the annual celebration of China’s victory with the allies in World War II, despite the West’s failure to fully refer to the positive Chinese role with the Allied front in the victory and imposing the conditions for withdrawal and losing that war from Before Japan, thanks to China’s help to the Western allies, and even the United States of America itself and the Western powers deliberately ignored highlighting any strong role of China with them in the face of Japanese fascism and racism during the period of World War II, and here was announced the formation of what is known as: (the declared alliance of Western democracies in the face of China led by the United States of America, and willful disregard for the role of communist China itself in the face of Japanese fascist and racist policies and authorities during the period World War II).
Neglecting of China’s role with frank American ideological racist and ideological claims at the present time, including the “boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China”, drops from the memory of contemporary history of the positive and real role of China in fighting tyranny, fascism and racism, and the decisive Chinese contribution to achieving the allies’ final victory in World War II: The same American and Western accusations against China were “fought by China itself” alongside the allies of World War II, including: the United States of America, Britain itself and the West, and the positive Chinese role played a prominent role in getting rid of Japanese fascism and racism. The fall and death of (35 million Chinese citizens between Chinese civilians and military) to get rid of the Japanese racist and fascist policies at that time.
We find the deliberate American and Western disregard for China’s role in maintaining “Asia-Pacific” security, which was wasted by the United States of America by signing the “New Aukus Defense Agreement”, concluded by Washington in the “Indo-Pacific” region at the end of 2021, with Australia and the UK, to confront China regionally, despite China offering millions of victims of its sons to maintain the security of that region in the face of Japan and for the benefit of the United States of America and the West themselves: China is considered the most prominent who made huge sacrifices during World War II “WW2”, to liberate the Asian region from Japanese occupation, and China also fought a resistance Solid alone in the battlefields of the “Asia-Pacific” region, which the United States calls the “Indo-Pacific” region. Here, we find that the beginning of the actual war that China fought against the Japanese occupation over a period of 14 years, was the real beginning of World War II, and the longest war fought by the Allies and succeeded in it only because of China’s help, in addition to the heroic role witnessed by Chinese soldiers and civilians during the resistance period, and its cause in (delaying the pace of Japanese military expansion, and achieving victory for the Allies in World War II, as China was the real backbone of victory in World War II).
The annual celebration of the Chinese leaders’ memorial of victory with the allies in the Second World War “WW2″ against the Japanese occupation at the time became in March of every year, without American or Western participation in the first place: I followed, as an expert in Chinese political affairs, with a precise analytical and academic significance, the meaning of the content of boycotting of the Chinese annual celebration of its victory in the WW2 by the USA and the Allies in this time, with China’s intentionality (organizing a huge military parade on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, during the month of March 2021), a ceremony in which the military armies of friendly countries were invited, and in which the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, gave a speech in which he deliberately allayed the fears of those who were worried about the mighty power of China, asserting quite literally, that:
“No matter how powerful it is, China will never seek hegemony or expansion. China played an important role in defeating fascism in the twentieth century, and is now playing a role in maintaining the international order in the twenty-first century. China calls on all countries to respect the international order that it is supported by the principles and objectives of the United Nations “UN” Charter, in favor of building a new form of international relations, characterized by the fruitful cooperation of all parties, and promoting the noble cause of world peace and development”
The most prominent points ignored by the United States of America is the fact that a world that embraces democracy and liberal values, according to its description, can embrace authoritarianism as well: Here, most American citizens agree that (reforming American democracy at home is the most urgent task), with growing warning of the American analysts, who are believing that:
“The entire American democracy is in great danger, especially after the new voting restrictions and allegations by the former President of “Trump” of rigging the presidential elections, in favor of his rival, “Joe Biden”
The American call for building a grand American strategy around the world to fight tyranny and authoritarianism is counterproductive, supports China on the ideological front, and pushes other countries to rapprochement with the leaders of the ruling Communist Party of China: as this American call to divide the world on ideological bases, and its quest for spreading those liberal values abroad, in order to achieve political gains from them in the first place to confront China ideologically, so we find here that this American insistence in calling for confronting China’s authoritarianism and communism in the world, may increase the fears of many countries with a possible effort by Washington to change their political systems, and thus the (possibility of the union and alliance of half of the non-democratic countries in the world will be essentially, according to the American classification), and push those non-democratic countries to take more disruptive steps abroad against American interests themselves, because of its interference to change their regimes and threaten their internal interests.
