On September 13, 1971 Lin Biao tried to flee to the USSR with all his family, aboard a Trident plane of civil aviation, which had left with little fuel and no active radio contact.
The crash of the aircraft in Mongolia, where both Lin and his whole family died, was caused by the order given directly by Mao to shoot down the plane.
What had happened, obviously in political and not in personal terms?
The answer is simple: Lin Biao was very strongly opposed to the new agreement between China and the United States and hence had organized a military coup. For Lin Biao all the room for US geopolitics was to be found in what the Third International’s forces traditionally defined as “imperialism”.
For Mao Zedong, imperialism was vital for both the USSR and the USA- and considering that he was far from the continent that was the prize for which of the two won the Cold War, namely Europe-he refused to make too many differences between the two.
As a man of Tao and Zen, Mao treated an evil with another evil.
Mao Zedong, however, also knew that a new economic relationship with the United States was needed, after the long economic crisis and the factional instability within the Chinese regime. The Soviet Union could certainly not give it economic stability and hence the “Great Helmsman” turned to the distant enemy rather than to the near quasi-friend.
Nothing can be understood about China, including current China, if geopolitical choices are separated from economic, financial and industrial ones which, however, are subjected to the strategic “policy line” defined by the Party – a policy line that is cultural and always based on a very long term.
On September 29, 1972 the diplomatic relationship with Japan were resumed, along with those with the United States. An evident overlapping of different geopolitical lines which, however – in the minds of the Chinese decision-makers -were similar also from the symbolic viewpoint.
In 1973 Deng Xiaoping reappeared in public, upon direct order by Mao Zedong.
Those were also the years of the late definitive success of the “policy line” of Zhou Enlai, who had successfully gone through the Great Cultural and Proletarian Revolution, which had partly overwhelmed him, and led the 10thCPC Congress.
That was the compromise which held the Party together, after Lin Biao’s elimination. An unstable agreement between the reformist “Right” (Zhou had spoken of “four modernizations” many years before, exactly in 1965) and the Left, silenced by Mao, that had crossed the red line of the Cultural Revolution and the failed communization of rural areas.
In those years, also the Party’s Left lacked mass management of the people and the Party and had to agree with the other factions, while Mao mediated and also created “third wheels”.
Create something from nothing – one of the Thirty-Six Stratagems of the Chinese Art of War.
In 1973, just before the equilibrium between Zhou and the old CPC apparata broke again, Deng Xiaoping was fully rehabilitated and also became member of the Chinese regime’s deep axis, namely the Central Military Commission.
In 1975 Deng was elected vice-President of the Central Committee and member of the Politburo Standing Committee.
The connection between the reformists – if we can call them so – siding with Zhou Enlai, and the “centre” of the Party’s apparatus – that regained its roles and posts by ousting the Armed Forces -prevailed once again.
Again in 1975, the National People’s Congress praised the “Four Modernizations” already proposed by Zhou and, in its final statement, hoped “that China would be turned into a modern and powerful Socialist country in the approximately twenty years before the end of the century”.
Political transformation through the new economy, as well as preservation of the regime through political transformation itself.
We could call it “the Tao of geoeconomics”. Acceleration of industrialization and modernization, but without creating the disaster of rural masses, who were objectively unable of providing the start-up capital for implementing any of the Four Modernizations. This was the real difference with the USSR of the 1930s.
That capital had to be produced in innovative companies and be attracted from outside.
At the time, however, the CPC was not yet firmly in the hands of any factions. In September 1975, the national Agriculture Conference saw the harsh clash between Deng Xiaoping and the old “Shanghai group” of the Cultural and Proletarian Revolution that, however, no longer controlled most of the Party.
Zhou Enlai died in January 1976 and shortly afterwards, in Tiananmen Square, there were severe incidents, albeit with the constant presence of many wreaths reminding of Zhou.
Later there were also strikes and unrest, until the capture and trial of the “Gang of Four” in Shanghai. It had inspired the “Cultural Revolution” and was then directly accused by Hua Guofen – the man appointed by Mao to lead the transition- of having prepared a coup.
