中国 sharp power 不占领土地却占领人心

中国不占领土地却占领人心 CHINA'S SHARP POWER

What to do about China's "sharp power"

How China's "sharp power" is muting criticism abroad

China Using "Sharp Power" for Global Influence – China Digital Times 

The Economist – Sharp power helps authoritarian regimes coerce and manipulate abroad. The West needs to find a way to blunt it… | Facebook

The Economist on Twitter: "The West need to use its own values to blunt China's sharp power

特朗普将给中国定侵略罪英媒：习近平赌一把失败了

美媒：北京经济战略超乎想象对美造成严重威胁

外来客: 英国警示：中国不占领外国土地却试图占领人心

2017-12-18    来源：英国路透社

“锐实力”的目的并不一定是为了寻求赢得“民心民意”，而是为了试图通过操控目标群体所能收到的信息而实现对目标群体的影响。

西方国家越来越担心中国影响力渗透 （图源：VCG）

《经济学人》12月14日发表题为《如何应对中国"锐实力"》的文章称，东方大国中国，正在搅动西方民主国家的决策层。而西方对此最好的布防，就是透明。

当一个崛起大国挑战一个守成大国时，通常会爆发战争，是谓“修昔底德陷阱”，因古希腊历史学家修昔底德而得名，这样的情势，在中国与西方，特别是美国之间，也正在显现。而且，一场更为隐暗的对抗角力，也正逐渐浮出水面。即使中国不寻求占领外国的土地，很多人却担心，中国正试图占领外国的人心。

对于中国使出的伎俩，澳大利亚是第一个拉响红色警报的西方国家。12月5日，有关中国在澳大利亚政界、大学以及出版行业的干涉指控，使得澳大利亚政府提出新法案，以应对立法议员受到“史无前例的、越来越复杂精准的”外国势力的影响。本周，一位澳大利亚参议员因作为反对党发言人时收受中方资金并为自己辩护而辞职。英国、加拿大以及新西兰也都正拉响红色警报。12月10日，德国指责中国试图通过社交网站搜集德国高官情资以进行收买。12月13日，美国国会就中国逐渐增强的影响力举行了听证会。

位于华盛顿的智库美国国家民主基金会（National Endowment for Democracy）给中国的上述行为命名为“锐实力”（Sharp Power）。

与通过文化、价值观的吸引力来增强自己的影响力的“软实力”（Soft Power）不同，“锐实力”则主要是指独裁或威权政权通过胁迫、操控外国人的态度来增强自己的影响力。

西方国家越来越担心中国影响力渗透。对此，《金融时报》12月15日发表题为《美国盘查中国输出"锐实力"，在美华人受影响？》的文章称，从澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大到德国，随着各国对于涉华政治运作的“清算”，除了中国政治影响力之外，中国“软实力”的体现，也逐渐有被诠释为“锐实力”的趋向。

美国国会和媒体最近更是积极展开对于中国软实力的盘查，让人担忧这个风潮是不是也将波及华人组织和个体。

美国华人精英组织“百人会”在今年发布了《起诉中国‘间谍’：美国经济间谍法的实证分析》的研究白皮书，和2017年《中美两国公众印象》民意调查报告。在对中国崛起影响力质疑的大环境下，这两个研究都隐约指向了，美国华人的个人经历似乎将不免陷于大语境的牵连。

根据《外交政策》的报道，香港前行政长官董建华通过他的中美交流基金会（CUSEF），赞助约翰•霍普金斯大学高等国际研究学院、布鲁金斯学会和其他组织的研究。《华盛顿邮报》认为董建华和中国政府关系紧密。

而《华盛顿邮报》也引用美国国会中国执行委员会联席主席参议员马可•卢比奥说，中国政府赞助的孔子学院，在美国的大学校园内运作不透明的协议，经常被指控干涉与中国有关的教育活动。卢比奥主张审查中国赞助的智库研究、学术主席和知识合作。

How China's "sharp power" is muting criticism abroad

WHAT TO DO ABOUT CHINA'S "SHARP POWER”

China is manipulating decision-makers in Western democracies. The best defence is transparency.

