Civilisationalism: Ignoring early warning signs at one’s peril
A controversy about a University of British Columbia invitation to a Chinese advocate of forced re-education and assimilation of ethnic minorities highlights the risks involved in ignoring early stage civilisationalism, the emerging system of principles of governance underwriting a new world order that defines states in civilizational rather than national terms and legitimizes violations of human rights.
While the invitation sparked opposition that raised freedom of speech issues, it also spotlighted the consequences of US, European and Muslim failure to recognize initial indications that China was moving away from its long-standing policy of promoting inter-communal harmony by preserving minority cultures and ensuring that they benefitted from economic growth.
The erosion of China’s long-standing policy has consequences far beyond the boundaries of Tibet and China’s troubled north-western province of Xinjiang that is home to its Turkic Muslim population. It legitimizes repression of minority rights across the globe raising the spectre of inter-communal strife in societies that have long sought to foster variations of multi-culturalism and social harmony.
Calls for a rethink of China’s ethnic policy emerged in 2012 after two men set themselves on fire outside Tibetan Buddhism’s holiest temple in the center of Lhasa, the Tibetan capital. The International Campaign for Tibet, an advocacy group, last year published the names of 155 Tibetans who have self-immolated since 2009.
Back in 2012, military officials, businessmen, intellectuals, netizens, and dissidents asserted that the self-immolations attested to a failure of policy in what was a public debate of a long secretive and sensitive topic.
The debate was fuelled by concerns that China’s official recognition of 56 different nationalities resident within its borders risked it becoming another example of the post-Communist break-up of states such as the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
It was also informed by a series of incidents in Xinjiang and other parts of China, including inter-communal violence in 2004 between Han Chinese and Hui Muslims, widely viewed as China’s most integrated Muslim community, that left some 150 people dead.
It was in that environment that Hu Angang, an economist and founding director of Tsinghua University’s Center for China Studies, one of China’s most influential think tanks, urged the government to adopt an imposed melting pot approach that would create a “collective civic culture and identity.” It was an invitation extended to Mr. Angang that sparked controversy at the University of British Colombia.
Mr. Hu’s policy recommendations, articulated in a widely published article co-authored in 2011 by fellow researcher Hu Lianhe, a pioneer of terrorism studies in China who has since become a senior official of the Chinese communist party’s United Front Work department in Xinjiang, appear to have provided a template or at least a framework for China’s brutal crackdown on Turkic Muslims.
Xinjiang serves as a prime example of the risks of failing to respond to civilisationalism’s early warning signs.
Up to one million people are believed to have been detained in re-education camps dubbed “’vocational education’ and employment training centres” by the government where inmates are taught Mandarin, allegedly forced to violate Muslim dietary and religious practices, and browbeaten with the notion that Xi Jinping thought, the precepts of China’s president, supersede Islamic teaching.
Messrs. Hu warned that regional ethnic elites and interests enabled by China’s acceptance of what amounted to minority rights could lead to separatism on the country’s strategic frontiers. They suggested that the central committee of the Communist party had recognized this by pushing in 2010 for “ethnic contact, exchange and blending.”
To achieve that, the two men advocated removing ethnicity from all official documents; demographic policies that would water down geographic concentration of ethnic minorities and ensure a ‘proper’ population mix; emphasis on the use of Mandarin as the national language; promotion of China as the prime identity of minorities; and taking steps to counter religious extremism.
James Leibold, a China scholar, who raised alarm bells early on and focused attention on Messrs. Hu’s analysis and the Chinese debate, lamented at the time that “few in the West…seem to be listening.”
Mr. Leibold echoed his warning six years later when Mr. Lianhe last August stepped for the first time onto the international stage to defend the Chinese crackdown at a meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
“The emergence of Hu Lianhe portends a significant shift in both the institutional and policy direction emanating out of Beijing, and suggests that what is happening in Xinjiang is the leading edge of a new, more coercive ethnic policy under Xi Jinping’s ‘New Era’ of Chinese power, one that seeks to accelerate the political and cultural transformation of non-Han ethnic minorities,” Mr. Leibold said.
