On the 1st
October 2021, the
Ministry of National Defense of Taiwan reported the sighting of 38 PLAAF
aircraft in Taiwan’s air defence identification zone. The combined fleet of jet
fighters and nuclear-capable bombers flew in the vicinity of Taiwan-controlled
Pratas islands in the southeast of Taiwan. These aircraft were met with radio
warnings and scrambled Taiwanese jets. The Taiwanese Premier Su Tseng-chang gave
a statement immediately after the incident, criticising these military aircraft
manoeuvres by China within the Taiwanese air defence zone, which he deemed an
act of “bullying.”
The Chinese responded by sending over 150+ sorties into the ADIZ
over the next
five days, which outnumbered the
total number of incursions previously in that year. These events have been
followed by daily flybys of Chinese aircraft and have created uncertainty in
the region. This uncertainty builds up between the two sparring states, and
observers fear broader, more calamitous incursions.
ADIZ and Aerospace
These aircraft incursions occurred in Taiwan’s Air Defence
Identification Zone (ADIZ). In the dawn of commercial flights, nations
attempted to generate a uniform code for regulating the air via international treaties.
In 1944, the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation established the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). In its first three articles, the convention defines airspace and each country’s exclusive
sovereignty over its airspace. The airspace is a legal entity enshrined in the
convention. A country’s airspace extends 22 km from its boundaries (12 nautical miles).
The United States was the first country to define its ADIZ in the
1950s, and Annex
15 of the ICAO defines it
as a “Special designated airspace of defined dimensions within which aircraft
are required to comply with special identification and/or reporting procedures
additional to those related to the provision of air traffic services
(ATS).” There is no legal provision for the ADIZ yet. Many countries have,
however, maintained it for security purposes. It is customary for aircrafts
entering the ADIZ to give identification and seek authorisation from the
country controlling the zone. The ADIZ is merely a safety measure, but since it
is not an international rule, it is often the site of disputes and conflicts.
Especially in the cross-strait region of China and Taiwan.
China’s Ambition in the Region
President Xi Jinping has stressed that “China has never, and will never, invade or bully others or seek hegemony.” This statement is in direct contrast to Chinese actions surrounding Taiwan. Despite repeatedly pledging a ‘peaceful reunification, it is a fact that China still considers Taiwan a ‘renegade province’. There is no doubt amongst Chinese policymakers that reunification of Taiwan is a target for the PRC; their views vary on when and how this should happen. In his book, ‘Return of The Dragon‘, analyst Denny Roy talks about two schools of thought: the ‘patient’ and the ‘impatient’. The patient group adheres to Deng Xiaoping’s approach of building cross-strait ties and trust, using both to integrate Taiwan over time slowly. The impatient group does not believe there is time for this slow integration, but a quick resolution, even if a military occupation is used, is necessary. These ideas have surged in popularity under the current regime. As Xi asserted during the initial years of his presidency, it is time the two sides reach a ‘final solution‘. Xi Jinping, during a meeting with the Taiwanese delegation at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia. (October, 2013) said “The issue of the political divide that exists between the two sides must step by step reach a final resolution and it cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”
The 180 km-wide Taiwan Strait is divided by a ‘Median Line’, which till the late 90s was the boundary line between the two countries. When Chinese forces grew in strength over their island neighbours, so did their confidence in crossing this line. Now, the 80 km line is far from the 22 km sovereign airspace, but the flagrant violation of previous understandings after increased power gave a glimpse of Chinese views on this issue.
In April 2019, two PLAAF J-11s crossed the median line by 43
nautical miles and stayed there for an abnormally long 12 minutes. Usual
violations are accidental due to poor weather or pilot error, but this was the
most extended violation since the 1950s. Observers suggest that the motive was provocative
rather than accidental. Since the Ministry of National Defence (MND) of Taiwan
violations of the
ADIZ in 2020, these instances have kept increasing;
peaking on specific occasions like National Days or the Huan Kuang exercise.
Beyond just political reasons, several legalities hinder Taiwan’s
international appeal against China’s provocations. The United States, which has
been a significant player in pushing for ADIZs, does not recognise Taiwan’s
ADIZ. Moreover, Taiwan has been excluded from the ICAO since the 70s, when China was given its spot. Effectively this makes
them a single country for the ICAO. Hampered by these liabilities, supported by
a weakened US in the region and a rising rival to the East, Taiwan
can only try to keep up and
maintain vigil over its security.
reunification with mainland China is a central aspect of Xi Jinping’s future
vision of China. With a declining American influence, the fate of Taiwan looks
increasingly precarious. Not just limited to economic and diplomatic pressure,
China is using its military strength aggressively.
China has ambitions in the South China Sea and regards Taiwan as a pivotal link to its growing power range. Taiwan is a symbol of American presence in China’s periphery, and the increasing rivalry between the global giants is a cause of concern for the small island nation. Taiwan is at a critical junction, a confluence point for two powers, and a hotspot for conflicts. It is an uneasy status quo, and renewed strategic recourses are the need of the hour. Temporary measures like observer status in the ICAO for Taiwan (similar to its presence in WHO until recently) and discussions regarding regulations of ADIZ could be some steps in a direction towards greater peace.
The Blog was written under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Mirza Zulfiqur Rahman,Independent Researcher and Consultant (International Relations, Transboundary Rivers and Borders) and Visiting Faculty (Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Guwahati). The views expressed here are those of the author(s), and not necessarily of the mentor or the Institute of Chinese Studies.
Hemant Adlakha, Vice Chairperson, ICS and Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Myths are an essential part of all forms of human narrative. Myth-making, likewise, is central to all academic disciplines. Diplomacy or foreign policy as a field of study is no exception. Even more significantly, both construction of myth as well as sometimes relying upon myth for making policy choices are treated as normal professional habits. Is it any wonder therefore diplomacy has been called “a kind of art of the impossible?” We don’t know if the Chinese are genuinely unique in myth-making in the practice of diplomacy. But what is certain is that more than any other society China is known to be a storehouse of mythologies, traditions, dragon-fantasies, and mysteries. Likewise, Chinese diplomacy too is shrouded in mystery and remains an enigma. More often than not, the Chinese do things that are completely at odds with the rest of the world. China’s Covid-19 combat strategy of “Zero virus” versus the global “living with coronavirus” policy is just one latest example.
In a recent post, the pre-eminent foreign policy
expert and Harvard Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. has tried to elucidate why
President Xi Jinping – as against the whole world’s expectations – won’t
mediate an end to the Ukraine war. Nye offers three reasons why Xi has chosen to do so: domestic
political vulnerabilities, lack of courage and imagination to do “Teddy
Roosevelt Moment” and go on to win a Nobel Peace Prize, and third and most
important is to prefer to stay on the side-lines and continue to hold on to the
belief of “no limits” in his relationship with “dear friend” Putin.
China having a good war in Ukraine?
Contrast Nye’s prognosis with two other views. One by a Beijing-based veteran international relations observer, who recently stated in his column that Xi knows “there are limits and those limits have, in fact, been reached.” The other view is at variance with both Nye and the Beijing-based foreign expert. It claims China is in no doubt that the US-led NATO aims at regime change in Russia and that the US/NATO are fighting the war against Russia as part of the US National Security Strategy 2018 which openly declared “US military objectives were to wage ‘great power conflict’ with countries like Russia and China.” Hence, Xi is not at all interested in withdrawing support to Moscow. The three contrasting views above have lead us to ask: are the Chinese really good at myth making? Or as the Chinese say, why is it the West always gets it wrong about us?
In the current world crisis situation caused due to
the Russian invasion of Ukraine, everyone in Washington and Berlin and Paris is
wondering why is China risking its global trade and international image by
refusing to give assurances that it will not “bail out” Russia as against the
Western sanctions? Why is China willing to get entangled with countries with
which it has a quarter of its total trade as compared to Russia with which it
has only 2.4% of its total trade? How credible is the view that with Russia as
an ally totally diminished, China is not having a good war?