Dec 14th 2017

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21732524-china-manipulating-decision-makers-western-democracies-best-defence

WHEN a rising power challenges an incumbent one, war often follows. That prospect, known as the Thucydides trap after the Greek historian who first described it, looms over relations between China and the West, particularly America. So, increasingly, does a more insidious confrontation. Even if China does not seek to conquer foreign lands, many people fear that it seeks to conquer foreign minds.

Australia was the first to raise a red flag about China's tactics. On December 5th allegations that China has been interfering in Australian politics, universities and publishing led the government to propose new laws to tackle "unprecedented and increasingly sophisticated” foreign efforts to influence lawmakers (see article). This week an Australian senator resigned over accusations that, as an opposition spokesman, he took money from China and argued its corner. Britain, Canada and New Zealand are also beginning to raise the alarm. On December 10th Germany accused China of trying to groom politicians and bureaucrats. And on December 13th Congress held hearings on China's growing influence.

This behaviour has a name—“sharp power”, coined by the National Endowment for Democracy, a Washington-based foundation and think-tank. “Soft power” harnesses the allure of culture and values to add to a country's strength; sharp power helps authoritarian regimes coerce and manipulate opinion abroad.

The West needs to respond to China's behaviour, but it cannot simply throw up the barricades. Unlike the old Soviet Union, China is part of the world economy. Instead, in an era when statesmanship is in short supply, the West needs to find a statesmanlike middle ground. That starts with an understanding of sharp power and how it works.

Influencing the influencers

Like many countries, China has long tried to use visas, grants, investments and culture to pursue its interests. But its actions have recently grown more intimidating and encompassing. Its sharp power has a series of interlocking components: subversion, bullying and pressure, which combine to promote self-censorship. For China, the ultimate prize is pre-emptive kowtowing by those whom it has not approached, but who nonetheless fear losing funding, access or influence.

China has a history of spying on its diaspora, but the subversion has spread. In Australia and New Zealand Chinese money is alleged to have bought influence in politics, with party donations or payments to individual politicians. This week’s complaint from German intelligence said that China was using the LinkedIn business network to ensnare politicians and government officials, by having people posing as recruiters and think-tankers and offering free trips.

Bullying has also taken on a new menace. Sometimes the message is blatant, as when China punished Norway economically for awarding a Nobel peace prize to a Chinese pro-democracy activist. More often, as when critics of China are not included in speaker line-ups at conferences, or academics avoid study of topics that China deems sensitive, individual cases seem small and the role of officials is hard to prove. But the effect can be grave. Western professors have been pressed to recant. Foreign researchers may lose access to Chinese archives. Policymakers may find that China experts in their own countries are too ill-informed to help them.

Because China is so integrated into economic, political and cultural life, the West is vulnerable to such pressure. Western governments may value trade over scoring diplomatic points, as when Greece vetoed a European Union statement criticising China’s record on human rights, shortly after a Chinese firm had invested in the port of Piraeus. The economy is so big that businesses often dance to China’s tune without being told to. An Australian publisher suddenly pulled a book, citing fears of “Beijing’s agents of influence”.

What to do?

Facing complaints from Australia and Germany, China has called its critics irresponsible and paranoid—and there is indeed a danger of anti-Chinese hysteria. However, if China were being more truthful, it would point out that its desire for influence is what happens when countries become powerful.

China has a lot more at stake outside its borders today than it did. Some 10m Chinese have moved abroad since 1978. It worries that they will pick up democratic habits from foreigners and infect China itself. Separately, Chinese companies are investing in rich countries, including in resources, strategic infrastructure and farmland. China’s navy can project power far from home. Its government frets that its poor image abroad will do it harm. And as the rising superpower, China has an appetite to shape the rules of global engagement—rules created largely by America and western Europe and routinely invoked by them to justify their own actions.

To ensure China’s rise is peaceful, the West needs to make room for China’s ambition. But that does not mean anything goes. Open societies ignore China’s sharp power at their peril.

