The Threat of China According to The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping

The rise of Xi Jinping continues to re-shape China and it's becoming clear the New Silk Road or One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative is about more than commerce or economic security.

Historically China (when powerful) has remained more or less within its geopolitical sphere. A dominating regional Hegemon, many have argued that its contemporary resurgence represents little more than an attempt to revert to the historical pattern. The lords of Beijing wish for China to recapture its historical place and position in the global order. Its aspirations are regional and restricted.

And yet some wonder if under Xi the vision has shifted and China is moving more in the direction of a global empire akin to the old European empires but with a special reliance upon the model of the United States.

The Guardian article is not so nuanced. It mainly functions as an Anti-China hit piece but it does reveal that capitalistic commerce cannot remain an isolated interest. It will inevitably stray into international politics. Africa is clearly becoming one of the new battlegrounds in the 21^st century. Home to a vast array of precious resources many in Washington's corridors of power lament the fact that the US is 'late' in getting into the game. While the accuracy of that assessment can be questioned one thing is clear, China is heavily invested in Africa and the article demonstrates this investment has moved beyond resource extraction, infrastructure development and financing. China itself is being sold and yet interestingly the article never identifies just what is being sold. What is China and what does it represent? That's not an easy to question to answer.

In many ways China is (along with Russia and perhaps some other states) the antithesis to the 'End of History' thesis of Fukuyama. Liberal Democracy hasn't won the day. In fact to utilise Fukuyama's model we're still on the roller coaster ride of Hegelian process (it would seem) and we're clearly on the cusp of a Right-wing (even authoritarian) reaction to the Liberal order posited in the 1990's. Obviously the story is far from over.

There's plenty to criticise regarding China and the Guardian piece makes for disturbing reading and yet I was equally disturbed by the author's choice to ignore how often Western powers and in particular the United States have used the very same tools and forms of manipulation to influence allies and trade partners. In fact the whole nature and extent of Western power is largely ignored and many of the moral judgments are made assuming the validity and legitimacy of the Western dominated and defined status quo.

This is not to defend China but to be fair in assessing their moves one has to put one's self into their shoes. In many ways the very playbook they're using, is one they've learned from Washington and powers like Britain and France. Some might argue that Washington only played such propaganda and manipulation games during the Cold War and that's ancient history. And yet we know that's not the case. Names and contacts may have changed but the same old game is being played even today. Beijing has chosen to learn from and in some ways emulate this system... one that has indisputably proven to be effective.

The Guardian author seems to assume that Western Democratic politics, diplomacy and journalism are in principle (if not practice) upright and honest. After all these people live by the rule of law, right?

And the liberal values of the West are self-evidently right and indisputable and the leaders of the West genuinely believe and apply these laws... and we see this both in media and legislation, right?

The Guardian has chosen to ignore the massive censorship campaign that currently dominates Western media, a campaign the Guardian has played no small part in promoting. Of course we could also mention they have certainly been near the forefront in the media's attacks on figures like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. The paper which helped release the NSA documents in 2013 has since made a fairly radical turn and through the pen of Luke Harding and others has turned its guns against Snowden, Assange and has championed the ever-growing Anti-Russia campaign.

The Guardian narrative can be challenged on all these points. The article ignores and thus misleads the reader in understanding that the United States has engaged in similar propaganda programmes for decades and has a long history of intelligence agency infiltration of the media. While dissent is allowed within the realm of domestic politics and within the consensus, the American media becomes all but united in its defense of Wall Street not to mention Atlanticist foreign policy and its sundry imperialist projects. Disputes arise to be sure but the assumptions are shared and once the dust settles everyone is on board... generating propaganda as opposed to genuine investigative and adversarial journalism.

While Beijing is rather blunt and heavy handed in its state-run and subsidised approaches to control the model is not that different from what we see in the United States. The American model has always chosen to operate through corporate auspices which overlap and blend with academia as represented by both the universities and think-tanks.

The American model is one of open conspiracy... and thus in one sense is no conspiracy at all. Some could easily argue it's simply the bureaucratic mechanisms of the social consensus and they would have a point. And yet at the same time that does not eliminate the question of both grand and particular conspiracies. Funding from both Wall Street and the state overshadow every aspect of the consensus order and its vast archipelago of propaganda mechanisms.

The US mosaic is more complex and nuanced as politics and the corporate world overlap and have interpenetrated one another. The academy functions as a gatekeeper in one sense and yet can also drive debate and set the parameters. When one adds in the salaries and money available to those in the upper echelons of the media it's not hard to see why self-censorship and regulating conformity become almost automatic and self-sustaining guarantees.

But there's more. We also have evidence from both past and present that suggest a real conspiracy on the part of intelligence agencies to manipulate news coverage, to infiltrate the corporate structures and to recruit individual agents. From old project Mockingbird to the creation of entities such as In-Q-Tel, the intelligence agencies continue to exert influence on how the news is reported and understood and how history records it.

In the end, the Guardian piece while frustrating is indeed informative. But it is also revealed to be what I continue to call False Exposé and functions more or less as counter-intelligence propaganda. In their zeal to expose China's deeds and reveal the vast machinations of their propaganda network The Guardian has ironically engaged in a piece of pro-Western propaganda. Maybe it's not so ironic. I am open to the notion that such pieces are produced by design.

All this is cause for concern but as a Christian what is most troubling is that these developments and this type of reporting continue to push the Church in the direction of the United States and the West in general. Xi is a persecutor of Christians and thus many in both China and the nations beyond its borders will look toward Washington as a beacon and defender of Christ's Kingdom.

Xi may be evil and may seem to represent a more immediate threat but spiritually and morally speaking the United States is just as evil and yet because it's perceived as being (more or less) Christian, many will blindly turn to it. And thus in that sense, the dream of Christian America is actually more dangerous. Xi can destroy the body but the myth of Christian America devours souls.

But in reality both Beijing and Washington are enemies to Christ's Kingdom and both bestial entities will perish when our Lord returns...  if either is still standing.