It is quite telling how Beijing, in reply to the above questions, has responded by creating the following myths: first, by abstaining on the UNSC vote on condemning Russia for invading Ukraine, China has convincingly conveyed to the world that China is likely to stay on the side-line; the second big myth Beijing has been successfully spreading is that the real target of the US push behind the Russia-Ukraine war is Beijing, not Moscow; the third myth China has effectively woven exclusively targeting the European Union is Beijing’s serious concern that the European countries are threatening a harder-line stance towards China.
Additionally, the biggest of all myths the Chinese have created is the manner in which Beijing has successfully projected its “marriage of convenience” equation with Moscow as better than having a “security alliance” between two aspiring partners or allies. It is indeed remarkable how the US has been led to believe that, in spite of China and Russia being poles apart in their respective analyses of international politics, the two “bosom buddies” have been lumped together as threats to US national security. Look at how Shi Ze, who once served as China’s diplomat in Moscow, recently summed up the different worldviews of China and Russia: “China and Russia have different attitudes. Russia wants to break the current international order….Russia thinks it is the victim of the current international system, in which its economy and its society do not develop. But China benefits from the current international system. We want to improve and modify it, not to break it.”
Perhaps totally unaware of the Chinese art of myth-making, veteran international affairs observer and Le Monde war correspondent Michael T. Klare has called the Chinese leadership’s support to Russia as “faulty assessment.” “Historically speaking, the Chinese Communist Party leadership has been careful indeed to gauge the ‘correlation of forces’ when facing foreign adversaries. They provided considerable military assistance to the North Vietnam without being viewed by Washington as requiring counterattack. Similarly, on Taiwan they [Beijing] have so far avoided any direct move to seize it by force and risk a full-scale encounter with potentially superior US forces,” Klare opined.
Tzu-style strategic thinking
On the contrary, as the war in Ukraine enters 42nd day, and despite reports filtering in that Russia has decided to withdraw its assault on Kyiv, Beijing feels it is in a pretty comfortable position that the war has not yet ended. A Chinese economist has recently unravelled the Sun Tzu-style “secret” military thinking known to all those residing in Beijing’s Zhongnanhai or inside the “forbidden city.” In a signed article in ftchinese.com Professor Li Wei of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in the Chinese capital has revealed that a school of thought in Beijing believes, the raging war in Europe is just like the opportunity that followed the “9.11” terror strike in New York – the US devoted itself to combating Islamic terrorism and eased its pressure on China.
Finally, citing Hu Xueyan (1883-65), the only member of the merchant class who was decorated by the late Qing rulers for his business acumen, Professor Li Wei wrote: “The only thing you need to be a successful merchant is the vision. As in business, so in (military) strategy.” So what can China effectively do as the war in Ukraine rages on? One of the most intriguing questions since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been whether China knew of the invasion plan when China and Russia issue their joint statement on February 4? If true, it would mean Beijing indeed had been planning to act on a strategy inspired by Sun Tzu’s advice, also known to be the basic mind-set of the Chinese philosophy’s Yin-Yang concept – “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.” Or as Li Wei put it, to end years of the US-led “Trumpian” hostility towards China, the leadership in Beijing has now decided to act. Accordingly, instead of “waiting to hitchhike,” the mood in Beijing now is to take the initiative into its own hands. Much more on this in my next post.
One significant cause of Sri Lanka’s current economic crisis is a shortfall in its forex reserves. This has been compounded by staggering increase in Sri Lanka’s overall external debt burden amounting to around $45 billion of which it owes $8 billion to China alone. Many experts also suggest that China’s debt-trap policy has actively engineered Sri Lanka’s economic collapse. Therefore, it is pertinent to examine Chinese investments in Sri Lanka to gauge its impact. Colombo Port City Project (CPCP) which was inaugurated by the President Xi Jinping during his state visit to Sri Lanka in 2014, is the largest FDI project in Sri Lanka and thus warrants a careful examination.
CPCP is an ambitious real-estate project
with an initial investment of $1.4 billion and involves reclamation of 269
hectares of land near Colombo. This project is entirely financed and
implemented by China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) with the Sri Lankan
government being only responsible for providing all legal clearances and
utility services. CHEC promises to establish a world-class city
for entire South Asia by 2041 through creation of facilities for commercial
space, retail space, hospitality, residential area and social infrastructure.
Impact on Sri Lankan Economy
CPCP is crucial for boosting Sri
Lanka’s deteriorating economy. A report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC) estimates that this project will
create more than 3 lakh jobs for both locals and foreigners. However, the 2021 Colombo
port city economic commission act
provides that salaries of those employed in port city will be paid in foreign
currency. This may create an opportunity for China to promote the
internationalization of RMB. Secondly, the amended 2021 act provides for 75%
reservation of jobs for locals, but
lack of skills among them can be a big concern. CPCP will bring about $8.7
billion FDI during its construction stage and approximately $1 billion FDI
every year in its operational stage. The Sri Lankan government must maximize
benefits for locals. Also, returns on 70% of FDI proceeds are estimated to be realized
from the sale or leasing of property which may not generate much employment. Similarly,
investments in the form of debt will further add to Sri Lanka’s already acute
will also impact Sri Lanka’s Balance of Payments (BoP). CPCP will have a
negative impact on BoP during the construction stage due to imports of
construction materials and loan repayments. This loss is expected to be offset
in the operational stage through tourism, logistics, IT and financial services,
etc. and generate $6 billion of positive
BoP. Lastly, this project will also cause a
rise in Sri Lanka’s GDP and government revenue. However, this may not
materialize fully considering huge
tax concessions and other benefits
offered for CPCP.
Chinese companies are currently working on more than 50 infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka worth $11 billion. This is despite the fact that Chinese financial institutions charge heavy interest rates compared to the Western ones. Laxity in regulatory compliances imposed by Chinese institutions in contrast to other organizations might be one reason for their popularity. Similarly, China’s political support to Sri Lanka during allegations of human rights violations and corruption has also made China an attractive lender. China’s readiness for debt-equity swap such as in the case of Hambantota port puts China ahead of other global institutions. However, such lenient lending brings other disadvantages with it. The CPCP Concessionary agreement between CHEC and Sri Lankan government has promised 108 hectares of marketable land to China out of which 20 hectares will be given on free lease for indefinite period and 88 hectares will be given on lease for 99 years with a hold period of 35 years, effectively making it 134 years. This is similar to what Britain did with Hong Kong which China had opposed earlier. Also, Sri Lanka’s recent decision to temporarily default on its external debt may provide another opportunity for China to gain more stakes in CPCP. As the entire funding for this project is borne by a Chinese company, it will get priority in monetizing their projects over the Sri Lankan government. CPCP master plan has allocated the highest proportion of land to residential space which will be affordable mainly to high-net worth Sri Lankans and foreigners. This might deprive Sri Lankans from occupying these spaces and ultimately turn it into a foreign settlement. Moreover, if instability continues in Sri Lanka for long, there is a fear that this project might end up becoming a ‘ghost city’ due to lack of further investments.
has a great potential to transform Sri Lanka’s economy in the next few years.
However, Sri Lanka has to reassess the cost at which this development has been
taking place. Environmental issues have become more serious globally and hence,
must not be neglected. On the other hand, Sri Lanka cannot afford to allow any
foreign country to increase its foothold through such investments. Although
there have been some false narratives regarding Chinese presence in Sri Lanka
like the fake
passport case, concerns behind such
narratives cannot be dismissed. Considering Sri Lanka’s strategic position in
the Indian Ocean, China may resort to military use of this space in future
which may affect India’s position in this region.
Hence, Sri Lanka must be careful about the long-term impact of such Chinese investments and restrict them turning into strategic gains for China. Sri Lanka’s recent efforts to seek help from IMF is a welcome step in that direction. With regards to CPCP, Sri Lanka has the advantage of a long gestation period during which it can make adequate arrangements to ensure that this project becomes a commercial success without affecting its own interests as well as its economy optimally benefits out of it.
