Tag: China

Transcending 18th-Century Chains

Dan Wang’s annual letter indicates that China is transcending the 18th Century conceptual framework that has resulted in the enslavement of the formerly Christian West to Satanic post-Christian torpor. While the West finds itself trapped in the outdated chains of self-serving Jewish interpretations of the Enlightenment philosophies, China is forging a more practical path forward by rejecting the most foundational assumptions of the failing neo-liberal world order.

An important factor in China’s reform program includes not only a willingness to reshape the strategic landscape—like promoting manufacturing over the internet—but also a discernment of which foreign trends to resist. These include excessive globalization and financialization. Beijing diagnosed the problems with financialization earlier than the US, where the problem is now endemic. The leadership is targeting a high level of manufacturing output, rejecting the notion of comparative advantage. That static model constructed by economists with the aim of seducing undergrads has leaked out of the lecture hall and morphed into a political justification for only watching as American communities of engineering practice dissolved. And Beijing today looks prescient for having kept out the US social media companies that continuously infuriate their home government.

It’s interesting, is it not, to see how three years after I appeared on CGNT’s Dialogue and explained some of the fundamental flaws of Ricardian free trade on Chinese state television, and pointed out how the USA literally could not lose a trade war against China, that the CPC has explicitly rejected the orthodox classical concept of comparative advantage. I’m not saying that the case I explicated was the reason for that rejection, but it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that it was a contributing element, however minor.

It’s also clear that China is very likely to dominate the global economy going forward, as the USA sinks into a morass of meaningless conversations about conversations, and technology designed to enforce a rigid monoculture of SJW-approved goodthink.

Beijing recognizes that internet platforms make not only a great deal of money, but also many social problems. Consider online tutoring. The Ministry of Education claims to have surveyed 700,000 parents before it declared that the sector can no longer make profit. What was the industry profiting from? In the government’s view, education companies have become adept at monetizing the status anxieties of parents: the Zhang family keeps feeling outspent by the Li family, and vice versa. In a similar theme, the leadership considers the peer-to-peer lending industry as well as Ant Financial to be sources of financial risks; and video games to be a source of social harm. These companies may be profitable, but entrepreneurial dynamism here is not a good thing.

Where does Beijing prefer dynamism? Science-based industries that serve strategic needs. Beijing, in other words, is trying to make semiconductors sexy again. One might reasonably question how dealing pain to users of chips (like consumer internet firms) might help the industry. I think that the focus should instead be on talent and capital allocation. If venture capitalists are mostly funding social networking companies, then they would be able to hire the best talent while denying them to chipmakers. That has arguably been the story in Silicon Valley over the last decade: Intel and Cisco were not quite able to compete for the best engineering talent with Facebook and Google. Beijing wants to change this calculation among domestic investors and students at Peking and Tsinghua.

Internet platforms aren’t the only industries under suspicion. Beijing is also falling out of love with finance. It looks unwilling to let the vagaries of the financial markets dictate the pace of technological investment, which in the US has favored the internet over chips. Beijing has regularly denounced the “disorderly expansion of capital,” and sometimes its “barbaric growth.” The attitude of business-school types is to arbitrage everything that can be arbitraged no matter whether it serves social goals. That was directly Chen Yun’s fear that opportunists care only about money. High profits therefore are not the right metric to assess online education, because the industry is preying on anxious parents while immiserating their children.

Beijing’s attitude marks a difference with capitalism as it’s practiced in the US. Over the last two decades, the major American growth stories have been Silicon Valley (consumer internet and software) on one coast and Wall Street (financialization) on the other. For good measure, I’ll throw in a rejection of capitalism as it is practiced in the UK as well. My line last year triggered so many Brits that I’ll use it again: “With its emphasis on manufacturing, (China) cannot be like the UK, which is so successful in the sounding-clever industries—television, journalism, finance, and universities—while seeing a falling share of R&D intensity and a global loss of standing among its largest firms.”

As Michael Hudson has repeatedly demonstrated, financialization is fatal for both an economy and a society. It is fundamentally parasitical; it does not fertilize the growth of healthy productive companies, but rather, preys ruthlessly upon them and prevents them from growing to maturity.

The fact that the Chinese have consciously rejected the false promises of financialization and free trade is potentially one of the most important historic developments of the past 100 years.

DISCUSS ON SG

Our Fingers Were Crossed!