Describing Mr. Lianhe as an influential party official and intellectual, Mr. Leibold suggested China was acting in Xinjiang and Tibet on the official’s assertion in 2010 that “stability is about liberating man, standardizing man, developing man and establishing the desired working social order.” Mr. Lianhe advocated adopting his approach across the country.
In Xinjiang, standardization translates into government announcements that local officials are visiting Uyghur homes during this year’s fasting month of Ramadan to ensure that they are not observing the religious commandment.
“We must take effective action to end the gossiping about high level Party organs; finding fault, feigning compliance, and praising in public while singing a different tune in private or when alcohol is on the table”, Mr. Leibold quoted a confidential memo written by local officials in Xinjiang as saying.
In hard-line remarks to this weekend’s Shangri-La Asian Security Dialogue in Singapore, Chinese defense minister Wei Fenghe, wearing a military uniform with a chest full of ribbons, asserted that “the policy in Xinjiang is absolutely right because over the past two years there is no single terrorist attack in Xinjiang.
The living standards of the local people have improved. The number of tourists to Xinjiang is over 150 million people…. The average GDP of people in Xinjiang is 7,500 US dollars… Xinjiang has carried out vocational education and training centres to ensure that there are no terrorist attacks, to help these people deradicalize and help these people have some skills. Then they can better reintegrate into society. Isn’t that a good thing?” General Wei asked.
It is good thing on the assumption that economic progress can ultimately and sustainably trump cultural and/or ethnic aspirations and that it justifies a policy that critics have dubbed cultural genocide by in the words of Mr. Leibold abolishing “non-Han cultural, linguistic and religious practices” and eroding social trust.
The policy’s success depends on the sustainable Uyghur internalization through re-education and repression of religious and cultural practices as a survival strategy or out of fear.
General Wei’s defense of the policy notwithstanding, renowned China scholar Yitzhak Shichor concluded in a recent study that the defense minister’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has so far refrained from involvement in maintaining internal security in Xinjiang, making it the responsibility of para-military forces.
“That could change if the civilian police force and PAP fail in their mission,” Mr. Shichor quoted former US army and military intelligence China expert Dennis J. Blasko as saying. Mr. Blasko was referring to the People’s Armed Police by its acronym PAP.
General Wei and Mr. Hu’s Xinjiang’s statements are but the most extreme example of civilizationalist politics that have globally given rise to Islamophobia; Hindu nationalism; rising anti-Semitism; jihadist massacres of minorities including Christians and Yazidis, lax attitudes towards white supremacism and efforts by some leaders to recreate ethnically and/or religiously homogeneous societies.
Civilisationalists’ deemphasizing of human, women’s and minority rights means reduced likelihood that incidents of radicalization and ethnic and religious conflict can be pre-empted. The risk of conflict and societal strife are enhanced by increased obsession with migration that erases escaping to safer harbours as an option.
Defining moments for geopolitics
A video of Xi’s departure on Wednesday was filmed with translators speaking for both men.
“Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together,” Xi told Putin as he stood at the door of the Kremlin to bid him farewell. The Russian president responded: “I agree.” Xi then put out his hand to shake Putin’s and said: “Take care please, dear friend.” Putin responded by holding Xi’s hand with both of his and saying, “Have a safe trip.”
It is absolutely true that geopolitics are changing so rapidly that were never seen in known history. China and Russia being permanent members of the Security Council are committed to driving such changes means a greater role in global affairs.
Looking at the miraculous devilments in China during the last four decades has proven Chinese capabilities and potential to transform the world order. With a “no limited” partnership with Russia, the potential is even much more enhanced.
The latest peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia brokered by China was a mega achievement of this century as both are very important economies, with an abundance of natural resources, especially Energy, which have a huge contribution to global trade and the economy. This move will have a far-reaching impact on regional and global affairs.
The Restoration of full diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Syria is also a positive development in the region and will strengthen the peace and security of the whole region.
Negotiations are on the way between Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Russia, and China, leading toward better understanding, improved relations, and alliances. Afghan issue is also trending toward stability and peace. Next, Syria’s President visited the UAE — an equally astounding rapprochement. The third one is about the former Taiwanese President who is currently on a 12-day trip across mainland China — an unprecedented event since the Chinese civil war ended in 1949. All these are terrible for America’s power, which rests upon chaos, wars, and divide-and-rule.