Part of their defence should be practical. Counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion. All three need Chinese speakers who grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China. The Chinese Communist Party suppresses free expression, open debate and independent thought to cement its control. Merely shedding light on its sharp tactics—and shaming kowtowers—would go a long way towards blunting them.

Part should be principled. Unleashing a witch-hunt against Chinese people would be wrong; it would also make Western claims to stand for the rule of law sound hollow. Calls from American politicians for tit-for-tat “reciprocity”, over visas for academics and NGO workers, say, would be equally self-defeating. Yet ignoring manipulation in the hope that China will be more friendly in the future would only invite the next jab. Instead the West needs to stand by its own principles, with countries acting together if possible, and separately if they must. The first step in avoiding the Thucydides trap is for the West to use its own values to blunt China’s sharp power.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Sharp power”

READERS' COMMENTS

DG Reid1 hour 8 mins ago
All countries compete in more than one arena. Is what China is doing more harmful than advertising to children in the US or companies buying competitors and shutting them down? Economic competition is only one show in town. To me, it seems that China is taking a longer-term, broader view.

Simplelifer
Dec 16th, 15:11
…And tell us why you think this article is wrong.].
Can you read?.

ý@ýýýýH 2017 Dec 15 14.00.
[Like many countries, China has long tried to use visas, grants, investments and culture to pursue its interests. But its actions have recently grown more intimidating and encompassing. Its sharp power has a series of interlocking components: subversion, bullying and pressure, which combine to promote self-censorship. For China, the ultimate prize is pre-emptive kowtowing by those whom it has not approached, but who nonetheless fear losing funding, access or influence.].
Those “many countries”, of course, are white Western countries that have done all that you have described against other countries and cultures. They have created hordes of “pre-emptive kowtowers”, whom Edward Said aptly called “white man’s niggers”.
.
[Bullying has also taken on a new menace. ]
.
The best example is Dumbo Trump’s attempt to bully Un Kim into giving up his nukes, which he needs to defend his country from the Amelikan threat of regime change.
.
[The economy is so big that businesses often dance to China’s tune without being told to. An Australian publisher suddenly pulled a book, citing fears of “Beijing’s agents of influence”.]
.
“so big” was exactly what the Western economy, especially the Amelikan economy, has been. Get used to the changed world! What else can you do otherwise???
.
[However, if China were being more truthful, it would point out that its desire for influence is what happens when countries become powerful.]
.
WHY the hell is there the need for China to “point out”– since that was EXACTLY what the white Western whiners themselves have been doing all these time???
.
If the West (and you) is “truthful”, it should just accept reality.
.
[China has a lot more at stake outside its borders today than it did. Some 10m Chinese have moved abroad since 1978. It worries that they will pick up democratic habits from foreigners and infect China itself.]
.
YOU have just explained WHY the white West fears that the Chinese are trying to influence some white people, who might carry “Confucian habits from the Chinese and infect the West itself”!!!
.
[To ensure China’s rise is peaceful, the West needs to make room for China’s ambition. But that does not mean anything goes. Open societies ignore China’s sharp power at their peril.]
.
The West has never, and will never voluntarily, “make room for China”. China IS making room for itself! Self-confident societies– like North Korea’s– has a solution to every sharp, or un-sharp, power its enemies throw at it.
.
[Part of their defence should be practical. Counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion. All three need Chinese speakers who grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China. The Chinese Communist Party suppresses free expression, open debate and independent thought to cement its control. Merely shedding light on its sharp tactics—and shaming kowtowers—would go a long way towards blunting them.]
.
Very soon, there would be so many Western “Chinese speakers”, who would out-number Chinese English-speakers, and who could “grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China” so efficaciously that they became “Chinese niggers” themselves!!! That was EXACTLY how the West won so many Chinese “pre-emptive kowtowers” to the West!!!
.
Your prized strategy is therefore “equally self-defeating” ultimately!!! ;-D, ;-D, ;-D
.
[Part should be principled. Unleashing a witch-hunt against Chinese people would be wrong; it would also make Western claims to stand for the rule of law sound hollow. ]
.
“witch-hunt against Chinese people” has ALWAYS been a white Western instinct and habit– even BEFORE China’s re-emergence! Remember the “Chinese Exclusion Act”, “White Australia Policy” and many, many other discriminatory measures??? This”December 5th allegations that China has been interfering in Australian politics, universities” is merely the “White Australia Policy” reincarnated.
.
[Calls from American politicians for tit-for-tat “reciprocity”, over visas for academics and NGO workers, say, would be equally self-defeating. Yet ignoring manipulation in the hope that China will be more friendly in the future would only invite the next jab. Instead the West needs to stand by its own principles, with countries acting together if possible, and separately if they must. The first step in avoiding the Thucydides trap is for the West to use its own values to blunt China’s sharp power.]
.
What you are calling for is just “White-White 相衛”! The white West has always behaving that way. What else can the rest of the world expect???
.
Devil’s