The US Secretary of State is attempting to play revisionist talmudics in order to justify the NATO expansion that has both Russia and China on a war footing:

NATO has never promised not to admit new members, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed on Friday, labelling Russia’s demands of the bloc inadmissible. However, long-declassified Western documents suggest otherwise.

“NATO never promised not to admit new members,” the top American diplomat told journalists during Friday’s press briefing, as he commented on Moscow’s proposals to the bloc on security guarantees, ahead of upcoming NATO-Russia meetings next week.

“It could not and would not – the ‘open door policy’ was a core provision of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty that founded NATO,” Blinken added. He then pointed to the fact that both Mikhail Gorbachev – the Soviet leader who’d allegedly received the guarantees of non-expansion from the Western leaders – and the former US Secretary of State James Baker, who allegedly provided them, among others – denied anything like that ever happened.

“There was no promise that NATO wouldn’t expand,” Blinken concluded, adding that, instead, Moscow had itself recognized every European nation’s right to choose its own path in the field of security by joining the Istanbul Charter for European Security in 1999.

Such a position has apparently become commonplace in the bloc after Moscow came up with a set of proposals that it said would alleviate current tensions between Russia and the collective West. The proposals would see the Brussels-based organisation agree to curb its territorial growth as a form of a security guarantee for Russia.

After the proposals were presented to NATO in December 2021, its Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stated that the bloc had never promised not to expand. Yet, a trove of documents, made public as early as in 2017, suggests that it did.

Russia Today

This is a remarkably stupid game the Fake Biden administration is playing. The neocons are attempting to utilize juvenile narrative-shaping tactics in a world of hardened diplomats and generals who couldn’t care less what a few lawyers assumed back in 1949. It appears the neocons are about to discover that their lawyerly verbal tactics don’t work on people who, unlike Americans and Europeans, are not high-trusting children.

It’s the usual bait-and-switch offered by a deceiver. Even if NATO never made any formal promises not to expand, the leaders of every major Western country at the time promised that NATO would not expand to the EAST, i.e. in the direction of Russia. Which NATO subsequently did after 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union that was the raison d’etre for its existence. If Vladimir Putin were to reassure the world that Russia will not attack NATO, just all of the countries that violated their past assurances to Russia, would anyone find that comforting?

The neocons would do very well to recall that the Russians have never promised not to nuke New York or Jerusalem. The Chinese have never promised not to genocide Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Neither the wisdom nor the rightness of an action relies upon the fact that one has never promised not to do it. The balance of power rests upon capabilities, not contracts. And Russia has promised that it will never permit NATO to reach its borders.

In addition to never promising not to invade Taiwan, China has repeatedly vowed to unify the island with the mainland. Would the US Secretary of State argue that China therefore has a right to do so? Because under his own logic, China has a stronger argument than the one he is presenting in favor of NATO expansion.

UPDATE: Yes, China knows exactly what’s happening in Kazakhstan and who is responsible.

China can offer support in the fields of economic cooperation and assistance, as well as counter-terrorism, to help neighboring Kazakhstan restore stability and realize effective reforms and long-term economic development, according to Chinese analysts, as Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and the government thanked Russia and China, as well as other leaders worldwide and heads of international organizations for support offered to the country amid domestic unrest. The situation in Kazakhstan has the clear characteristics of a “color revolution” and the involvement of foreign forces and the “Three Devils” (terrorism, religious extremism and separatism), said Chinese analysts.

China, Xi said, firmly opposes any force undermining Kazakhstan’s stability, threatening the country’s security, and sabotaging the peaceful lives of the Kazakh people. China also strongly rejects any attempt by external forces to provoke unrest and instigate “color revolution” in Kazakhstan, as well as any attempt to harm the friendship between China and Kazakhstan and disrupt the two countries’ cooperation. And, China is ready to provide necessary support to help Kazakhstan overcome the difficulties.

Global Times

DISCUSS ON SG

Uninvestable or Uninfestable?

Somehow, I don’t think the CPC strategists are overly concerned about the global financial community’s sudden addition of China to the uninvestable zone that includes Russia and Iran:

Investors may want to think twice about putting their money to work in China, contends DoubleLine founder Jeffrey Gundlach.

“China is uninvestible, in my opinion, at this point,” the bond king told Yahoo Finance in an interview at his California estate. “I’ve never invested in China long or short. Why is that? I don’t trust the data. I don’t trust the relationship between the United States and China anymore. I think that investments in China could be confiscated. I think there’s a risk of that.”