Sharp decrease of US dollars in global reserves from 72 percent in 1999 to 59 percent now. The Currency swap agreements among several nations and China, with the latest addition of Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Russia, France, and Pakistan, etc., are nor the phenomenon of very common, but will have a deep impact on the Dollar’s domination of global currencies. Even Russia may use the Chinese Yuan as the reserve currency.
There is a global revolt against the American Empire. Its hegemony and supremacy have been challenged already. The world has been transformed from Unipolar to Multipolar already. “Mexico is not a colony of the USA” — thundered Mexican President Amlo a couple of days ago on the 85th anniversary of Mexico’s nationalization of oil. This progressive leader nationalized Lithium a month ago, to the great displeasure of his northern Big Brother.
Similarly, El Salvador’s Young and dynamic President Bukele warned the US that Monroe Doctrine is dead. Bukele has cracked down on violent gangs and drug trafficking, which may have disrupted the CIA’s revenue. Another Latin American country, Honduras, just dumped Taiwan and recognized PRC in mainland China. Heck, even some German leaders are talking about fixing the Nord Stream pipeline and renewing trade with Russia.
Expansion of SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and BRICS, involving more countries will definitely have positive impact of globalization and geopolitics. It is very much visible, the expansion will take place in the very near future.
Ukraine may be proved a turning point for global order reforms. It will have a deep impact and consequences. Being optimistic, we should believe that things will improve. We must struggle to make our tomorrow better than yesterday.
Many nations are re-aligning their positions. Friends and foes are emerging in different alliances. Media has exposed many nations and educated the masses about true facts and ground realities. Misconceptions and propaganda have been exposed and people are open to accepting the realities.
Hegemonies and supremacy of a few nations are no longer in existence. No single country can dominate or dictate the world order.
Peace, China wins. War, China wins
What does Xi’s visit to Russia mean for the world? There has been much discussion in the Western media about this issue, but what does Xi’s visit to Russia mean for Ukraine and Taiwan? There is less discussion of correctly interpreting its intent, so this article attempts to discuss the intentions of China’s “Peace Strategy” ,what the visit means for the Ukrainian battlefield and, possibly, the next one—Taiwan.
Although the United States is eager to characterize this visit as China’s “choosing sides” in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and favoring Russia, and highly doubts China’s role as a mediator in this conflict, is it only the Global South countries that want to end this war? Does Europe really want to prolong the conflict? If China is excluded, which other country is suitable as a mediator? How long can the US support Ukraine? How should the war end? Will there be another war in Taiwan after the war is over?
Xi said “complex problems have no simple solutions”, but all of the above issues require concise analysis. Taiwan, as a potential hotspot for the next war, may provide a different perspective.
China’s “Peace Strategy”
First of all, the most important message Xi wants to convey in his visit to Russia is that “war is unsustainable”. In Western public opinion, many hawks still insist that Ukraine’s victory can be expected, while China chooses to stand on the side of peace. From a strategic perspective, Beijing intends to offset the hawkish narrative in the West, especially the Neocons in the United States .
There must be a major power in the world standing up to call for peace and offset the warlike narrative. Therefore, Xi’s diplomatic visit can be seen as a crucial step in China’s “peaceful strategy.”
Summarize the strategy with the logic of dualism, simply put, if peace is achieved, China wins, and if the war continues, China still wins, because ccording to the analysis of many Western observers, China is the big winner in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Beijing not only eliminated the threat from the north and gained cheap energy and a market of 1.4 billion people but also gained a steadfast friend in dismantling the the world of unipolar hegemony.
If peace is reached, China’s international status will rise rapidly. If the war continues, this conflict is the best quagmire to exhaust the West, because according to a report by the US think tank CSIS (Note 1), the US has exhausted its weapons to support Ukraine Inventories, especially those “asymmetric warfare” military items. As a result, the delivery of many weapons promised to Taiwan by the United States has been delayed, the US house of Representatives members claiming to hold hearings in Taiwan to investigate the reasons.