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
guest-aainnmjnDec 17th, 20:33
The CIA ops were a counter to the Soviet Unions operations. The Cold War was conducted world wide and the KGB and CIA butted heads in many countries.

Recommend0ReportPermalinkReply
guest-5a36c92b99abbDec 17th, 19:55
How about the fact that the US is about to default on its debt, including those that are due to the Chinese. The Chinese have, through slave labor, and hand in hand with US industry manipulated the system to not only provide us cheap cheap products, but the credit to purchase it as well. The Chinese want to get paid and secure the raw resources. Chinese are about to launch the Petro Yuan backed by Gold….not the bankrupt US Dollar. There are a lot of energy and banking industries that would hate to see this transcend…..That is the real reason this article was written. To is to get us used to seeing Chinese as adversaries, not persons that we owe money to. Remember Bush and Gore’s words, we have to love them with Capitalism. What a coverup article….

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
guest-ajnniwenDec 17th, 19:01
No one its pretending to say nor to believe that there’s not corruption en China, however such thing doesn’t reach a fraction of the historical and traditional scandalous levels of western countries corruption. That been said, corruption in the west its the most important reason on which China its taking advantage of to carry with their strategy, had not being for such reason, China would have much more difficulties trying to implement its power around the world. So, no one can come out blaming China exclusively on their actions. Besides, “sharp power” its precisely what the western industrialized nations – mainly the US – have always used on the small, underdeveloped and weaker nations to gain control and maintain their grip on them so keep them under the statuos quo, which by the way, its what such small nations have called “imperialism” which its has been an undeniable reality.

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
guest-aainooolDec 17th, 17:50
Israel has bee influencing American politics for decades, yet no red flags are ever raised. How is it different when China does the same?

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
XDRTQnBNFAin reply to guest-aainooolDec 17th, 18:53
Who said it is different?

Recommend0ReportPermalinkReply
guest-nejawaain reply to XDRTQnBNFADec 17th, 20:34
There seems to be a strong inference that China’s influence is inherently more harmful than that of other countries. And the explanation, referring to Thucydides ‘rising power theory’, seems hollow for many readers. Of course, taking the article on its own terms, Israel (and the EU, and Russia) are all declining powers so the article works at face-value.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
popcorndaddyDec 17th, 17:25
It is only a few years ago that our progressive betters were giddy with excitement that China was about to displace the US as foremost power.
It was however always clear that their agenda would have very little purchase in a Chinese led world.
So let’s congratulate our friends for allowing their brains to take over from their hormones.

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
toytonyDec 17th, 11:39
All those CIA black ops in eastern europe, Iran, South America. Was those activities exercise of sharp power? or hard power?? I am confused. Operation Condor ? Operation Ajax ?Operation PBSUCCESS?Operation Mongoose?The Mujahideen?
Haven’t the west shited all over the map of the world? Now they are accusing China is potentially do the same thing?