Here, we find that “framing international politics” according to the American and Western vision of its allies as a competition between ideologically different regimes, will certainly have an opposite effect on the structure of international stability itself: therefore, according to my own vision and analysis of the current scene, the American focus on that ideological aspect only in its relations with others and its classification as well of the world will inevitably push those authoritarian regimes, as the United States of America classified them, and on top of them: (China and Russia), according to that ideologically American classification, to (deepen China and Russia cooperation between them and those countries that are also classified as non-democratic countries by the USA itself). The structure of international stability will be seriously compromised, and (there will be a severe potential global structural divisions of an ideological nature will occur), and this is precisely what the United States and the West are pushing towards China.
This “deliberate ideological war against China historically” by distorting its real roles in maintaining the international order and eradicating the current poverty, fascism and Japanese racism, and deliberately overthrowing China’s great role in World War II, is due to the “mainly American policy of double standards towards China”: Which I called academically and analytically, according to my comprehensive view of the scene, as a “selective dealing with contemporary world history in favor of a hostile American agenda, and disrespecting the true history of mankind by dropping China’s role in one of its most important and most prominent historical milestones in World War II”. But, US policy deliberately ignored China’s role, despite the writing of the most prominent American and international historians to highlight the global Chinese role, under the title of “The world owes China”.
Hence, we conclude that the application of those previous criteria to drop China’s role historically, on that current deliberate clash between China and the USA, besides the current American call for the world to boycott the Winter Olympics in Beijing, and its long call to “cancel China’s hosting of the 2022 Winter Olympics”, shows us with conclusive evidence to what extent of “the world’s lack of standards of “global justice during its handling of events that changed the course of contemporary history towards the positive global role of China, and the historical role of its ruling leaders of the Communist Party”.
Here, we will arrive at a final analysis, says that: “Targeting China has always become a deliberate and well-established policy of American and Western politicians to distort its role and deny and ignore its true historical roles in maintaining the interests of the global stability and security”.
“Post-Communism Era”, “Post-Democracy Era”, in the face of “authoritarian liberalism”
According to my understanding and analysis of the current appropriate Chinese confrontation mechanisms in the face of American boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, in fact, the United States of America has announced from the beginning, that it a state of (an organized ideological confrontation between democratic ideologies and alliances against a communist tyrannical ideology represented by China and its followers), so it has become a narrow American justification for the decision to boycott the Winter Olympics in Beijing, which is revolving around (the opposition of democratic countries to the participation of their ideological enemies).
Hence, as an expert specializing in Chinese political affairs and the policies of the contemporary Communist Party of China, I tried to present different interpretations and theories from the previous stage, given that we live in a “post-post” stage or post-beyond era”, and this requires us, as specialists academics and experts in Chinese, political and international affairs, to present some new other creative “explanatory and analytical theories”. There are many types that fit the nature of the current stage, and work to implement them in the form of the current confrontation between the United States of America with China, through:
Contemporary history assures us that decisions similar to the diplomatic boycott of sporting events in the first place take an (ideological form): The similar historical boycotting to the sporting events have been taken by a “same narrow ideological justification”, such as the American claims to its vision of China and communist policies and dividing the world into two regimes of totalitarian authoritarianism and other liberal democratic regimes. Because of the American position refusing to participate, I found several similar events, such as: (the decision not to participate in sports games by some Islamic countries with the presence of Israeli athletes in the sporting competitions, or North Korea’s absence from the 1988 Olympics, which was hosted by its enemy South Korea in the capital, Seoul). But the boycott that took place in the (Winter Olympics in Moscow in 1980), remains the largest in the history of world sports, after US President “Jimmy Carter” decided not to send athletes from his country to the Moscow Games in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Soviets responded after four years of that boycott the “Los Angeles Olympics 1984”, in the United States of America. The greatest impact of each of these two provinces was on the medal table in sports competitions, as each side took advantage of the other’s absence to increase the number of its medals.