China’s transformation, however, began again from rural areas: at the second Agriculture Conference in Dazhai, in December 1976 – where various cases of corruption and “social polarization” were described and stigmatized- the discussion focused on the First Modernization, namely that of rural areas.
When you regulate too much, a parallel and illegal market is created. This always happens.
Obviously this also happens when total communization is applied to the economic cycle of rural areas.
Certainly those were residues of Sovietism in the CPC’s doctrine, but also of the a-dialectical implementation of Marxism-Leninism in historical and social contexts in which the analysis of the founder of “scientific Communism” had never focused.
In fact, when you read the works and correspondence that Marx dedicated to the Russian agricultural issue, you note that the author of “Capital” foresaw a direct Socialist social transformation stemming from the maintenance of the social and community networks in traditional villages. It may seem strange, but it is so.
This system operates only with a non-industrialized State that is scarcely widespread in the territory. Otherwise, the problem is that of capitalism in rural areas to generate the surplus of urban and industrial investments.
Even in the Second Volume of “Capital”, Marx’s model is essentially this one.
It is precisely on the agricultural issue that the stability and success of many Communist regimes isdefined and, not surprisingly, the first of Zhou’s and later Deng’s Four Modernizations was precisely that of agriculture.
The topic characterized all Party’s organizations, but it was in late December 1978 that the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee decided to decentralize the economy – another factor strongly different from the Leninist tradition – and even to liberalize it, in addition to a process of ideological revision, namely Gaige Kaifang that roughly means “reform and opening”.
That was also related to the request for opening international trade based on the criterion of “mutual benefit” and equality between the various countries.
Hence, also from the ideological viewpoint, Deng became the Supreme Leader of the Party – as well as of the State apparatus – and announced the Open Door policy.
An extremely important fact was also the separation of the Bank of China from the People’s Bank of China, so as to serve as single State body for foreign exchanges.
That was the start of the “Long March” towards the Four Modernizations, with an unusually united Party, and currently towards “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” , as well as – at geopolitical level -President Xi Jinping’s New Silk Road.
In January 1980, the “four freedoms” – of work, people, goods and capital – were abolished.
The new planning needed to manage all aspects of productive forces.
That was explained by a covert war of the Chinese economy against the penetration of foreign capital and joint ventures, which in fact were immediately regulated by specific legislation enacted the previous year.
The great British operation of economic control over the South-Chinese coasts was resumed from Hong Kong, but the Chinese government eliminated the possibility of such an action by Great Britain (and by the USA, at least partly).
Hence the Party’s unity had to be reflected in a new context and, to some extents, in the whole society, so as to prevent the liberalized Chinese economy from taking the Party and Socialism away. A new rationale for the CPC’s Leninist unity.
The new Act on contract law was enacted in March 1981, and in 1982 also the new civil procedure law was enacted, which became effective on October 1, 1982.
In September 1983, at the 12th CPC Congress, there were three groups within the Party: the nostalgic Maoists, a small and narrow majority for Deng Xiaoping; the Orthodox group that still wanted a nationally planned economy, as in USSR -hence probably the heirs to Lin Biao; finally the real reformists.
Deng won with a clear, but not overwhelming majority.
Hence, everyone was waiting for the Four Modernizations to fail, so as to go back to the old routine of the Plan.
As also happened in the USSR, it was often fully imaginary compared to the actual reality of the things done and produced.
It was in 1983, however, that the Third Front strategy was implemented, i.e. Mao’s directive – drawn up as early as 1962 – according to which the national strategic industries had to be moved from the coasts – militarily and politically difficult to defend – to the internal areas. Without said Mao’s directive, the New Silk Road could not be understood even currently.
Hence 14 open coastal cities that were declared so in 1984, but with a new law on profits that served as mainstay of Modernizations: companies were asked to pay a certain share of profits to the government, but they could withhold some profits if they matched and exceeded the requirements of the contract with the State.