Europe’s military production capacity is not as strong as that of the United States. Prolonging the conflict means an unbearable continuous consumption, and damage the economic development of the countries involved. On the other hand, China can stay out of the conflict and focus on restoring its economy. In other words, tthe West will be exhausted sooner or later, and Europe will be more eager than the United States to end the war, forcing Washington to propose a peace plan. And when it comes to post-war reconstruction, China is indispensable.
Of course, China may also lose, but the condition for that to happen is Russia’s defeat or Putin’s overthrow and Ukraine’s victory. However, this probability is very low. Even if there is a 1% chance, China will do its utmost to completely rule out the outcome of Russia’s collapse. On the other hand, Ukraine will not collapse because the West cannot afford this outcome. causing the war to remain at a stalemate, and both peace and war in Ukraine are beneficial to China.
Peace, China wins, war, China wins. This is Beijing’s “peace strategy”.
India cannot complete truce negotiations alone
Secondly, as a party involved, the United States cannot allow China to be the main mediator but also unwilling to bear the image of a warmonger. Therefore, the United States may first try to expand the war to seek a worthy victory to increase their bargaining chips, and then seek mediation from a third party outside of China.
Regarding the suitable mediator, some observers suggest (note 2) that besides China, there is also India, a country with enough weight and acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine. The advantage of the latter is that it is also acceptable to the United States. India, which will host the G20 summit in September this year, could take advantage of this opportunity to promote peace talks.
Indeed, India stands in the middle between the West and Russia — Although, the fact that India does not want to stand against Russia frustrates the West — but the qualification of a mediator is not only based on the diplomatic position, but also whether it can undertake the heavy task of rebuilding Ukraine after the war. In this regard, China has a strong ability to export infrastructure, which India cannot provide.
In other words, the key to mediation lies in the reconstruction commitments of the mediator, and can the West bear the huge reconstruction funds alone? The United States may not be willing to do so, and the EU may not be able to afford it. Evidence is that even if Russia does not object, the EU has not allowed Ukraine to join because it is a heavy financial burden. Therefore, it is unrealistic to completely exclude China from the mediator team.
Beijing is emerging as a new heavyweight in providing emergency funds to debt-ridden countries, catching up to the I.M.F. as a lender of last resort.(Note 3), The New York Times has already noticed this fact, and it is believed that indebted countries and leaders of major countries have also noticed it. Of course, Zelensky certainly cannot ignore it.
From now until September, the greater the damage on the Ukrainian battlefield, the more prominent the importance of China becomes. After all, China is not the exhausted party, and the reconstruction blueprint that can benefit both Russia and Ukraine is probably only in China’s hands, not India’s.
India is suitable for facilitating negotiations, while China is suitable for cleaning up the mess. This is probably more in line with reality, and such an arrangement would still be seen as a victory for China’s “peace strategy”.
Nuclear war is unacceptable
Thirdly, how will the war end? The West may not have a clear idea, which led China to propose a peace initiative at this moment, guiding the conflict towards a controllable direction and offering Europe another option beyond Russia’s defeat in the war. This is why the United States is eager to argue that China’s initiative is advantageous to Russia’s illegal conquest (Note 4), as it fears its exhausted allies may waver.
The United States’ rejection of China’s peace proposal may fuel its eagerness for victory on the battlefield, potentially escalating the war quickly, such as a serious nuclear accident at Zaporizhzhia , forcing Russia to launch a nuclear attack and so on. The UK’s supply of the Uranium-Based Ammunition to Ukraine is a highly dangerous move, suspected to be aimed at provoking Russia’s nuclear retaliation.
China know well that if the war slides into any level of nuclear warfare, the world situation will be out of control. Peaceful appeals are easily overshadowed by fear and hatred, so China has drawn a red line on this issue. Do we still need to discuss the outcome of a global war if nuclear warfare spreads?
It can be predicted that in the future, any Western leader who visits China and discusses the Ukrainian peace plan will be asked by China to jointly oppose nuclear war — no matter what kind of nuclear war it is — European countries must recognize that if nuclear war cannot be a red line and a bottom line, any desire for peace lacks a foundation.