Recommend12ReportPermalinkReply
Bismarx777Dec 17th, 05:27
Our Chinese posters like to make it a Western vs China issue, but it could have been fairer if the Economist had included Asian countries like Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
.
China avoids these problems by making it very difficult for anyone to migrate to China, the West should copy China and cut off migration, and only use citizenship by blood like what Germany used to do.
.
Most Western countries won’t be impacted, because there are so few Chinese people in those countries and they don’t have as much economic influence. The only two countries that have to be concerned are New Zealand and Australia. They have been having concerns about Chinese influence in the US for the last two decades, but nothing came of it. The Economist would have a much stronger case if they just focus on Australia and New Zealand. It’s unlikely that what worked in these two countries would work in others, especially the US. The US despite being an immigrant country, there are very few foreign-born politicians compared to Canada / Australia.

China has arms restrictions imposed by the West because of Tiananmen, so of course, the West is wary. China is treated more or less like Russia. The Canadian kicked a former KGB agents who immigrated to Canada, even though he had only been an agent for a couple of years. Both Japan and South Korea are democracies, and they avoid these problems by having destructive immigration policies.

With the case in New Zealand, the Chinese born MP was suspected of involvement by New Zealand intelligence. The irony is that if he was an ordinary New Zealander applying for the job that had access to the sensitive information he had access to as MP, he would be denied because he couldn’t get security clearance, In the US, a foreign-born person could be Speaker of the House, but could guard the President or even work for iin Seabee crew at Camp David.. I think politicians should be held to the same security clearance as ordinary citizens of that country when running for office fo that level of security clearance. The US has two levels of citizens, natural born and naturalized as I explained, when it comes naturalized US citizens are forbidden from certain jobs.

To be frank I don’t think the West gives a crap about what Chinese think or if the Chinese feel discriminated, it is not going to stop them from migrating to the West. What are they going to do, migrate to Singapore? What is happening is the West is being taken as suckers, and when the West starts showing some resistance, they start accusing the West of racism/ In Singapore, they would put you in prison.

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
canabanain reply to Bismarx777Dec 17th, 07:52
Still pretending to be a fake Singaporean.

Recommend10ReportPermalinkReply
Bismarx777in reply to canabanaDec 17th, 18:11
When are you going to join the PLA?

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
SimpleliferDec 16th, 15:11
Lots of angry Chinese commentators here, professional and not.

You guys don’t like the view of this article from this magazine, that’s fine. You have every right to express your anger, so please do share your thoughts. And tell us why you think this article is wrong. No one will stop you nor arrest you.

This is what freedom is all about: Free from fear to express and take actions.

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
guest-ajinmmaiin reply to SimpleliferDec 17th, 02:33
Totally agree. What we’re really uncomfortable about are the double standards the West use against China. The West and China don’t have to be enemy, and the first step should be for both parties to understand each other instead of launching accusation at the first point.

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
toytonyin reply to SimpleliferDec 17th, 11:27
Does it include your freedom of disguishing naked racisim and xenophobia with talks of moral principle of freedom and democracy??

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 1 more reply
ý@ýýýýHDec 16th, 04:50
ý@ýýýýH 2017 Dec 15 14.00

[Like many countries, China has long tried to use visas, grants, investments and culture to pursue its interests. But its actions have recently grown more intimidating and encompassing. Its sharp power has a series of interlocking components: subversion, bullying and pressure, which combine to promote self-censorship. For China, the ultimate prize is pre-emptive kowtowing by those whom it has not approached, but who nonetheless fear losing funding, access or influence.]

.

Those “many countries”, of course, are white Western countries that have done all that you have described against other countries and cultures. They have created hordes of “pre-emptive kowtowers”, whom Edward Said aptly called “white man’s niggers”.

.

[Bullying has also taken on a new menace. ]

.

The best example is Dumbo Trump’s attempt to bully Un Kim into giving up his nukes, which he needs to defend his country from the Amerlikan threat of regime change.

.

[The economy is so big that businesses often dance to China’s tune without being told to. An Australian publisher suddenly pulled a book, citing fears of “Beijing’s agents of influence”.]