In 1985 a new regulation also involved government bonds. The seventh Five-Year Plan began, underlining a “scale” approach, in which the coastal areas – gradually freed from traditional strategic companies – were driving the economic development, which later spread like wildfire even in the internal areas.
It was the Hong Kong model that Deng Xiaoping’s executives copied and adapted.
For a short lapse of time, Chinese analysts and Party planners also looked to the Singapore model, with the (single) Party of Lee Kuan Yew.
It isby no mere coincidence that Shenzen was close to the former British colony, and often the Chinese attracted and favoured the companies of the British area towards the new Chinese coastal areas also characterized by free-market economy.
Advanced and high-tech services in coastal areas, and lower value-added, but still inevitable, productions in internal regions.
A new dualism, where rural overpopulation had to be gradually absorbed by inland strategic companies.
A double geopolitical status of inland areas which, in many cases, is repeated also in the current Belt and Road Initiative.
In 1986, the “open-ended” contracts for the manpower working in State-owned companies came to an end.
In October 1987,the 13th CPC Congress was held, in which – for the first time – there was talk about the “commodity economy”, i.e. a two-tier mechanism, in which the market is matched and also “corrected” by the old national planning.
A sort of re-edition, for internal use, of the formula “one country, two systems” implemented by China with the agreements for Macao and Hong Kong.
In 1988, however, the 7thNational People’s Congress officially legitimized the private initiative (not the mere ownership) and enabled private individuals to buy State-owned companies.
The term “People’s ownership” was also deleted, while individuals and groups, even non-Chinese ones, could buy land with a system similar to that of the British real estate leasing.
Profits, wherever made, had to be reinvested in the company that originated them, before requesting any financing from the People’s Bank.
The Special Economic Zones, modelled again on the Hong Kong system, became five.
Hence innovation on the coasts and strategic companies in the central regions – mainly public ones, which still remained almost completely public.
In April 1989, Jiang Zemin rose to power.
Student demonstrations also began in Tiananmen Square, where, year after year, the various anti-regime organizations gathered: Falun Gong, the networks of many illegal parties, unrecognized union organizations and many “spontaneous” groups.
And some old “Red Guards”.
Zhao Ziyang, the Party leader already defenestrated by Jiang Zemin, was in fact at the centre of “spontaneous” organizations.
The various Autonomous Federations of Workers -spread by location and not by industry – were legally created.
Gorbachev’s visit took place in May 1989.
That was the key moment of a long series of doctrinal, practical, cultural and historical differences that – from the very beginning – divided the two great Eastern heirs to the Marxist-Leninist Third International.
What really mattered to the Chinese leadership was that the Russian crisis did not overwhelm the Chinese Communists: that was the meaning of the declaration signed by Gorbachev, which regarded the “peaceful coexistence” of the two Communist regimes.
The leader of the Soviet Party was made fun of – not even so elegantly – not because he had reformed the Soviet economic system – in a way, however, that the Chinese deemed wrong – but for one reason only: he had relinquished the Party’s role in the reformist process, which the CPSU had to lead and guide for China, from the very beginning.
An “economicist” mistake, as the CPC’s ideologues said – yet another proof of the Marxist roughness of the “Northern enemy”, as Deng Xiaoping called Russia.
Sarcastic sniggers on the lips of Chinese leaders. Then Gorbachev explained again his perestrojka and glas’nost, but the Chinese leaders, whose power was based on Party’s bayonets, kept on not taking him seriously.
Days before the arrival of the Soviet leader, at least one million people had gathered in Tiananmen Square.
The problems that the Chinese leadership had to solve in a short lapse of time were radical: the “hard” wing that was previously a minority prevailed and managed to convince Jiang Zemin.
The Party and its authority – the basis of any transformation, even the most radical one – were re-established without much talk. It was impossible to think about a heir to the “Long March” that dissolved the Party within “society”.
On May 19, the CPC decided to follow the hard line and the military forces reached the areas near the Square, from the outskirts of Beijing.
Few hours later, the Square was completely cleared, but that was done the hard way.