The ongoing crackdown on the operations of big Chinese internet companies such as Didi by the government has rocked investors in the space. The clamping down on the country’s biggest tech names has now led to a tightening of listing requirements by the Chinese government

The Chinese have long understood the corollary to the Golden Rule: the only way to prevent those with the gold from making the rules is to refuse to accept it.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Isn’t Fooled

The Chinese are paying very close attention to how the USA has created color revolutions around the world, and how it is laying the groundwork for military conflict with Russia over Ukraine:

Washington has painted its geopolitical competition between great powers with a thick layer of ideology. It has tried to portray what is happening on the Russian-Ukrainian border as a tragic story about “aggression” and “counter-aggression,” as well as making Ukraine a pawn on the European chessboard as it pushes eastward. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many countries, including Ukraine, have experienced “color revolutions” supported by the US. But most of these countries ended up in tragedy, as the US has neither the will nor the ability to provide them with substantial assistance. The US has been providing huge military aid to Ukraine over the years, weaponizing it from top to toe. However, it has explicitly excluded any possibility of fighting for Ukraine. Washington’s policy of creating crises is likely to turn Ukraine into a regional powder keg.

The US is unreliable. This is true when it comes to not only Ukraine, but also Russia. The essence of the issue is not that Washington is “seeking justice” for Ukraine or Europe, but that it is using NATO as a tool to cannibalize and squeeze Russia’s strategic space. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia had also tried to win acceptance from the US and the West through making political changes. But what it gained is the US’ abandonment of its promise that NATO would not expand eastward if a reunified Germany remained in the bloc. The US has led NATO to engage in five rounds of eastward expansion over the past more than two decades. Moscow sees Ukraine as a red line for security. But now even Ukraine is said to be absorbed into NATO. Russian President Vladmir Putin on December 23 accused NATO of cheating Russia at his annual press conference.

To secure its advantageous position by creating disputes, divisions, conflicts and confrontations is what Washington has always pursued in international affairs. Be it deploying missiles on Russia’s doorstep, conducting “close-in reconnaissance” on China’s coastal areas, or sending warships to sail through the Taiwan Straits, all these actions were taken by Washington to test its two biggest “rivals” and the US is waiting and looking for opportunities to drive a wedge. The US may not plan to start a war with Russia or China, but it hopes to maintain a certain degree of tension and chaos in the surrounding areas of the two opponents. As such, it has kept propagating the “China threat theory” and “Russia threat theory” and at the same time tries to rally allies to exert pressure together in an attempt to force Russia and China to retreat from their core interests.

What is happening in Eastern Europe today has taught the Chinese people a good lesson.

The most important thing to note here is that China is following Russia’s lead in determining that “the US is unreliable”. The significance of this seemingly mild statement is that it means neither major regional power believes there is any point in attempting to negotiate with the USA or attempt to reach mutual understandings because they both know that the USA will break any treaty that they sign with it.

Which really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, as the USA has been a historically treacherous organization from the very start, as it broke its promises to nearly every single counterparty it encountered, from the scores of American Indian tribes with which it signed treaties to the formerly sovereign states of the Confederacy. It’s really rather remarkable that so many Americans genuinely believe that it is Russia and China that are the aggressors today when it is the USA that currently has 173,000 troops in 750 bases occupying 159 countries around the world.

Just to put things in historical perspective, that is more troops than Imperial Rome possessed with its 28 legions during the period of the Principate from 31 BC to 284 AD, which includes the time of the empire’s greatest extent under Trajan in 117 AD.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Anti-Globalist Alliance

Knowingly or not, it appears Vladimir Putin and Xi Xinping have responded to Archbishop Vigano’s call for an anti-globalist alliance:

Despite having had tense relations in the past, Moscow and Beijing are now working together on an unprecedented number of issues, including trade, technology, and defense, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.

Speaking to journalists as part of his annual press conference, the Russian leader said that he and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping address each other as “friends.”

“We have very trusting relations and it helps us build good business ties as well,” Putin added, noting that Beijing is an “obvious leader” in the global economy and Asia, meaning that it is only natural that Russia develops relations with China in this field.