The Blog was written under the guidance and supervision of Santosh Pai, Honorary Fellow, ICS. The views expressed here are those of the author(s), and not necessarily of the mentor or the Institute of Chinese Studies.
his perch at Zhongguancun, Beijing’s Silicon Valley, Kai-Fu Lee, the author of AI
Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order, delves into
various nuances to explore the development of artificial intelligence (AI) prowess
of Google’s AlphaGo that also showcases the versatility of the intuitive pattern recognition technology
which smoothly segues into the incoming AI wave. The Chinese government is not
far behind in taking the helm of all AI affairs. It has launched various
ambitious programs also on “clear benchmarks for progress” for AI development.
This response, in part, has been triggered by the swift acceleration of
real-world AI applications
in areas such as speech recognition, vaccine development, and applied natural
language processing, which has rendered the book’s subject matter immensely consequential.
wealth of information originates from his research conducted under the guidance
of AI maverick Raj Reddy, to whom he has dedicated this book. In the 1980s, Lee
programmed the first AI gaming software to defeat a member of a world
championship team (Othello, a simplified version of Go) and Sphinx, the very
first speaker-independent program. He illustrates how modern advanced AI systems
are powered by deep learning that has “turbocharged the cognitive capabilities
of machines”. The author
further elucidates that AI winters commenced due to a lack of data that
inadvertently resulted in reduced funding. However, technological advancements
have solved the problem of paucity of data to a large extent.
Evolution at a Glance
author delves deeper into the evolution of two AI
approaches, i.e., the “rule-based” approach that focused on the encoding of
logical steps and the “neural networks” approach that emphasised the construction
of “layers of artificial neurons that can receive and transmit information in a
structure akin” to humans’ neural networks. Lee also aims to dispel rumours
regarding the prodigious development of AI in the recent decades; instead, the
author highlights the innovative application of decades worth of research that focuses
on the buttressing of learning and transfer learning that comprises and have
been instrumental in constructing the current misguided AI perceptions.
Robert Mercer’s phrase that “there’s no data like more data”, the book emphasises
the treatment of data that fuels AI. Mercer has formerly worked as an IBM
language recognition specialist and later, the Co-CEO of Renaissance
Technologies, a quantitative hedge fund firm. Notably, this emphasis on data in
the book was exemplified by the author focusing on data’s role in pattern
recognition and outcome optimisation through “narrow AI” powered by data.
book has eight succinct chapters, organised into distinct themes that are the
culmination of Lee leveraging his extensive AI background to secure the
opportunity to establish Sinovation Ventures and invest in multiple companies
in China. The first part is on the evolution of AI development in China. The
second is the differences in AI development approaches in the US and China,
from a private market and governmental perspective. The third section assesses
the gradual development progression of AI or “AI waves”. The last portion of
the book contends with integrating AI and humans to empower humanity. Lee shows
prescience regarding AI development in China. For instance, Baidu has been
making great strides in its AI ventures since the book was published, such as
its LinearFold AI algorithm, Apollo Go Robotaxi service, ERNIE-GEN, Paddle
Quantum, and Quantum Leaf.
Development Practices in US and China
author’s personal experience shed light on the cultural affinities, the
socio-economic atmosphere, academic norms, and government regulations
propelling Chinese AI development, particularly in his aptly named “Copycats in
the Coliseum” chapter. He differentiates between the American
and Chinese practices that mean a world of difference in incubating future
“AI giant”. These additional and ingeniously developments showcase the
remarkable commitment and advancements in AI research that are ready to stand
shoulder to shoulder with US AI research efforts.
attempts to dispel the myth that China is still stuck in its “pixel-for-pixel”
copying phrase and states that “pure copycats never made for great companies”. As
stated by Lee, the reality is more complex, and Chinese companies have begun to
move beyond mere copying. They have had to innovate in a highly competitive
environment at a face pace, led by “gladiator entrepreneurs” who are
intricately involved in innovation and reiteration.
one of the most important discussions is the technological culture difference
between China and the US. Silicon Valley, to Lee being “downright sluggish” compared
to its Chinese counterpart. Paradoxically, to stay in the AI race, constant
innovation to achieve every product iteration necessitates a culture of continuous
copying in China. Additionally, Lee also points out the strategies employed by
giants in gaining their market share and how these strategies could outperform
companies in the AI race. However, many such strategies and tactics are anathemas,
especially in the US.
the book provides a comprehensive understanding and helpful overview of the existing
realities of China’s AI research. The author has attempted to prescribe ways to
deploy AI more effectively in the future deftly. The book’s last section gives
the reader the factual assessment of the “AI race” brewing between the US and
China. The book was woven together by anecdotes from Lee’s time as a venture capitalist
and by his invaluable experiences as part of various companies such as Apple,
Microsoft, Google and Silicon Graphics International during the course of his
career. Therefore, Lee has been able to render a more vivid picture of the AI landscape
in China and the US.
book attempts to provide a balanced evaluation of the incremental gains made by
companies in AI both in China and in the US, along with the global
repercussions of their consequent “game-changing AI products”. Moreover, all
the chapters display a firm grip over identifying the key drivers of AI
development and investment. However, there is a greater focus on the personal
trials and tribulations of the author that drives the focus away from the
larger analytical framework focused on the topics of AI. While informative, the
book’s limitation surfaces in its absence of inclusion of an in-depth analysis
of the US government’s AI policy implementations. Likewise, the author does not
care to discuss some of the significant AI hubs of China in provincial cities
such as Chongqing, Chengdu, and Guiyang, some of the regional towns.
the work is highly pertinent, and such niche themes have seldom been explored
realistically. He suggests that AI-powered technologies could harness universal
basic incomes by incentivizing “socially beneficially activities”. The book’s strength lies in its unique
exploration of China’s “data-scape” in granular detail. It lays the foundations
for further scholarship on the topic, which are pivotal as humanity is marching
towards what Lee describes as “the quantification of the human thinking
process, the explication of human behavior”, a subject that becomes more
relevant by each passing day.
The relationship between People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) remains the most enduring brothers- in arms relationship which was forged during the Korean War in 1950 and solidified with the signing of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance in 1961. During the heydays of the cold war both Chinese and North Korean leaders described their relationship as‘lip and teeth’ on the account of shared mutual interests and common ideology.
With the end of the cold war era in 1990s, three differences emerged between the two allies. First, China wanted North Korea to open up its economy but North Korea was reluctant to adopt such measures fearing regime collapse. Second, sticky issue was Beijing’s growing relations with South Korea which made Pyongyang uneasy. The third issue was the Beijing’s concern about North Korean nuclear Programme. Despite numerous differences between the two, it had been observed that Beijing has endeavored to maintain its traditional ties with DPRK as North Korea serves as a buffer state for China as well as PRC is desirous of maintaining stability in the Korean peninsula.
STRATEGY TOWARDS NORTH KOREA UNDER XI JINGPING
REPAIRING THE TROUBLED RELATIONSHIP (2018-2022) Beijing’s approach of supporting international sanctions meant to convey the message to Pyongyang that undermining China’s interest would not be tolerated and will have its consequences and push North Korea to choose the path of diplomacy. However, when North Korea shifted its approach from confrontation to diplomacy towards United States in 2018, Beijing was concerned that Pyongyang was drifting away from China as well as its influence on Pyongyang was on decline and it appeared that its interests were threatened.
In an effort to reassert its influence in the changing
Korean peninsula dynamics that was fast evolving, Beijing doubled down on its
efforts to patch up things with Pyongyang. China hurriedly organized the first Kim- Xi Summit on April 14, 2018, ahead of inter- Korean and the US-DPRK Summit. The
two leaders met four times over the span of one year. The last meeting was held
in June 2019, during President Xi’s first state visit to North Korea. The last
Chinese leader to visit Pyongyang was Hu Jintao in 2005. President Xi’s visit
to North Korea was significant as it came following the failure of the second
Summit between Kim and Trump in February 2019.