Shortly afterwards, at the 4th CPC Plenum, Jiang Zemin – also following the experience of Tiananmen Square – returned to one of his old theories and developed the “Three Represents” model, i.e. the idea that the CPC’s power was based on its “vast representation” of the Chinese productive forces, of the cultural and technological avant-gardes and of the wide strata of population.
In other words, the Chinese society – and its economy, in particular – was reformed by bringing the elites together, part of whom were in Tiananmen Square, but also the large crowds still organized by the Party.
A Confucian middle way that was particularly successful.
Hence, Zhao Ziyang definitively lost the game within the Party that, however, was also inside the Tiananmen Square insurgency.
Once the crisis was over, Deng Xiaoping left also the last very strong power in Jiang’s hands: the leadership of the Central Military Commission.
Shortly afterwards – and there was nothing more symbolic than that event – the Stock Exchange of Shanghai reopened. A reopening that had been expected since the 1930s.
Later also the Shenzhen Securities Exchange opened. In both of them, any securities – including those issued by the State – were traded, but there was only one deep logic: to acquire productive capital to generate strong and self-sustained development of the coasts and of the high value-added industries that had to compete on the world free market, without granting protection and aid that would go to the detriment of the deep productive structures of the internal regions.
In 1992, Deng’s journey to Southern borders had a clear route, although the CPC’s leadership had always had some doubts about the “free economic zones”. The core of the issue was that the GDP had to be increased in the lapse of time between the 1990s and the beginning of the Third Millennium.
It had to be rapidly increased from 6% to 10%.
Without that “quantitative” assessment – just to use the old Communist jargon – there could be no “qualitative” transformation of Chinese society.
Everything had to be done soon – well, but soon. That was the characteristic of Deng Xiaoping’s years – extraordinary years, in some respects.
In a short lapse of time, the Party developed the concepts of “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” and of “market Socialism”, which are so important also in President Xi Jinping’s current policy line.
There were also other changes that, in a few years, led to the current Socialism with Chinese characteristics, as advocated by President Xi Jinping. However, everything could be done from a legal view point began in those years.
The transformation process of the Chinese economy is long, powerful and complex, but – unlike what is often said in the West – it is never a mere market mechanism or a naive adaptation of the Party or the State to the absolute Western rules of globalization.
As early as the 1990s, China has decided to govern market globalization and not just being a part of it. It wants to lead the process so as to be – now that the end of the century about which Deng thought has long been over – the axis of globalization and the centre of the new global hegemonies.
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.
Ukraine crisis could produce an unexpected winner: Iran
Iran potentially could emerge as an unintended winner in the escalating crisis over Ukraine. That is, if Russian troops cross...
How Twitter can help your business
Twitter is easily one of the leading online platforms which encourages networking on a global scale. The number of users,...
2022: Rise of Economic Power of Small Medium Businesses across the World
Why mirrors of the Wall: To fight obesity a life-sized mirror required, to uplift the national economy a simple calculator is...
Lebanon’s Crisis: Great Denial in the Deliberate Depression
The scale and scope of Lebanon’s deliberate depression are leading to the disintegration of key pillars of Lebanon’s post-civil war...
Preventing Nuclear War in the Middle East: Science, System and “Vision”
“A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step.”-Karl R....
Unified Libya will come only via ballot box, ‘not the gun’-UNSC
Libya is at a “delicate and fragile juncture in its path to unity and stability”, the UN Political Affairs chief told the Security Council...
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...
Economy4 days ago
Can e-commerce help save the planet?
Defense3 days ago
What is driving Russia’s security concerns?
South Asia4 days ago
India’s Unclear Neighbourhood Policy: How to Overcome ?
Middle East3 days ago
UAE schoolbooks earn high marks for cultural tolerance, even if that means praising China
Africa Today4 days ago
1.5 million children lack treatment for severe wasting in Eastern and Southern Africa
Human Rights4 days ago
UNRWA condemns demolition of Palestinian home in East Jerusalem
Africa Today3 days ago
South Africa’s Covid-19 Response Gets a $750 Million Boost
Finance3 days ago
Global Policy-makers Face Complex Set of Divergent Economic Challenges in Coming Year