Nuclear war may be another scenario that leads to “China’s loses” in Ukraine war, but who is the winner?
A decent exit will be the focus of discussion?
Fourthly, it is impossible for the West to expect Russia to withdraw its troops and restore Ukraine’s pre-war territories as a condition for peace talks, which is unacceptable for both Russia and China. This is because such a condition would encourage deliberate provocations by NATO and the United States, legitimizing NATO’s eastward expansion and paving the way for its expansion into East Asia.
The consensus between the Chinese and Russian leaders is that no country can sacrifice the security of other countries in order to seek its own absolute security. Xi Jinping has been emphasizing this concept since 2014 and once quoted a Kazakh proverb: “blowing out someone else’s lamp will burn one’s own beard.” For Beijing, the conflict between Russia and the West is the result of ignoring this warning.
Both parties involved in the conflict need to take a step back in order to facilitate peace talks. The only issue now is that the United States is unwilling to compromise. The main reason for the US’s unwillingness to compromise is that there is not yet sufficient anti-war sentiment within the country.
However, the current composition of the House of Representatives is mostly Republican, and Jacksonianism is gradually rising within the Republican Party. Jacksonianism’s foreign policy attitude tends towards non-interventionism, unwilling to invest too many resources in foreign affairs. Trump is considered a representative figure of Jacksonianism and is currently rallying supporters with anti-war propaganda, while also seeking nomination as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate.
It is currently unknown whether the House of Representatives will still be willing to write a check for aid to Ukraine this year, or if the amount of the check will be reduced. However, it is reasonable to speculate that US aid to Ukraine will be unsustainable sooner or later, possibly happening this year, if the situation on the Ukrainian battlefield remains deadlocked.
According to the RAND Corporation’s senior advisor’s estimation of the outcome of the war (note 5), the overall situation is unfavorable to the United States, and the war is likely to escalate. In other words, the only way for the United States to increase its bargaining chips in peace talks is to achieve significant victories on the battlefield. Otherwise, both allies and the Republican Party will seek a decent exit. And if it ends up like Afghanistan, the Biden administration will lose big and Beijing will win big.
Some Western observer who are hostile to China believe that the “peace initiative” proposed by China means “China wins.” Yes, this argument is not wrong. But what is puzzling is that if the West considers China its main enemy, why does it continue to distract itself with Russia? If the goal is to confront China, why continue to drain its resources on the Ukrainian battlefield?
Taiwan under Beijing’s Peace Strategy
Fifth, if the United States faces an embarrassing conclusion in Ukraine, will it shift its focus to ignite the next war in the Middle East or Taiwan? This is an observation angle that anti-war activists in Taiwan are particularly concerned about.
There are various signs that Beijing’s current attitude towards Taiwan has softened, From this we can see that China’s “peace strategy” clearly includes a solution to the Taiwan issue. Personally, I believe that during Xi’s third term, there will be an acceleration in proposing various peaceful solutions to seek reunification. If all peace appeals are not responded to positively, Beijing will have reason to enter a more intense phase.
Some American scholars have noticed (note 6) that the “China’s invasion of Taiwan” warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy, “Such fears appear to be driven more by Washington’s assessments of its own military vulnerabilities than by Beijing’s risk-reward calculus”,she said, The fact is that “Fears that China will soon invade Taiwan are overblow”.
The scholar is apparently more familiar with Chinese history and is also aware of America’s thinking traps or the habit of deliberately creating smog. She rationally argues that “Historically, Chinese leaders have not started wars to divert attention from domestic challenges, and they continue to favor using measures short of conflict to achieve their objectives”.
In fact, if we only consider the shift of attention from internal challenges and external risks, the best time to launch an invasion is Now, as there are indeed many pressures within China, and the US and Europe are stuck in the quagmire of Ukraine. However, instead of doing so, China has slowed down and conservatively implemented the necessary peaceful steps in the reunification process.
It should be emphasized that it does not mean that Beijing is lax in its war preparations. On the contrary, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has demonstrated an active state of readiness to respond to any possible “cross-border foul” moves by the United States. This highlights the importance of handling the Taiwan issue through a peace strategy, as Beijing does not want to be the party that initiates a war. However, but if it is forced to fight back, it will inevitably achieve its goal quickly.