Since, the diplomatic rapprochement in 2018, Beijing once again began assuming the big
brother role and started investing further in restoring its alliance with
Pyongyang. On the occasion of celebrating the 60th anniversary of
the alliance in July 2021, the two countries renewed the Treaty for another 20
years as they had done before in 1981 and 2001. The growing diplomatic
rapprochement between the two countries have also given impetus to restore the
traditional party to party ties and furthermore, Beijing promised its support to the Korean Workers
Party on its pursuit to a socialist economy. Since, 2018 China has been voicing its support for
North Korea in the UN and argued for relaxing sanctions. For instance: Recently, China stepped up to cover North
Korea in the UN by blocking the US bid to impose sanctions for its testing of cruise and hypersonic missiles in
In conclusion, it can be inferred that under Xi Jingping China is desirous of enlarging its area of influence in the whole of North East Asian region with an increase in the Sino-US strategic power rivalry. Although China is much wary about North Korea’s nuclearization, but within the given context of growing Sino-US strategic rivalry China might have another calculation towards North Korea’s nuclear program as it would require a nuclear North Korea to restraint the growing US military presence in the Korean peninsula. Therefore, under Xi Jingping’s leadership China has been making efforts to achieve stability in the Korean peninsula by increasing its area of influence over the peninsula as it is geostrategically an outpost for consolidating power in the whole of North East Asian region. However, In near future, it is yet to be observed that whether Beijing’s blossoming relationship with Pyongyang with utmost patience and grudging tolerance for its nuclear programs will still continue if DPRK’S expanding missile programs begins to affect China’s regional and strategic interests in the region.
The Blog was written under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Priyanka Pandit, Ashoka-HYI Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of International Relations and Governance Studies Shiv Nadar University, India. The views expressed here are those of the author(s), and not necessarily of the mentor or the Institute of Chinese Studies.
Hemant Adlakha, Vice Chairperson, ICS and Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Premiered at New York’s Tribeca Film Festival last June, where it won Best Documentary Feature, the American indie documentary Ascension (登楼叹 Dēnglóu tàn) was released in cinemas and on MTV this year on January 14. A surprise contender for the best Oscar documentary this year, the film explores the serious theme of class and labour in today’s China. Losing out to the likes of Questlove’s Summer of Soul for the best Academy Award documentary prize did not disappoint its Chinese-American director Jessica Kingdon, who was herself surprised to see the film in contention for the coveted award. “This isn’t the kind of film that would go to the Oscars or something,” she said in an interview recently.
the film is already on an award winning spree. Besides Tribeca best documentary
feature award, it has won a 98% “fresh rating” on the prestigious and the
world’s leading aggregator of movie and TV show reviews from critics – Rotten
Tomatoes. Moreover, Ascension has been getting rave reviews from film
critics across the globe. In London, the Financial Times film critic
wrote: “Ascension – eye-popping portrait of China’s production and
consumption.” Patrick McDonald of HollywoodChicago.com observed:
“A fresh view of modern China, stripping away the mystery of their culture in
an effort to survive. Jessica Kingdon creates a work of art & cinema that
defines Chinese dreams.” In India, the online newspaper firstpost.com applauded:
“The meaning of the word ‘Orwellian’ may be overused and overstretched
nowadays, but it’s really the most fitting descriptor for Jessica Kingdon’s
absurdist portrait of contemporary China as the world’s factory.”
critics described the film as politically charged and ascribed its observant
director as declaring socialist China’s “descent into capitalist excess” as
bizarre. To some other critics, the debutant director’s docu feature powerfully
shows the sharpening of the contradiction between class and labour in
reform-era China. In her own words, Kingdon was quite candid in admitting that
before arriving in China in 2019 to shoot her film, she wasn’t aware how much
“the world’s factory” had transformed into a highly consumerist society. After
the completion of the film which took Kingdon and her film crew to more than
fifty locations across China, the New York born filmmaker couldn’t hide her
surprise discovery about China and said: “China is definitely a kind of mirror
as third or fourth generation Chinese born and brought up overseas, Kingdon had
very little or no connection with her roots as she grew up. However, she chose
the title of her movie from a poem written in the first year of Republican
China in 1912 by her great-grandfather. Zheng Zi, her great-grandfather was a
poet of established reputation in Hunan – the central Chinese province which
was also the birthplace of Mao Zedong. Kingdon’s grandparents had migrated to
America in 1949 following the defeat of the Kuomintang in China’s Civil War. On
being asked why she chose China as the subject for her debut movie, Kingdon was
a bit nostalgic in her reply:
“Filming in China was partly a way to untangle my relationship with the country
of my roots. At the same time, I had this fascination and curiosity about my
cultural heritage…moreover, everyone [in the US] was talking about China as
this new global superpower.”
movie – according to the introductory brochure – is observational and
essayistic and is an attempt to examine three things in “capitalist” China,
i.e. the factory, the worker and the wealthy. In Kingdon’s own words, the aim
of Ascension is to draw – and not influence – the viewers’ attention to
the universal aspects of industrial creation and consumption, and pose
questions about who benefits from these industrial enterprises. That is the reason
why we decided to keep the movie free of dialogue, narrative or a narrator, Kingdon emphasized. She further
contended, “In any nation, be it America or elsewhere, the benefits are rarely
apparent at the bottom of the chain.” This explains why a critic
declared that the film “slyly observes China’s transition from the world’s
factory to a massive consumer society.”
Kingdon claims Ascension is less about focusing on labour disputes and
is more about exploring the allure of the “Chinese dream” and the faith people
are willing to place in it. Yet, perhaps unintentionally, thanks to the film’s
spectacular images it does effectively come across to viewers as “a wake-up
call” essentially conveying that not everyone is going to end up on top. “The
film isn’t saying that resistance to power doesn’t exist, but in this film, I
was just leaning into that quest for upward mobility,” the filmmaker told
an interviewer. Also, the film inadvertently reflects upon the generations of
Chinese struggling to figure out – trapped between contradictions of socialist ideals
and capitalist greed – how they matter to themselves and to the society
In its official description, Ascension is introduced as saying “The film ascends through the levels of the capitalist structure: the factory production, to aspirational consumers, and the elites revelling to a new level of hedonistic enjoyment.” True, the description may not be exclusive or specific to China. And additionally, though the film is not yet available on the Chinese internet or in theatres, the producers are hopeful Ascension will eventually reach Chinese audiences. As one private viewer in China reacted after watching the film: “Anyone intelligent would know after watching Ascension that ‘Chinese dream’ is the ‘dream’ the Chinese Communist Party ruled ‘socialism’ promises. In reality, there is no dream and there is no socialism.”Or as a film critic recently observed, “In traveling up the rungs of China’s social ladder, the filmmaker shows that the contemporary ‘Chinese Dream’ … ‘remains an elusive fantasy for most’.”
While the world has its gaze fixed on China, it stepped into a pivotal political year that is awaited by several economic challenges exacerbated due to the pandemic. On the last day of 2021, President Xi Jinping extended his best wishes to his fellow citizens and delivered the annual New Year address to the nation. During the televised speech, the Chinese President had sent a clear message to the international community that China is “ready” for the long and arduous journey ahead. The crux of the speech revolved around – glorification of the Communist Party of China’s (CCP) achievements in 2021, the elevation of the regime’s image as the best governing institution and Xi’s political objectives for the year, 2022. Another prime focus of Xi’s address was: urging citizens to maintain their “strategic focus” and mindfulness against “potential risks”, that could disrupt CCP’s mission to lead the way in China’s long march towards the great rejuvenation. Consequently, stressing the importance of resilience, courage and determination for the people of China as they look forward to the future.
the profound message behind the address reflects articulated camouflaging of the
economic and political fallouts
at home and abroad. Looking forward to 2022, Xi’s call for more rigorous
efforts to foster an economically robust, politically transparent and socially
peaceful environment came at the backdrop of the Party’s forthcoming 20th
Congress scheduled in autumn this year. The preceding year 2021, was a tough one
for China, as the world’s second-largest economy came under severe
international pressure due to a range of factors, including obfuscating
information on Covid-19 data, aggressive posturing on the South China Sea, and
the human-right abuses against Uighurs in Xingjian province.