It is necessary to present a new theory that goes beyond communism, even if it is linked to it in the first place, called “post-communism”, in view of the current radical international change: my humble research and academic view is represented as an expert in Chinese political affairs, specializing in the studies of the Communist Party, Chinese and its policies internally and externally, in presenting a “modern, communist school that fits the global political reality, and is even capable of imposing itself in the face of the policies of American ideological competition against China”. This is what requires us as academics and specialists in the fields of political science, especially after my deeply observation, as I have surprised that: “there are a serious division academically and at the international level in the field of Chinese and Asian theories compared to the other Western and American studies and theories in the Arab and Middle Eastern social sciences departments in our universities”, given that the nature of the current academic work in the field of political science and comparative political systems, as my specific specialization of study, as well as the trajectories of international relations and the social sciences in general, is in urgent and seriously need to (extract and present other theories).
As for the theory of Chinese confrontation in the “post-communist stage”, we find that the modern use of the term, in its positive aspect, reflects (a global communist aspiration to rebuild and produce other alternatives to the ideological confrontation methods with the United States of America): this is the Chinese-communist confrontation, If it is not tangible at the present time, it must be identified and proposed as a possible possibility for the framework and form of the existing ideological confrontation between Washington and Beijing, such as creating the social conditions and political forces that can move it and impose it on the ground. Only from this angle, we can understand (the reasons for calling for the return of the communist question in France and setting some new other post-communist rules and foundations”, that fit the nature of the current stage), as well as those echoes received by French communist thinkers, such as: (Alain Badiou, Antonio Negre, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Jacques Rancière), along with French Marxist writers who have never denied their belonging to communism, such as: (Lucien Seif, André Tozel, Jacques Bede, Daniel Bensaïd).
The need to develop a “post-communist theory”, presenting modern explanatory foundations on which it is based in view of the nature of the current stage: which is meaning to reconsider the complex and disputed legacies of Chinese communism in its traditional form, which revolves around the “ideological embodiment of Chinese communism” of the founding fathers and its Communist Party. Perhaps with great respect for the values and construction of “Maoist ideas”, it has become urgent to develop into other (ideas and forms of contemporary political discourse that suit everyone at home and abroad), and most importantly are able to respond firmly to all the projects of liberal democracies that the United States of America is trying to lead globally through a network of its alliances to confront China, and this remains a critical exploration of the foundations of the “post-communism”. It is becoming more and more necessary. Here we can apply the Chinese post-communist theory in the title of the work, and not only revolve it around the founding companion of China “Mao Zedong”, but it will proceed from “Maoism” to the stage of acknowledgment that the liberation ideas in Chinese thought were always the result of a collective production and not an individual one like the West.
The proposed ideas and foundations for the post-communist stage, must essentially go beyond the enormous influence exercised by “Mao Zedong” on political thought and discourse in modern China in particular and the comrades of the Communist Party of China: here, it is necessary for the current leaders in the Communist Party of China to remind themselves in creating some other constant (changeable new ideas, aspirations and promises of Chinese communism, that are not limited to a specific individual, time or time, but rather they are going forward with a contemporary communist future vision that goes beyond Maoism itself and is able to build on it). With this proposition, the “Post-Communist Chinese Stage and Theory”, will surely point to new ways of thinking, speaking and practicing politics that involved in the participation of hundreds of millions of Chinese people. As is well known that “Mao Zedong” did not compose or write all the texts signed in his name, rather than the “Maoist ideas” were the form that the Chinese communism has taken for many years in a traditional ideological dominant language in the political discourses to teach the Chinese people and their masses the (foundations of leadership, rally around the leaders of the Communist Party, and face the challenges).