What China is doing now is preparing for a rapid achievement in the future. Peaceful reunification is the best option, but it is also the most difficult path. For Beijing, Putin was “forced to fight back,” but not well prepared, which led to a stalemate in the war. In other words, peace is a desire and a strategy. It can ensure that China dispatches troops with a just cause and can also ensure that you have enough time to prepare yourself.
Peace, china wins , War, china wins
A new international order needs sufficient idealism to appeal to the world, and this idea is to solve the major problems at present.
The reason why China uses the “Peace vs War” narrative to hedge against the West’s “Democracy vs Authoritarian” narrative , simply put, “Global South” have gradually recognized that Western democracy cannot solve its own problems and even creates internal chaos. The internal chaos, coupled with the influence of external wars, exacerbated the chaos.
For many countries, the warlike character of the Neocons within the United States is the source of global chaos. but now the only major country that dares to publicly criticize the warlike nature of the United States is China. In fact, it is the belligerent tendency of the United States that gives China a foothold in its peace strategy and the enthusiasm for solving problems behind the ideal of peace.
China’s choice to issue a peace proposal and publicly criticize the United States as a global source of chaos on the first anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is of historical significance. It means that China urges all countries to tick the option of “multipolar world”, tick the option of “independent”, and tick the option of “peaceful development.”
At present, when the economic prospects are not good, the more countries that suffer from the negative impact of war, the more inclined it is towards China’s call for peace. The United States will eventually realize that its belligerent character is the best leverage for China’s rise. The past unipolar world is loosening in some regions.
As for Ukrainian , whether the US chooses peace or war, China wins.
Chinese State Council report on human rights violations in the U.S. and around the world 2023
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023, the Chinese State Council Information Office issued a report on human rights violations in the United States of America during the year 2022, following the hosting of the United States of America and US President “Joe Biden” for the (Second Democracy Summit) activities on Tuesday, March 28, 2023, at the invitation of many countries of the world, with the exception of all Arab countries except Iraq, Russia and China. Therefore, the report of the Chinese State Council issued by its Information Office on the same day issued a stern warning to Washington to promote democracy with concrete measures instead of dividing the world into opposing camps. The Chinese report issued by the State Council, under the title: Headlines of Human Rights Violations in the United States of America in 2022, said that the year 2022 witnessed a historic setback for human rights in the United States, according to a report broadcast on the “Chinese CGTN news channel” on its website.
Here came the comment of the spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry “Mao Ning” calling on the United States of America to stop interfering in the affairs of other countries, under the pretext of what is called democracy. Confirming China’s completely rejecting position regarding the so-called (American Democracy Summit) that was held in December 2021 and Washington’s division of the world into two camps according to its whims between a democratic ally of Washington and an authoritarian ally of Russia and China, while the United States ignores its shortcomings, especially with the insistence of the United States once again. To hold the so-called (democracy summit) under the slogan of supposed democracy, laying openly ideological lines to divide the whole world, and at the same time pushing towards division among the countries of the world, by not respecting the spirit of democracy. The thrust of the Chinese criticism of the first and second American Democracy Summits was the rejection of this American model prepared in advance for democracy, for the absence of a single approved democratic model. The most accurate Chinese and all other countries excluded from the Conference of American Democracies, especially all Arab countries, is that there are many different models of democracy according to the circumstances of each country separately, as well as everyone’s agreement at the present time that development is everyone’s top priority. Hence, the democratic process promoted by Washington and the current Biden administration should not necessarily follow a specific model, as there is no single model that can be followed for this democracy. Also, according to their point of view, American-style elections do not make democracy. It is important that elections accompany the development of civil society, besides the democratic process needs a long time that may reach decades, or even generations, and that democracy needs education and knowledge, economic modernization, responsible and independent media, and support for children’s and women’s rights. Here, although democracy can be encouraged from the outside according to the American perception itself, it is better to build it from within and from its children in order for it to continue and grow.