Xi began his speech with his retrospective appreciation of “continual progress”
and contributions made by Chinese citizens and the Party in
achieving their first centenary goal of building China into a “moderately
prosperous” society during the historically axial year 2021.
While looking ahead into the future, he highlighted that as China “confidently”
strides toward “a new journey” of achieving its second centenary goal
of building a great modern socialist country in all respects, 2022 will be another crucial
year for the country. By drawing
attention towards the centenary celebration of the founding of the CPC, Xi recalled
the Party’s extraordinary achievements and contributions throughout the past
century in diminishing Chinese people’s “unyielding struggle”
against all challenges, be it the elimination of poverty or towards the
accomplishment of their extraordinary mission of Chinese rejuvenation. In the
televised address, Xi reminded his people to “always remain true to their original
aspiration”, thereby emphasizing
loyalty as integral to Party’s founding mission and interests. While conveying about
the adoption of the Party’s third resolution on historical issues at the sixth
plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee, Xi praised CPC’s 100-year achievements and
experience as a source of motivation and inspiration.
In this context, Xi also referred to the importance of Chairman Mao’s thoughts in
attaining the historical initiative. Therefore, it becomes evident that the
Chinese President’s New Year address is nothing but a commemoration before his
people about CCP’s centrality in Chinese polity. Also, the President in his address
attempted to bolster the regime’s image as the quintessential modus-operandi
for China’s socio-economic advancement. The speech can further be interpreted
as Xi’s attempt to elevate his image and stature in the Party’s history in
order to fulfil his intention to ensure his position as party chief for a third
term. Hence, in Consequence, establishing himself as the uncontested ‘core’
leader of the People’s Republic of China. It is to be noted that Xi has always
relied on Party’s performance legitimacy as his preferred tool to strengthen
and maintain his monopoly over national power, dismantle domestic dissent of
any kind and to consolidate mass support.
Chinese President also didn’t miss the chance to be in the spotlight while expressing
his plaudits for Chinese contribution in vaccine diplomacy and material
assistance across the globe at the pandemic outbreak, contrary to the developed
democracy’s struggle to meet their respective national demands. Aggrandizement
of the Communist regime’s efficiency is handling the Pandemic crisis, reflected
Xi’s motive to instil a sense
of admiration for the Chinese way of global leadership
among the developing countries. Also, the New Year address flagged Xi’s
apprehension over a forthcoming complicated geopolitical environment in the
commencing year, particularly concerning Taiwan’s reunification with the
mainland and stability in the former
British colony of Hong Kong and the former Portuguese-run enclave of Macau.
Declaration on establishment and implementation of “One Country, Two Systems in the long
run” through concerted efforts came amidst
a severely deteriorating US-China relation alongside growing international
backlashes and pressure
from the US and European Union.
To decode the subtle message, underlining a delicate tone of inspiring his
people to defend, fight for and promote global peace and prosperity, upholds a
firm and uncompromising diplomatic posture on behalf of the country’s President
in his attempt to manage and resolve issues, perceived by Beijing as
encroaching on its core national interests. The regime’s intent to enforce its
political will embodying CCP’s contemporary expression of ‘socialism with
Chinese characteristics’ within its neighbourhood is clear from its
expansionism in the region.
To sum up, Xi, in a very colloquial and relatable fashion, intended to demonstrate to China and the World that the Chinese model of socialism is not just delivering desired results but is also flourishing. On the surface, the enthusiastic address directed towards 1.4 billion national audiences resonated a personal one-to-one conversational appeal towards individual efforts for the overall upliftment of China’s global stature. However, underlying this optimism, is an instructive parameter of the communitarian regime for law-abiding Chinese citizens. The apparent portrayal of self as an archetype of a compassionate, charismatic mass-leader – through the application of simple yet catching phrases like “amicable, respectable” and “dream chasers” to address Chinese people, conveyed about the Chinese President’s attempt to uphold his image and political legitimacy at home and abroad. His description of 2022 as a pivotal year for the country by looking backward at Chinese achievements in the preceding year and looking forward as the Chinese together embarks on a new journey to transform their country into a significant global power sets the prime tone for Xi’s vision for Chinese polity in the coming time. Whereas, if Xi continues to stay in office beyond the anticipated decade, which is a high possibility, the international community, particularly its neighbouring contemporaries, must be prepared to face an even more outward-looking, proactive, and assertive China in the global platform. Beijing’s willingness to flex its muscle regarding what it considers defence and procurement of its core national interest in the contested Indo-Pacific and other territorial disputes is more likely than recognized. Xi’s telling phrase that everyone has seen and experienced a resilient and dynamic China further exemplifies contemporary China’s strategic posture in international affairs. Moreover, the two adjectives, “resilient” and “dynamic”, illustrates China’s preparedness for facing future challenges and the country’s zeal to bounce back against them. Henceforth, the upbeat address driven by political and economic exigencies at home and abroad is a clear indication of a further shift towards aggressive diversionary foreign policy approach to reinforce national sentiments and demonstrate competence against alternative administrations, only to retain political power of the party leaderships and thus, continuance of the Party’s legitimacy and authority across the motherland.
The Blog was written under the guidance and supervision of Dr. Priyanka Pandit, Ashoka-HYI Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of International Relations and Governance Studies Shiv Nadar University, India. The views expressed here are those of the author(s), and not necessarily of the mentor or the Institute of Chinese Studies.
Hemant Adlakha, Vice Chairperson, ICS and Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Very few Beijingers are aware that most Western embassies in the capital’s “Embassy Alley” have put up Ukrainian solidarity signs near their entrances. No, not because the area is “no entry zone” for everyday strollers, but because as they say, the area is “far from the madding crowd.” Yet the Ukraine war has attracted the country’s netizens and citizens’ so much attention that a Beijing-based foreign commentator says “a rupture has taken place.” Furthermore, a leading Chinese newspaper has even equated the unprecedented “rupture” with as if China is participating in the war.
To believe what most foreign affairs experts in China tell us, Chinese people usually do not pay attention to international news, or for that matter to world events unless of course China is directly involved. However, the degree and the passion with which a large number of Chinese have come out to express their views and opinion, even take sides, has surprised one and all. Part of the reason why the Russia-Ukraine war has opened up “a new battlefield” of public opinion in China is Beijing’s pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia friendly image in the Chinese media in recent years. Thanks largely to wide media coverage as recently as January this year when Xi-Zelensky pictures were flashed in various media in China as the two presidents exchanged congratulatory messages celebrating thirty years of diplomatic ties between Beijing and Kyiv.
A more significant factor why most Chinese do not see Ukraine as a country far away is, Ukraine is the hub of the Belt and Road Initiative, or “One Belt, One Road” strategy – interestingly, in the Chinese media the BRI is generally referred to as Yidai yilu, or OBOR. Many Chinese see OBOR, President Xi’s favourite and China’s important infrastructure and overseas investment project, as a major casualty of the Ukrainian war. According to Professor Wang Yiliang of Shanghai’s prestigious Fudan University, “Europe is a crucial market for China’s ‘Belt and Road’ land projects. China’s “Belt and Road” land projects may either face “blockade” or “OBOR” connectivity in the region may become increasingly dependent on Russian “protection. Therefore, the war between Russia and Ukraine has made Beijing’s decisions to be cautious.”
A far more important or perhaps equally controversial reason which is creating near vertical split between China’s pro-Ukraine/pro-Russia public opinion is the absence of a clear “party line” on the situation from above. As Tom Clifford, a seasoned foreign affairs analyst who has been living and writing from Beijing for long, has observed recently: “China’s wait-and-see-inaction seems sclerotic. Chinese officials have sent out confusing and frankly incoherent statements. They stress, parrot like, the importance of territorial integrity but blame the US for the crisis.” As a result of the Chinese leaderships’ sclerosis, the country’s all powerful censorship agencies too seemed clueless and floundered on the issue.