The beginning of the practical application of the “post-communist Chinese theory” will be from the premise of changing the contemporary Chinese political discourses, and understanding that the United States of America is not in a real, tangible and realistic conflict with China: we can implicitly notify that the USA, as much as it is a struggle with itself over its suffering from many serious internal issues, besides other external challenges which they have lost the element of success. We note that the United States of America is trying to blame its failure on many inside and outside files on other external parties, such as: China and Russia. The prominent example here is the sudden American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the subsequent violations of human rights, bombings and deaths after the “Taliban movement” took control of the government, and the other (subsequent international sharp criticism against the Washington’s failure policies), especially from its European allies, who are now bothered by these (American unilateral and individualistic behavior without consulting its NATO allies before taking important decisions internationally), as well as the growth of other American internal problems, such as:
(The crises of marginalization of the poor citizens, racism against its black people with African roots, increasingly of the economic divide and inequality, and the political tensions in both internally and internationally levels)
Perhaps the “post-communist theory of contemporary China” will depend on the Chinese necessity to adopt (two different approaches and styles of contemporary discourses in the face of current American policies), the first one, which should be a discourse towards the American people and its nation themselves, and the second one is to confront the American politicians: what stopped me in this regard is the failure of the US government itself to persuaded several major US companies to participate in the game of “politicizing the Beijing Winter Olympics file” to participate with their country in the “diplomatic boycott” of the Beijing’s Olympics. But, (many of the largest American companies have refused to bow to the demands of their American government to “politicize the Olympics”). Despite the efforts of the US administration to organise many prominent activities to persuade its large companies and all of the other interests not to participate and boycott the Beijing Winter Olympics, with the assistance of some numerous other human rights activists, who are so close to the American administration itself to interfere in this regard. So, the Egyptian researcher is suggesting here, that “China in the post-communist era” should adopt a different discourse around which the American people themselves, who are rejecting the policy of their government.
What is worth mentioning and analyzing here, is the refusal of most of these American and Western companies to cancel their sponsorship of the Olympics, and even implicitly announce their broadcast of the Beijing Winter Olympics through their own network of channels: most of prominent American and Western large multi national companies have refused to participate with their governments and politicians in what they called “the risk of insulting China”, and even openly challenged their politicians, in favor of China, by (declaring publicly to uphold all trade agreements with China). There are hundreds of American sponsors and major advertising companies also announced their participation in covering the Olympics in advertising and commercial, and many of the (American sponsorship large companies, prominent prestigious agencies and TV Channels have been undertaken to sponsor the international sports events at Winter Olympics in Beijing), considered the People’s Republic of China as one of their (largest global markets) for them at all, and their collective unwillingness to harm their interests, in favor of some controversial political issues that they don’t give them any kind of consideration at all.
The announcement by the major American private channels about broadcasting matches, games and all the events of the Beijing Winter Olympics publicly came in flagrant defiance of the orders of its American government and administration to politicize decisions against China: we can find out that “NBC TV network”, which had certainly benefited from a similar previous experience by canceling the broadcast of the “Moscow Olympics in 1980”, based on orders from the US government to boycott the Russian Winter Olympics at this time, but at that time it has incurred heavy losses for its participation to the game of politicizing the Olympics and sporting events in favor of limited political issues between its government and others. Indeed, many US channels networks announced the transfer of the Beijing Winter Olympics, declaring that:
“Sales of publicity advertisements for the Winter Olympics in Beijing were strong, and continued to extend to the last moment, given the importance of the global sports events hosted by China”
The challenge of the US administration to participate in the Beijing Winter Olympics from its home did not stop at the level of American athletes, companies and sponsorships, but extended to many other European and Western allies countries of Washington itself: we can analyse by observation the case of “real, tangible and public Western challenge to the American diplomatic boycott” of the Beijing Winter Olympics has emerged, which is what was announced by the Minister of Science and Culture of the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture during an interview with the Finnish National Broadcasting Corporation on January 17, 2022, in his public statement about his travel to Beijing to attend the Winter Olympics in February 2022, with the official confirmation of Finland, despite being a Scandinavian democratic important country, that:
“Washington will never share its desire to boycott sporting events and politicize sports for narrow limlited political agendas”
It has become more clear now that we have entered the “post-democratic era”, a stage in which populist currents and illiberal trends have become prevalent, as is the case in Europe and the West: here, we find the American insistence on dividing the world, after holding a conference on “Leaders Summit for Democracy” on December 9, 2021, with the aim of creating a clear (global division between countries that adopt democratic values and the authoritarian, totalitarian, non-democratic ones), which caused an international rift that resulted in more divisions and confrontations, which may lead to the question, concerning:
“Is that American democracy only one pattern and measured by American standards only? And whether the practices of the United States in the Middle East, such as: military occupation, stirring up unrest, and others, are considered democratic practices that are accepted by the United States and internationally?”