The Chinese point of view is that the principle of promoting American democracy does not take into account any reliance on the cultural, political and religious specificities of China and countries, and therefore what applies to China in its rejection of American democracy applies to the rest of the other regions, such as Latin America, Eastern Europe, and East Asia and others. Here came the confirmation of the (Chinese State Council) report on the pseudo-American democracy, that it interferes in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of pseudo-democracy. The United States of America must understand that we need to implement real democracy, reject pseudo-democracy, and promote the democratization of international relations. Also, what the world needs today is not the so-called (American Democracy Summit), which creates problems and confrontation internationally, but we need solidarity and cooperation that can actually solve the problems facing the entire international community. Hence, China called on the United States to stop directing accusations against other countries and to stop interfering in the internal affairs of others under the banner of what is called democracy. Especially since American interests have become the first determinant of the American vision of spreading democracy in the world, especially the Middle East region and the Arab world, and not according to an objective or rational American vision.
Accordingly, the success of the democratic transition in a country like Spain, for example, did not eliminate terrorist operations by separatist organizations from the Basque region, just as the Israeli claim to democratize its political system did not prevent extremists and settlers from attacking the Palestinians, and their democracy was not a deterrent when their former prime minister was assassinated. Yitzhak Rabin, and that democracy did not prevent them from attacking the Palestinians or interfering in intelligence, through the Israeli Mossad itself, in the affairs of other neighboring countries, just as many bombings took place in the United States of America, London, New Zealand, France, and other democratic Western countries through terrorist elements that arose under a purely democratic system, according to the same American and Western perception. Also, despite the liberation of Iraq from the dictatorial regime according to the concept of American military intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan to spread the American system of values, many incidents, terrorist acts and explosions occur there continuously. Also, the real reason for the spread of terrorist acts in Iraq, Afghanistan and many countries of the whole world is the same rejection of the American presence and interference in these countries and their internal affairs. This confirms the failure of imposing American democracy according to its suspicious purposes and perceptions around the world.
Here, we must respond strictly here to the United States of America regarding its interference in the affairs of other countries under the pretext of democracy by using the mechanism of American violence that is internationally criminal, which is known as the case of “Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq” by leaking pictures and videos from inside it related to the heinous crimes committed by the Americans in the name of democracy. What really stopped me in this regard were the investigations launched by the European Parliament against the United States of America to verify the existence of secret prisons affiliated with the CIA in several European countries. Indeed, an official European report was issued on June 7, 2006, accusing 14 European countries of complicity in a way Directly or indirectly with the CIA to detain individuals and forcibly imprisoned by Washington in the heart of secret prisons inside Europe or illegally transfer them to other countries when the truth about American crimes is discovered and exposed.
Perhaps what can be seen in this context is that the American intelligence game to interfere in the affairs of other countries through the game of democracy, i.e. dividing countries into democratic and authoritarian ones, such as (the game of periodic statements provided by the US State Department through its embassies around the world regarding the state of democracy in countries the other), and providing the American diplomatic missions with new elements related to propaganda for the American-style democratic transition by following intelligence methods to recruit some to spread and promote that American democracy by spreading chaos in those countries through American recruited elements. As well as the mechanism of using international conferences by the United States to put pressure on non-democratic countries. Here, the US Information Agency, which was merged years ago with the US State Department itself, is one of the most prominent bodies that promote American democracy, in addition to using other economic means and mechanisms, such as linking between democratization and aid.
Also, my strict and sharp response to the United States of America – and as a living witness internationally to what was done against me by Washington, because I am one of the most public critics of those American policies – is the United States of America’s use of the mechanism of preventing media or media appearances and following the American policy of silencing the mouths of all Critics of it, the United States of America is working through its embassies to periodically and comprehensively list all critics of those American policies in the various media in their countries, especially specialists in Chinese and Russian affairs around the world who are close to the countries of China and Russia to prevent them from appearing in the media and muzzling their mouths, or trying to hold Deals with them to change their convictions and thinking in terms of China or Russia in order to criticize them according to a pre-prepared American agenda, which I was a living witness to, while keeping the names of all its parties who exerted pressure against me in favor of Washington.