At another level, a huge controversy was created when a blogger on China’s largest social media platform, Weibo – China’s equivalent to Twitter etc., labelled those pro-Ukraine as “rightists” with a similar view as the position taken by the Western media and most liberal democracies; while calling all those who support Russia in the ongoing war as “leftists” with no independent thinking of their own. Reacting angrily to the blogger’s “bogus” claim, Zhang Zhikun, a veteran and widely influential current affairs analyst wrote thus: “The debate caused by the ongoing war in Ukraine refuses to stop. Unlike at the beginning of the war, the debate is now no more about the war itself but has been extended into investigating the ideological roots of those taking part in it. This also explains why the debate is acquiring a high degree of polarization.”
A no less pertinent dimension of the growing sharp divide in China over the Russian invasion in Ukraine is the shocking degree of cynical hype as manifested among China’s hardened “left” (aka orthodox leftists). In a signed commentary, a Mao-faction ultra-left scholar, Wen Anjun, has named and accused several leading intellectuals from China’s topmost universities of parroting “western speak.” Anjun blames them for condemning Russia but not speaking a word of criticism against the US and Nato. To Wen Anjun and others of his ilk, what is most worrying about the people mentioned above is their worldview, their view of the US, and above all their perception of the CPC-led China. “Once China’s re-unification war [with Taiwan] is launched in the future, all these people may endanger China by siding with the US and Taiwan independence,” wrote Wen Anjun.
It is indeed true that the Ukraine war has shocked the world, aroused strong reactions in all corners of the world, and led to fierce debates. But it is also true that the degree of polarization in public opinion in China has not been witnessed in most countries. In addition to what is highlighted above, other bizarre public reactions to the ongoing war include a section of Chinese netizens unashamedly displaying misogynist attitudes by writing blogs with a flurry of tone-deaf jokes. What outraged many within China and abroad was surfacing of ham-handed humour such as calls for “willing to shelter 18- to 24-year-old Ukrainian beauties.” On the other hand, some Chinese observers sounded alarm bells, warning that China’s “filthy wealthy” rich – such as “comprador capitalists” Jack Ma, Pony Ma and others – along with all those who are backing Ukraine are all anti-China, anti-Chinese motherland, and anti-CPC.
Finally, no one in China denies, just like no one in the world is in doubt, as far as China is concerned the Russia-Ukraine war is not a good war. It is understandable the Chinese leadership must have been regretting now what it said during Xi-Putin summit on February 4 in Beijing: “China’s Russia friendship has no limits.” But given the country’s political system and the political culture, not at all surprising that no one in the leadership will openly admit “of being caught wrong-footed by a world that is rapidly changing.”
The views expressed here are those of the author(s), and not necessarily of the Institute of Chinese Studies.
Rangoli Mitra, Research Assistant, Institute of Chinese Studies
The significance of Maldives, one of the most geographically
dispersed countries in the world, is steadily increasing. The island nation,
which comprises 26 atolls spread over 90,000 square kilometers, is located in a
central position in the Indian Ocean, southwest of Sri Lanka, and straddles
important sea lines of communication. Until recently, Maldives was mostly known
for its pristine beaches and luxury resorts, and regarded as a vacation
destination for the rich and famous. However, in recent years, the strategic
salience of the small island nation has not been lost on anyone – particularly
India and China.
While India has always regarded Maldives as an important player
in the Indian Ocean and accorded it the necessary priority, Beijing has in
recent years stepped up engagement with Maldives as well, signaling its intent
and priorities in the Indian Ocean as a part of its 21st Century Maritime Silk
Road Initiative, the maritime half of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
A Look at the Historical India-Maldives Relationship
Maldives, which is barely 70 nautical miles away from Minicoy island in India’s Lakshadweep
archipelago and 300 nautical miles away from India’s west coast, has
traditionally been India’s friend. However, the nature of this relationship
remains dynamic and complex due to factors such as competing domestic rivalries
in Maldivian politics and the importance of foreign policy for the general
public because of the nation’s geostrategic location.
India was not only one
of the first countries to recognize Maldives after its independence in 1965 but
also the first country to open a resident mission in Malé. For its part, Maldives opened a full-fledged High Commission in New
Delhi in November 2004, at that time one of only four diplomatic missions
worldwide. While the relationship began deepening with increasing economic and
diplomatic engagements, the crucial turning point came in 1988, when India
responded to a coup attempt against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom by
launching Operation Cactus. Although it has been widely noted that Gayoom
contacted other countries for help at first, it was finally India who came to
his government’s rescue. While Gayoom maintained friendly relations with India,
he also veered toward China, a rising power in the Indian Ocean.
held in 2008 brought Mohamed Nasheed to power in Maldives. Nasheed had a clear
pro-India stance. In 2009, Maldives and India signed a defense cooperation
agreement, according to which India would install 26 radars on all the atolls
for seamless coverage and link them with the Indian coastal command, and
the Indian Navy and the Maldives National Defense
Force (MNDF) would
carry out joint surveillance and patrolling activities. New Delhi also agreed
to provide Maldives with a Dhruv helicopter and help establish a 25-bed
military hospital in the island chain, among other agreed-upon cooperative
mechanisms. This brought Maldives into the Indian security grid. Events such as
the 2004 tsunami and the drinking water crisis in Maldives in 2014, which led to
swift and positive responses from India, further helped to cement New Delhi’s
position as the net security provider and first responder in the Indian Ocean
India and Maldives soured during Mohammed Waheed Hassan and Abdulla Yameen’s
time in power, as both leaders favored Beijing. But even then, the decline
should not be overstated. Although Yameen had an anti-India stance while
campaigning for elections, once in power, he softened his rhetoric on India and
paid a visit to the country. During his visit, the Indo-Maldivian Action Plan
for defense was signed and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi minced no words when he asserted that Maldives is among
India’s closest partners.
Initiatives such as
the Greater Malé Connectivity project, the training of Maldivian civil servants
in India, cargo vessel services, the capacity building and training of the
MNDF, and infrastructure projects such as the Gulhifalhu Port Project and the
Hulhumalé cricket stadium, are among the plethora of projects being undertaken
by India in Maldives.
The engagement between
the two countries is based on India’s “Neighborhood First” and Maldives’ “India
First” policy. Particularly, in the sphere of defense, the two nations have an
extremely close relationship based on the understanding of the need to protect
the IOR from both conventional and non-conventional threats. The two nations
routinely hold joint exercises such as “Ekuverin” and “Dosti” (the latter of
which was later joined by Sri Lanka).
In 2020, India
supplied a Dornier maritime surveillance aircraft to the MNDF, which is
expected to boost efforts to keep a closer eye on the movement of Chinese
vessels in regional waters. One of the main functions of this aircraft is to
undertake medical evacuations from isolated communities on some 200
inhabited islands. It will also assist in search and rescue and
counterterrorism operations, as well as surveilling and responding to illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing. Interestingly, the need for the Dornier
aircraft was initially raised by the Yameen government.
For India, the Indian
Ocean is of utmost importance. Since 2014, after the Modi government came to
power, India has taken a proactive approach in cementing its role as the leader
in the Indian Ocean by according priority to maritime diplomacy and
initiatives. This comes against the backdrop of rising Chinese assertiveness in
the IOR and the growing interest of various powers in the Indian Ocean
generally, and Maldives in particular.
Chinese Influence in
bilateral relations with the Maldives in 1972. Since then, the Chinese have
gradually increased investments in Maldives and maintained a cordial
relationship with the different Maldivian governments. From 1985, Chinese companies began entering the project-contracting
business in the Maldives. By the end of 2001, the accumulated value of their
contracted projects was $46.37 million, with turnover touching $40 million.