Putin stated that Russia is “China’s number one partner,” stressing that they work in a lot of areas, including the energy sector, space exploration, and on humanitarian issues. He said that this “brings us closer together.”

“We are cooperating in the field of security. The Chinese Army is equipped to a significant extent with the world’s most advanced weapons systems. We are even developing certain high-tech weapons together,” the Russian leader went on.

He said that there has been nothing like Russia and China’s current relations in history before, and remarked that this serves as a “stabilizing factor” on the world stage.

Putin’s remarks come after a video conference with Xi last week amid worsening relations between East and West. Yuri Ushakov, the Russian leader’s foreign policy advisor, said after the talks that Moscow and Beijing vowed to develop shared financial structures to enable the two nations to deepen their economic ties, without the interference of third countries.

This is good news, as the evil Empire That Never Ended is presently based in the United States. The fact that the two strongest free nations are joining forces to oppose it is a positive development, regardless what their motivations might be.

DISCUSS ON SG

CIPS+SPFS

The alternative financial system linking the Chinese and Russian economies takes shape:

In 2015, approximately 90% of trade between Russia and China was settled in dollars, and by 2020, dollar-denominated trade between the two Eurasian giants had almost reduced by half, with only 46% of trade in dollars. Russia has also been leading the way in cutting the share of US dollars in its foreign reserves. The mechanisms for de-dollarizing China-Russia trade are also used to end the use of the greenback with third parties – with advancements being seen in places such as Latin America, Turkey, Iran, India, etc. The US has been pumping out dollars to the entire world for decades, and at some point, the tide will change as the sea of dollars return home with increasingly diminished value.

Financial transactions
The SWIFT system for financial transactions between banks worldwide was previously the only system for international payments. This central role for SWIFT began to erode when the US used it as a political weapon. The Americans first expelled Iran and North Korea, and in 2014, Washington began threatening to expel Russia from the system as well. Over the past few weeks, the threat of using SWIFT as a weapon against Russia has intensified.

China has responded by creating CIPS and Russia developed SPFS, both being alternatives to SWIFT. Even several other European countries have banded together with an alternative to SWIFT to curb Washington’s extra-territorial jurisdiction and thus continue trading with Iran. A new China-Russia financial architecture should integrate CIPS and SPFS, and make them more available to third parties. If the US expels Russia, then the decoupling from SWIFT would intensify further.

Development banks
The US-led IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank are renowned instruments of US economic statecraft. The launch of the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2015 became a watershed moment in the global financial architecture, as all the major allies of the US (except Japan) signed up in defiance of American warnings. The New Development Bank, formerly referred to as the BRICS Development Bank, was a further step towards decoupling from the US-led development banks. The Eurasian Development Bank and future SCO Development Bank are more nails in the coffin of US-controlled development banks.

Synergy effects
China and Russia have also developed their own rating agencies and replaced the dominant position of Visa and Mastercard in their respective countries. This new financial architecture is complemented with an energy partnership and a technological partnership as neither China nor Russia wants to be reliant on American high-tech industries as they move into the fourth industrial revolution.

For those who live outside the USA, it will be wise to find a bank that is utilizing both systems, which will limit one’s exposure to either deplatforming or a collapse of the self-styled “rules-based order” that is, in fact, neither rules-based nor orderly.

DISCUSS ON SG

We’re Not Locked Out, You’re Locked Out

As I anticipated on a recent Darkstream, China and Russia are collaborating to provide the world with an alternative payment infrastructure that will compete, most likely favorably, with SWIFT and the US dollar.

Russia and China will develop shared financial structures to enable them to deepen economic ties in a way that foreign states will be unable to influence, the Kremlin has announced following talks between the countries’ leaders. The move appears to be a response to a series of warnings that Western nations could push to disconnect Russia from the Brussels-based SWIFT financial system as a form of sanctions.

The payment platform underpins the vast majority of international transactions. During the talks on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping called for increasing the share of national currencies in mutual settlements and expanding cooperation to provide Russian and Chinese investors with access to stock markets, said Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy advisor.

Ushakov said “particular attention was paid to the need to intensify efforts to form an independent financial infrastructure to service trade operations between Russia and China.”

“We mean creating an infrastructure that cannot be influenced by third countries,” the Kremlin aide added.

Ahead of the video summit, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov hinted that economic discussions were likely to be on the agenda for the two heads of state.

