Under Xi Jinping’s (習近平) indefinite leadership of communist China, Beijing has apparently set itself a twofold goal.
First: Xi is committed to enforce strictly the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with him as its leader for life.
There are no ifs or buts, only unqualified support and implementation of the policy with Xi as the “core leader,” which is analogous to Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) role as “supreme leader,” overriding whatever institutional apparatus might exist.
With Xi as the core leader, and the CCP his instrument, he personifies both the ruling party and the country. In other words, he has become the Mao of today’s China.
However, there is one important difference, which is that China is a more powerful country today.
This is not because it followed the Maoist path of permanent and perpetual revolution. It is because, starting under Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) leadership, it diverged from Mao’s ideological banner to take the capitalist development model, but under strict party control and dictatorship.
It was generally believed that China’s economic development would eventually open up its political system towards a pluralist democratic system, as a growing middle class would demand political participation and transparency about the country’s governance.
The first major blow to this hope and aspiration was dealt when the army was let loose in June 1989 on the country’s democracy movement, resulting in the Tiananmen Square Massacre with thousands killed.
Thirty years on, with Xi as the party leader and the country’s president, the CCP’s control is even more pernicious in this digital age.
The fourth plenary session of the 19th CCP Central Committee, held in Beijing from Oct. 28 to 31, emphasized the importance of party leadership in the country’s governance, based on it and the people working together.
To quote from the communique: “The system of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a scientific system developed by the Party and the people through long-term practices and explorations.”
They seem serious about this coded message about party-people partnership, which, in effect, means that the CCP dictates the orders and the people have no choice but to follow or else. In other words, the party reigns supreme and Xi is the source of all power.
Of course, it is understood by the CCP leadership that its claim about their infallibility is dubious and regarded as such in the outside world.
Hence, Ma Liang (馬亮), a professor at Renmin University in Beijing, lends his academic legitimacy when he said: “This is often misunderstood outside China, but by putting the party in the center it is easier to streamline the various government agencies and deliver services to the people more efficiently.”
This is a belabored argument to justify the arbitrary nature of the system based on dictatorship.
It will need to be enforced by all the instruments available to a dictatorial regime, and would need to be expanded and updated all the time, sharpening its insidious and brutal nature, which we are seeing today in China.
With China’s power growing, and its patronage expanding, it is succeeding in coercing and buying off countries to fall in line with its propaganda — or else stay quiet — both about the “benevolent” nature of its system at home and “peaceful” intentions abroad.
Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative is an important example, where China is expanding its control through all sorts of infrastructure projects, connecting China with participating countries, supposedly to create an interconnected world.
In reality, these countries are pledging their projects and resources to long-term Chinese control through the high levels of debt they incur, which in most cases, these countries will be unable to repay.
At the same time, China is infiltrating open societies to subvert and control them in all sorts of ways.
Anson Chan (陳方安生), who headed Hong Kong’s civil service for four years each under the British and Chinese control respectively, said on a visit to Melbourne, Australia, in 2016: “I don’t think Australians understand the sort of country [China] they are dealing with. Look at the way they are infiltrating, even in Australia.”
“It wouldn’t have occurred to the people of Hong Kong until we experienced it firsthand,” she added.
“No one should be under any illusions about the objectives of the Communist Party leadership — it’s long-term, systemic infiltration of social organizations, media and the government,” she said.
“By the time China’s infiltration of Australia is readily apparent, it will be too late,” she added.
Duncan Lewis, recently retired chief of Australia’s prime intelligence agency, ASIO, was not mincing his words in an interview with Peter Hartcher, political editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.
When Hartcher asked Lewis what the Chinese government wanted from Australia, he said: “They are trying to place themselves in a position of advantage. Espionage and foreign interference is insidious. Its effects might not present for decades and by that time it’s too late.”
“You wake up one day and find decisions made in our country that are not in the interests of our country. Not only in politics, but also in the community or in business. It takes over, basically, pulling the strings from offshore [Beijing],” he said.
This pattern might vary here and there, whether through Belt and Road or by other means, but the objective is the same, which is to exercise control from Beijing.
Still, there is much more to come from a Chinese spy who has sought asylum in Australia, and had been assigned to play a destructive role in Taiwan’s elections next year.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did