The turning point in
Sino-Maldivian relationship came in 2013 after Abdulla Yameen came to power.
Coincidentally, this was also the year in which Xi Jinping became the Chinese
president and launched the ambitious BRI a few months later. The next year, Xi
visited Maldives and exhorted the country to join the Maritime Silk Road.
Maldives thus became the second South Asian nation, after Sri Lanka, to
formally endorse the BRI. Subsequently, the two nations inked a free trade
have constantly encouraged Chinese citizens and businesses alike to visit and
invest in the Maldives. The Chinese have undertaken a range of projects such as
the construction of roads and housing units, the expansion of the main
international airport, the development of a power station, and the construction
of a bridge to connect Malé with Hulhule, among other investments in tourism
and agriculture. China is also the leading source of tourists to Maldives.
Under the Yameen
government, Maldives has accumulated a debt of nearly $3.1 billion,
according to former President Nasheed. However, other Maldivian officials have
placed it at a lower figure, somewhere between $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion, which is nonetheless still a large amount for a country with a
GDP of $4 billion.
In 2018, there were reports
that the Chinese were planning to build a Joint Ocean Observation Station in
Makunudhoo in northwestern Maldives. However, this plan was later shelved. At
various points in time, there have been speculations about a possible Chinese
naval base in Maldives. However, much to India’s relief, these have remained
speculative. Until now, the Chinese navy has visited the Maldives only twice.
Since Ibrahim Mohamed
Solih came to power in 2018 after defeating Yameen in that year’s presidential
election, India has been prioritized over China, with the present
administration going back on certain commitments to the Chinese.
India or China?
The tussle between
India and China over Maldives is starkly clear. While India has consistently
favored Maldives, the latter’s behavior has changed depending on which regime
is in power. However, one thing is clear: Maldives cannot ignore India due its
geographical proximity and multidimensional relationship, which is now set in
location of Maldives in the Indian Ocean and its proximity to Diego Garcia has
meant that the United States, one of the strongest powers in the Indian Ocean,
has also come to recognize the strategic value of Maldives. In 2020, the U.S.
and Maldives signed a defense agreement, the first that Malé has signed with any country besides India. Due
to the closeness between India and the U.S., India welcomed this agreement.
Maldives also shares a close relationship with Japan and has welcomed
developments related to the Quad.
But just as
India-Maldives relations were not all bad under Yameen, not all is well today.
In recent months, the “India Out” campaign led by former President Yameen has
gained steam. The debate is ostensibly over an Indian-funded dockyard for the
Maldivian coast guard, but the larger concern is regarding the sovereignty of
the island nation. It is essential to note that the Indo-Maldivian relationship
is based on mutual respect and the primary function of the Indian personnel
stationed in Maldives is to maintain and operate the aircraft.
Thus, the politics of
Maldives decides its foreign policy, which ultimately reflects the direction
toward which the nation will tilt. The presidential elections next year will
again decide who will be in favor, but in the long run India and Maldives share
a special bond, one that cannot be bought by China. Regardless of whatever
happens, India should continue to take a proactive stance toward Maldives and
help the nation deal with threats such as climate change and terrorism.
This article was previously
published in The Diplomat under the same title.
Priyanka Keshry, Research Scholar, Jawaharlala Nehru University
(1881–1936), one of China’s most influential twentieth-century writers, has
long been a source of contention. Despite the fact that Lu Xun died over 90
years ago, there is still a dispute concerning the significance of his works in
modern China. Some believe Lu Xun remains important today, while others believe
he is too political to talk now. One of the key reasons for examining his work
now is because he stated his opinions on nearly every facet of Chinese culture,
and he differed on a range of cultural, social, and political topics that
appear to be more significant than ever. As a consequence of multiple
interpretations of his works and political use of them, his works and character
have been twisted and transformed several times. Currently, each Chinese
individual has their own vision of Lu Xun, which differs from one another.
Here, I’ll try to expand on some of the “dissenting voices” in his writings,
relate them to current China, and, to some extent, try to figure out what he
would say if he were still living today.
Lun Xun (1881-1936) was the nom de
plume of one of the most celebrated modern Chinese author, poet, essayist and
critic – 周树人 Zhōushùrén or Zhou Shuren. His use of the modern colloquial
language for writing serious literature has often led many scholars to regard
him as the father of modern Chinese literature. He was born in the year 1881, in Shaoxing, Zhejiang,
which was a hotbed of anti-Qing resistance.
Xun was beginning his writing career at a very historic time in the history of
the region. It was the time of the May 4th Movement. The youth and the
intellectuals in the society led a socio-political movement aimed to modernise
China through adapting to ideas, literature, theoretical frameworks, medicine
and other such practises imported from the
Some Chinese intellectuals
believed that traditional culture and values of China had made China stagnant
and weak. Thereby, Lu Xun started writing in colloquial language to reach out
to maximum people for advocating modernization and criticising Chinese
tradition. The issues, menaces, inadequacies and cruelty of the Chinese society
of his times were openly exposed through the narratives of his fictional
“Diary of a Madman” (1918), Lu Xun’s earliest
and most successful short fiction, became a watershed of the modern Chinese
literature and affected modern Chinese culture. Lu Xun’s works are still
extensively read, debated, and praised both at home and abroad. He is more than
a writer; he is an institution (M. Sean, 2010). Lu Xun was more than a single
author; he was a tide, a direction, and a movement in his time. Lu Xun did not
merely write about China during his
time; he also presented a clearer image of China’s national identity in the
future. His writings are recognized as “timeless” literary works, meaning that
they have remained relevant since their publication and will continue to do so
in the future. During his lifetime, he influenced practically every Chinese
writer, generating numerous conflicts, interests, and opinions.
Lu Xun was
worried not just about the fate of the Chinese people, but also about the future
of universal social values for humanity. Lu Xun’s critical position on
government and society compels us to go deeper into his works and consider them
in light of current events. Lu Xun acknowledged the political and cultural
importance of literature and used his writings to try to awaken the Chinese
analyses of Lu Xu’s literature have been conducted both in China and overseas.
The majority of the research concentrated on his works on socio-political
topics, with little attention paid to Lu Xun’s dissenting voice. Yan Jiayan, (2011) in his A Pioneer in Raising Issues against the
Mainstream—Lu Xun’s: Difference between Literature and Politics pointed out
that he had written the harshest criticism in the whole of Chinese literary and
political history and remained extremely critical of the government of the day
and of his literary opponents.
Lu Xun attempted
to remind lawmakers of their responsibilities to monitor in order to support
China’s continued development and progress. “Politicians despise everyone who
disagrees with their viewpoints, anyone who tries to think or speak out,” he
stated. However, the writer’s language is also the language of society. He’s
just sensitive, quick to feel and communicate his feelings (too quickly, at
times, so even society opposes and excludes him). Politicians believe the writer is a source of
societal unrest and want to assassinate him so that society may return to
normalcy. They have no idea that even if the writer is assassinated, society
would still undergo upheaval. The number of Russian authors slaughtered or
banished is not insignificant, but haven’t the flames of revolution erupted
everywhere? (From 1927’s The Divergence of Art and Politics)
More than half
of China was already part of the Guomindang Party’s realm when Lu Xun made
these statements. Wouldn’t Lu Xun have been in opposition to a different
administration, like the Communist Party? Even though the CPC professed to be
socialist and to work equally for people from all walks of life, he would have
contradicted them. The essence of his above-mentioned views on the gap between
literature and politics would have been perverted by the current authoritarian
government. Politicians still have low
regard for people who disagree with them, for anyone who dares to think or
speak out. The notion of Lu Xun that “the language of the writer is the
language of society” would only have been taken seriously if the writer’s
language was in line with the party, not with society. The party believes the
writer is a catalyst for societal unrest.
According to human-rights activists and analysts, the Chinese Communist
Party fears that dissidents in the country’s intelligentsia will not only act
as a lightning rod for a variety of social concerns by challenging the
legitimacy of the state’s institutions, but will also provide an organization
for people to rally around.