The game of American interests in spreading democracy in the Arab region also stops me here, by exerting pressure on many Arab countries to take fundamentally non-democratic measures, whether military or security, against certain forces, parties, elements and groups that Washington does not want. With the various American embassies asking some Arab governments and others around the world to intervene to prevent their newspapers from directing criticism of the United States of America – just as it happened and is constantly happening to me and many of my colleagues from China’s friends around the world – and to give direct American directives through their respective embassies, to limit its critics in the Arab region, as a witness to what they did specifically, to force their regimes to stop publishing what the US administration considers incitement to violence and hatred, in reference to the criticisms directed by the Arab media of the aggressive Israeli policy in the region and the fact that Washington turned a blind eye to it in the first place.
Accordingly, any Arab or Islamic country that raises the slogans of freedom and democracy as it wants and that Washington promotes does not intercede for it, because of the pressure of the United States of America on it mainly in order to reduce the margin of freedom of opinion and expression in order not to criticize the American and Israeli interests, which is what is happening realistically and practically in the homeland The Arabs turn a blind eye to the practices of the Israeli occupation and its aggressive policies regionally and internationally. This proves Washington’s neglect of any freedom of expression or democracy when it comes to its utilitarian and narrow interests, or the interests of Israel. This is what happened to me personally and many of my colleagues who specialize in Chinese affairs around the world, mainly friends of China and its ruling Communist Party, have been subjected to. This proves the American policy of silencing mouths towards researchers and academics around the world who are not loyal to the interests and claims of American democracy.
Finally, the note worth mentioning to me and the Chinese remains, is the refusal of the State Department of the United States of America to comment on the approved criteria for inviting some countries or excluding others, with the statement of the US State Department contenting itself with saying that “Washington does not seek to determine which countries are democratic or not”. This in itself is absurd. Also, international relations are not based at all on morals and values as promoted by the US administration and President Biden, but rather are based on power and interests. Therefore, the adoption of US policy for the issue of spreading democracy worldwide may impose restrictions on its foreign policy and national interests globally. Also, working through the United Nations to support democracy should be the only international criterion for judging the success of any democratic transition experience or not, so the goal of the United Nations, as an intergovernmental organization representing all countries of the world, should be to support democracy in the world away from the utilitarian and narrow interests and policies of American.
Ways to Overcome Afghanistan Crisis in Post-Republic Collapse
On August 15, 2021, the Afghan Republic government collapsed and the Taliban took over the Afghan capital city of Kabul....
Foreign Affairs: What sanctions on Russia can and cannot achieve
“U.S. policymakers began planning major sanctions on Russia in late 2021” (before the beginning of Ukrainian conflict!), recognizes ‘Foreign Affairs’....
Elsie Initiative Fund: call for proposals to continue investing in women’s meaningful participation in peacekeeping
At an event that brought together more than 350 representatives from Member States, UN organizations, academia and civil society, the Elsie...
What Beijing’s Iran-Saudi deal means
The agreement to reestablish diplomatic relations between Tehran and Riyadh was no “peace deal,” but the rivals did decide to...
De-dollarization is gaining momentum
Brazil and China have reportedly struck a deal to ditch the U.S. dollar in favor of their own currencies in...
Between Consensus and Efficiency: The Future of Multilateralism
The Multilateral world has been attempting to evolve for some time now. From Reformed to Effective Multilateralism, its struggles to...
Defining moments for geopolitics
A video of Xi’s departure on Wednesday was filmed with translators speaking for both men. “Right now there are changes...
Finance3 days ago
U.S. bank trouble heralds The End of dollar Reserve system
Americas3 days ago
Bulletproof Panama: An Isthmus of Stability Becomes a Magnet for Migration
Economy4 days ago
How Saudiconomy, is an economic-transformational miracle?
International Law4 days ago
Putin, Xi, the ICC, and the Demise of Global Judiciary
East Asia4 days ago
Japan-Indian Equalizer of China’s Rise
Middle East4 days ago
The New Middle East: The Winners and Losers
South Asia4 days ago
Pakistan’s Priority Ranking of SDGs
New Social Compact4 days ago
The Untapped Potential of Women’s Contributions to Peace building