Both Russia and China are said to be increasingly looking to move away from using the US dollar as the main currency of international trade, instead using their own denominations to underpin the booming volume of Moscow-Beijing trade.

It’s probably not a bad time to get an Alipay account, if you don’t have one already.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Easy Way or the Hard Way

China makes it clear that the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland is going to happen, one way or the other, and there is nothing the US can do to prevent it:

Recently, US senior officials have repeatedly shown their tough yet empty attitude on the situation in the Taiwan Straits. On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also accused China of attempting to “reshape not only its own territory but also the global system to its benefit.” Again, Blinken threatened that “if Beijing were to decide to try to change the status quo unilaterally by force, it would be a very serious mistake.”

Sullivan blustered to ensure that China’s reunification by force “never happens,” which is particularly alarming. This is the biggest boast made by a senior US official so far. Almost no one would believe Sullivan’s impromptu to a reporter would become a manifesto of US policy. This is because the US simply cannot build a deterrent to prevent the Chinese mainland from carrying out reunification by force when necessary. No one would believe the US has the true will to defend Taiwan at all costs, which goes against China’s military growth and its resolution in reunification.

So far, the official attitude of Washington is to encourage the Taiwan authority to build up self-defense capabilities. The US mainly provides military support to Taiwan by selling weapons. Those weapons are generally destined to be destroyed by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) as soon as the reunification by force takes place. It is credible that the PLA will heavily attack US troops who come to Taiwan’s rescue. Such credibility is increasingly overwhelming the deterrence that US troops may have.

Indeed, the US does have a way of ensuring that reunification by force “never happens.” That is to blow the ambitions of the Taiwan authority to promote the “Taiwan independence,” to force them to return to the 1992 Consensus and meet half way with the Chinese mainland on the path of peaceful reunification and to accept the principle of “one country, two systems.” If Washington supports the Taiwan authority’s path of seeking secession and encourages the Taiwan authority to rely on it, then reunification by force will definitely happen. The more the US and the island of Taiwan collude, the sooner reunification by force will come.

All of this nonsensical blustering by the increasingly fangless US political leadership is making me wonder what it is they are trying to conceal and what it is that they are actually trying to prevent, because we know they can’t stop China from taking Taiwan and they can’t stop Russia from taking Ukraine. The only thing that is preventing the regional powers from taking successful military action is a) China would prefer a peaceful reunification process ala Hong Kong, and b) Russia wants nothing to do with being responsible for Ukraine and its inhabitants.

It shouldn’t escape your attention that while the Fake Biden Fake Administration is actively threatening a) China, b) Russia, c) Iran, and d) India, all four of those countries are calmly refusing to respond in kind. This makes me suspect that some sort of serious unrestricted – by which I mean economic – global assault is being prepared by the New and Improved Whole-Process Democracies, and the USA is desperately casting about for a way to shut it down before it starts with the military superiority it no longer possesses.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Fifth Communism

Asia Times considers the significance of the recent plenary assembly of the Chinese Communist Party that elevated Xi Jinping Thought to the highest ideological level:

Marx. Lenin. Mao. Deng. Xi.

Late last week in Beijing, the sixth plenum of the Chinese Communist Party adopted a historic resolution – only the third in its 100-year history – detailing major accomplishments and laying out a vision for the future.

Essentially, the resolution poses three questions. How did we get here? How come we were so successful? And what have we learned to make these successes long-lasting?

The importance of this resolution should not be underestimated. It imprints a major geopolitical fact: China is back. Big time. And doing it their way. No amount of fear and loathing deployed by the declining hegemon will alter this path….

Make Trade, Not War: that would be the motto of a Pax Sinica under Xi. The crucial aspect is that Beijing does not aim to replace Pax Americana, which always relied on the Pentagon’s variant of gunboat diplomacy.

The declaration subtly reinforced that Beijing is not interested in becoming a new hegemon. What matters above all is to remove any possible constraints that the outside world may impose over its own internal decisions, and especially over its unique political setup.

The West may embark on hysteria fits over anything – from Tibet and Hong Kong to Xinjiang and Taiwan. It won’t change a thing.

Concisely, this is how “socialism with Chinese characteristics” – a unique, always mutant economic system – arrived at the Covid-linked techno-feudalist era. But no one knows how long the system will last, and in which mutant form.