Pankaj correctly describes the Lu Xun scholarship as a “Lu Xunian paradigm” of writing that continues to influence and inspire
modern authors in China. He went on to remark that Lu Xun didn’t write only for
the pleasure of writing; he wrote to dismantle the conventional edifice’s
foundations. The current regime is afraid that Chinese writers will use the Lu
Xunnian model or “Lu Xun’s spirit” to express their discontent with the current
regime’s ills, such as the Communist Party’s atrocities against its own
citizens, suppression of the voice, and strict censorship of news media,
writers, and academics.
Lu Xun had no
intention of becoming a writer at first; his dissatisfaction with conventional
Chinese society pushed him to do so. In his early writings, we can discern the dissenting voice as well. Lu Xun’s essay “Refutation of
Malevolent Voices” (Po e’sheng lun, 1908) was a prod to individuals unsatisfied
with imperial culture to build something new. It was written in Tokyo in the
traditional Chinese language and first published in December of 1908. He claims
that the nation’s hope rests on the sincerity and devotion of its
intellectuals, and he encourages them to express their sincere thoughts in
order to break through the barriers of darkness and silence.
‘Iron House,’ as Lu Xun put it, was Chinese society at the time.
When an old friend of Lu Xun, Qian Xuantong, requested him to write for New
Youth in 1917, Lu Xun informed Qian: “Imagine an iron home with no windows or
doors, complete indestructibility, and a room full of sound sleepers on the
verge of dying from suffocation. Allow them to die peacefully in their sleep,
and they will have no remorse. Is it acceptable to scream, rousing the light
sleepers among them and inflicting inexplicable anguish on them before they
die?” “The iron house may one day be demolished,” Qian responded.
citizens still can’t or have very limited access to knowledge about what’s
going on in the world, and can’t speak their hearts out owing to rigorous
censorship, it appears that China has once again become the “iron house,” a
room “without windows or doors.” Surveillance and severe regulation of mass
media, art, and literature are hallmarks of the modern iron house, from which
no one can escape. The ‘iron house’ is waiting for someone to demolish it, and
China is waiting for writers like Lu Xun to emerge from their contemporary
Lu Xun’s debut
short story, “Diary of a Madman,” was published in 1918 and quickly became a
hit. Lu Xun has expressed his wrath and challenged thousands of years of feudal
patriarchal system and ethical instruction via the insane. As a result, the
lunatic represents an already awakened intellectual with an entirely new
perspective on society. Lu Xun had shown a blatant anti-feudal democracy,
demonstrating the depth of its anti-feudalism.
Agnes Smedley’s memoirs (1934), she was worried about him (Lu Xun) after he
sent the essay “The Present Situation of Art in Darkest China” to the
international publication New Masses. When Smedley advised him to be
more careful about his personal safety, but Lu Xun simply replied, “Don’t
worry! Someone needs to speak up, someone has to tell it like it is!” His
stance of “speaking up” and “telling it like it is” would have gotten him in
difficulty, and his destiny would have been worse than Liu Xioabo, a contemporary
Chinese literary critic, scholar, and human rights activist who advocated for
democratic changes and the end of one-party rule in China.
The event of
1926, in which more than 40 individuals were shot dead by Beijing police, is
one of the most important instances that illustrates Lu Xun’s rebellious voice.
On March 18, 1926, a student was shot as she and her colleagues attempted to
peacefully present a petition to the military government of Duan Qirui. “In
Memory of Miss Liu Hezhen,” penned by Lu Xun, is a short story about the death
of a student shot as she and her colleagues attempted to peacefully present a
petition to the military government of Duan Qirui. He was severely shocked by
this act of state-sanctioned brutality, as well as the death of someone he
knew. “In Memory of Miss Liu Hezhen” is an emotive essay that isn’t overly
controversial, as it should be. It was generally recognized, however, as his
protest against government-directed brutality. He attacked the opponent while
maintaining a conflicted attitude regarding his own acts and words.
When the PRC
government sent in troops and opened fire on student protests again in 1989, Lu
Xun’s “In Memory of Miss Liu Hezhen” was resurrected. Even before the violence
established the striking comparisons for everyone to see, students from Beijing
Normal University, a successor to Liu Hezhen’s institution, felt a unique
connection to the events of March 18, 1926. (Eva Shan Cho, 1999). Liu Hezhen
has become a symbol of student patriotism. Since 1989, Chinese administrations
have repeatedly failed to speak about the Tiananmen Square Massacre. If we read
his words without considering the historical context, we could think he’s
talking about contemporary Chinese society. One can only speculate on how Lu
Xun might have reacted to the Tian’anmen Square event in 1926, given the 47
dead and 200 wounded.
In his essay
titled How “The True Story of A Q” was
Written, Lu Xun writes: “I only wish that as people say, I had written
about a period in the past, but I fear what I saw was not the past but the
future – even as much as from twenty to
thirty years from now.” (Ilgo, Tina. 2010). It is apparent that Lu Xun was
interested in far deeper and far-reaching concerns about Chinese national
character and human nature in general, rather than just depicting the
contemporary situation in China.
Lu Xun described
the Chinese society at the time as Wushengde Zhongguo, or “voiceless China,” and advised Chinese youth to
first transform China into a China with a voice by speaking boldly, moving
forward courageously, forgetting all considerations of personal advantage,
pushing aside the ancients, and expressing their true feelings. He wanted to
persuade Chinese citizens, particularly the youth, to speak up and convey their
actual feelings about the faults of Chinese society, because youth and those
who had studied overseas had distinct thoughts and perspectives on the society.
He does not want the future generation to face the same destiny as China, which
has been plagued by Confucianism’s problems. “We have men but no voices, and
how lonely that is!” he says in the same piece. Are folks capable of remaining
silent? No, not unless they’re dead, or, to put it another way, unless they’re
dumb.” He considered himself as the “voice of China” and a “spiritual
fighter.” Perhaps after 70 years of
liberty and living under the guise of a “people’s republic,” Lu Xun would have
found China as quiet as it was before the revolution or even as silent as it
was under the Qing dynasty. The Party is primarily concerned about Chinese
citizens who have the “voice” and “spirit of Lu Xun.”
writings are being deleted from high school language and literature curriculum
(Liz Carter, 2013). “Who is terrified of Lu Xun?” generated a controversy.
People are talking more about Lu Xun as a result of recent modifications to
China’s teaching curriculum. Certain people have expressed their displeasure,
saying that “Lu Xun’s articles have been withdrawn again; this demonstrates
that some people have begun to fear that ordinary people are waking up and
becoming conscious.” “Some individuals are terrified of the light even before
the sun has risen.”
authorities recently restricted a bot user’s (@luxunbot25) twitter account, which used to broadcast some of the
most noteworthy passages from Lu Xun’s works. Authorities, on the other hand,
believe the messages are politically sensitive. (2019, Echo Huang) After
“reaching the wall” in 1925, the twitter account released Lu Xun’s essay,
urging young people to learn and adapt to the new period. “There are barriers
everywhere in China, but they are invisible, like ‘ghost walls,’ so you will
run into them nearly at any time. The only one who can conquer the wall without
experiencing agony is the winner,” he said. The user may wish to convey a
message to society about present internet restrictions, which is reminiscent of
Lu Xun’s “iron house.”
government in the past and the Communists today, have and will always see Lu
Xun’s writings as potentially subversive. Reading his words gives us the
impression that China has never altered. If we read him without considering the
historical context, it is difficult to tell that his writings are over a
century old. The authorities believe Lu Xun poses a threat to them, which is
why they are attempting to devalue his legacy. Realizing the genuine
significance and worth of Lu Xun’s works is more vital than ever. “One might
love or despise Lu Xun, but one cannot ignore him,” as the saying goes.
Even if he had lived
in today’s China, when everything appears to be transformed and a “developed
society,” he would have written about the evils of society and expressed his
discontent in the same style as he was used to, according to my understanding
of Lu Xun.