Here, I fully agree with the words of the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, in his deep understanding and analysis of the concept of democracy, by his assertion that:
“The best shoes are the ones that fit the feet, and the best way of government is the one that serves the welfare of peoples and societies. Democracy is not a private patent for any country, but rather the common values that all countries of the world have developed, based on their historical traditions and political realities should be highly respected”
Comrade “Xi Jinping’s view” here, is that the people have the right to judge whether the development path in their country is appropriate or not? For example, China insists on dealing with all countries and regimes, and even supports African and poor developing countries, from West Asian and North African countries and encourages all of them to (follow the development methods that suit their national conditions, and China is committed to respecting the sovereignty of countries by calling for consultations on an equal footing, strengthening solidarity and cooperation between everyone). Also, according to my accurate reading of the reality, we have also gone beyond the stage of globalization by other stages. We are no longer in the “post-globalization era”, but we are in the “age of adaptation to the results of globalization”, which is represented in the need for rehabilitation and continuous education to keep pace with modern technology and artificial intelligence, and this stage requires a radical change in “the language and vocabulary of the Chinese post-communist political discourse”, according to what I have been indicated and aforementioned analyzed.
After my new analysis of the new theories of “post-communism era” and “post-democratic era”, I may arrive here with a fundamental assertion, that the United States does not have the right to judge whether it is a democracy or not. This was confirmed by the great Chinese thinker “Confucius”, who has always been stressing that:
“If a person cannot correct his own behavior, how can he correct the behavior of others?”
Here, although the United States of America claims that it is a “beacon of democracy”, it has committed all kinds of violations against the most basic principles of human rights and democracies, by intervening to change regimes by force in the Middle East, such as the Iraqi and Afghan cases. Then its chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the consequent tangible regional and international chaos, in addition to the most important thing, which is “the American failure itself to impose its democratic and liberal values by force around the world,” and its dealings with many authoritarian regimes and even protecting them to achieve its interests.
Hence, we actually have to search theoretically and academically for other (analytical and explanatory approaches), in order to enter into new theoretical directions in the world of “post-postmarks”, which necessitates a reconsideration of American democracy itself, and the reproduction of the world of new ideas in the era of “post-democracy, post-communism, and authoritarian democracy”, according to the nature of the current confrontation mechanisms between the United States of America and China in the international arena, and the new discourses should be adopted and fitted with the existing events.
Scientists turn underwater gardeners to save precious marine plant
Whoever said there’s nothing more boring than watching grass grow, wasn’t thinking about seagrass. Often confused with seaweeds and rarely...
Ukraine’s issue may endanger peace in the whole of Europe
Big challenges ahead, the world may face uncertainty, and unrest, as NATO allies have put forces on standby and sent...
Repurposing Current Policies Could Deliver Multiple Benefits for Farmers
A new World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report finds that repurposing current agricultural public policies could...
Centralized vs Decentralized Stablecoins: How they’re different
Stablecoins are an essential part of the crypto world. It protects the traders and investors from market swings. Stablecoins have...
Internet: A luxury or necessity
The internet is the world’s largest computer network, linking millions of computers. It has become an integral part of our...
Learning Loss Must be Recovered to Avoid Long-term Damage to Children’s Wellbeing
School closures have caused large and persistent damage to children’s learning and wellbeing, the cost of which will be felt...
Economic Activity in Myanmar to Remain at Low Levels, with the Overall Outlook Bleak
Myanmar’s economy and people continue to be severely tested by the ongoing impacts of the military coup and the surge...
New Social Compact4 days ago
Delivering on Our Promise for Universal Education
International Law3 days ago
Psychology of Political Power : Does Power Corrupt or is Magnetic to the Most Corruptible?
Middle East4 days ago
“Kurdish Spring”: drawing to a close?
East Asia4 days ago
China and Indo-Pacific democracies in the face of American boycott of Beijing Winter Olympics
East Asia3 days ago
Shi Maxian’s trap vs Thucydides’ trap
Central Asia4 days ago
Great powers rivalry in Central Asia: New strategy, old game
New Social Compact4 days ago
E-resilience readiness for an inclusive digital society by 2030
Tech News4 days ago
Maintenance Tips for Second-Hand Cars