Corruption, debt – which tripled in ten years – political infighting – none of that has disappeared in China. To reach 5% annual growth, China would have to recover the growth in productivity comparable to those breakneck times in the 80s and 90s, but that will not happen because a decrease in growth is accompanied by a parallel decrease in productivity.

A final note on terminology. The CCP is always extremely precise. Xi’s two predecessors espoused “perspectives” or “visions.” Deng wrote “theory.” But only Mao was accredited with “thought.” The “new era” has now seen Xi, for all practical purposes, elevated to the status of “thought” – and part of the civilization-state’s constitution.

That’s why the party resolution last week in Beijing could be interpreted as the New Communist Manifesto. And its main author is, without a shadow of a doubt, Xi Jinping. Whether the manifesto will be the ideal road map for a wealthier, more educated and infinitely more complex society than in the times of Deng, all bets are off.

It is vital to accept that one can no more understand the current and future actions of the CPC – and therefore China – while ignoring Xi Jinping Thought than one could have comprehended the development of China since 1978 while attempting to ignore the Dengist revisionism that has completely transformed both China as well as the global order.

One cannot hope to grasp Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Dengist-Xism any better than one could have grasped Marxist-Leninism by reading nothing but Marx. Or than one can anticipate the actions of the fake Biden administration by referring to the US Constitution.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Claims the Moral High Ground

For more than 100 years, the neo-liberal world order has claimed the international moral high ground on the basis of being “democratic”. The Allies who fought Germany in WWII – France, Britain, and the USA – were often referred to as “the Western democracies”, and “spreading democracy” has been the primary justification for US military invasions for the last three decades.

But now, in the aftermath of the shocking 2020 revelation that US democracy is a massive and fraudulent sham, China has launched a direct rhetorical assault on the West’s primary claim to possess the moral high ground on the international scene. This is a form of unrestricted warfare that strongly suggests Chinese strategists are very familiar with William S. Lind’s concept of 4th Generation Warfare.

China’s democracy is more extensive, more genuine and more effective than the US democracy, as the US politicians represent the interest groups but in China the whole-process democracy ensures implementation of policies that change people’s lives, senior Chinese officials said on Saturday as China issued a white paper titled “China: Democracy That Works.”

Under the US democratic system, politicians are agents of interest groups, rather than representing the interests of the majority of voters and the interests of the country as a whole, Tian Peiyan, Deputy Director of the Policy Research Office of the CPC Central Committee, said at a press conference on the launch of the white paper on Saturday.

“Those politicians can make random promises for the sake of elections, but they seldom fulfill their promises after being elected. Superficially they accept voters’ supervision, but in fact as long as they are elected, the voters have no option but to wait for the next election. They are only awakened during voting but become dormant after voting,” Tian said.

US voters listen to those dazzling slogans only during the election, but they have no say after the election, the Chinese official said.

However, China’s democracy is whole process people’s democracy under the leadership of the CPC, the Chinese official continued. Party members and leaders at all levels must accept the whole process and all-round supervision of the Party and the people when performing their duties to ensure that the power granted by the people is always used for serving the people’s interest.

And they also maintain a close contact with the public, listening to people’s requests and striving to solve their problems.

The different behavior of US politicians before and after elections is due to the lack of a supervising mechanism for politicians including congressmen after they are elected, Guo Zhenhua, Deputy Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the NPC, told the press conference.

Don’t be surprised if the concept of “whole-process democracy” is successful in superseding the increasingly outmoded concept of “representative democracy” that is neither representative nor democratic, and which completely fails to represent the will of the people in any way, shape, or form. Because it is entirely obvious to any honest observer that the USA and the European Union are not only exhibiting democratic deficits, but now possess overtly anti-democratic regimes.

Chinese Foreign Ministry on Sunday released a report on US democracy, exposing the deficiencies and abuse of democracy in the US as well as the harm of it exporting such democracy…. Democracy is a common value shared by all humanity, said the report. It is a right for all nations, not a prerogative reserved for a few. Democracy takes different forms, and there is no one-size-fits-all model. It would be totally undemocratic to measure the diverse political systems of the world with a single yardstick or examine different political civilizations from a single perspective. The political system of a country should be independently decided by its own people, the report said.

And, of course, all the complaints about China’s social credit scores and violations of human rights sound very thin in light of the bannings, prison terms, deplatformings, lockdowns, disemployments, mandates, and even forced vaccinations presently being imposed throughout the West.

DISCUSS ON SG