.

“so big” was exactly what the Western econonmy, especially the Amelikan economy, has been. Get used to the changed world! What else can you do otherwise???

.

[However, if China were being more truthful, it would point out that its desire for influence is what happens when countries become powerful.]

.

WHY the hell is there the need for China to “point out”– since that was EXACTLY what the white Western whiners themselves have been doing all these time???

.

If the West (and you) is “truthful”, it should just accept reality.

.

[China has a lot more at stake outside its borders today than it did. Some 10m Chinese have moved abroad since 1978. It worries that they will pick up democratic habits from foreigners and infect China itself.]

.

YOU have just explained WHY the white West fears that the Chinese are trying to influence some white people, who might carry “Confucian habits from the Chinese and infect the West itself”!!!

.

[To ensure China’s rise is peaceful, the West needs to make room for China’s ambition. But that does not mean anything goes. Open societies ignore China’s sharp power at their peril.]

.

The West has never, and will never voluntarily, “make room for China”. China IS making room for itself! Self-confident societies– like North Korea’s– has a solution to every sharp, or un-sharp, power its enemies throw at it.

.

[Part of their defence should be practical. Counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion. All three need Chinese speakers who grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China. The Chinese Communist Party suppresses free expression, open debate and independent thought to cement its control. Merely shedding light on its sharp tactics—and shaming kowtowers—would go a long way towards blunting them.]

.

Very soon, there would be so many Western “Chinese speakers”, who out-numbered Chinese English-speakers, and who could “grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China” so efficacious that they became “Chinsese niggers” themselves!!! That was EXACTLY how the West won so many Chinese “pre-emptive kowtowers” to the West!!!

.

Your prized strategy is therefore “equally self-defeating” ultimately!!! ;-D, ;-D, ;-D

.

[Part should be principled. Unleashing a witch-hunt against Chinese people would be wrong; it would also make Western claims to stand for the rule of law sound hollow. ]

.

“witch-hunt against Chinese people” has ALWAYS been a white Western instinct and habit– even BEFORE China’s re-emergence! Remember the “Chinese Eclusion Act”, “White Australia Policy” and many, many other discriminatory measures??? Theis”December 5th allegations that China has been interfering in Australian politics, universities” is merely the “White Australia Policy” in action AGAIN.

.

[Calls from American politicians for tit-for-tat “reciprocity”, over visas for academics and NGO workers, say, would be equally self-defeating. Yet ignoring manipulation in the hope that China will be more friendly in the future would only invite the next jab. Instead the West needs to stand by its own principles, with countries acting together if possible, and separately if they must. The first step in avoiding the Thucydides trap is for the West to use its own values to blunt China’s sharp power.]

.

What you are calling for is just “White-White 相衛”! The white West has always behaving that way. What else can the rest of the world expect???

.

Devil’s

Recommend10ReportPermalinkReply
BHARAT-Dec 16th, 03:21
The last few decades of China’s foreign policy and dealings have shown us that they listen and respect other people’s wishes. They do not force. They do not threaten.
What about the Spratley’s you say?
There is a question mark there – but the Spratley’s are mostly uninhabitaed. And if there are people there – china isn not like the UK which has massacres in it’s history
.
From India’s point of view, we have no problem that cannot be sorted out with discussion or dialogue with China. Our views and wishes are well respected

Recommend8ReportPermalinkReply
XDRTQnBNFAin reply to BHARAT-Dec 16th, 03:30
Excellent point. Doklad is also sparsely inhabited. And China us totally respecting India on that front.

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2124375/china-bui…

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
ý@ýýýýHin reply to XDRTQnBNFADec 16th, 05:03
[XDRTQnBNFAin reply to BHARAT-1 hour 24 mins ago

Excellent point. Doklad is also sparsely inhabited. And China us totally respecting India on that front.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2124375/china-building-troop-numbers-near-doklam-after-summer%5D

?.

If there was disrepect, it went the other way:

.

{[JAIHAin reply to ý@ýýýýH 2017 Jul 30th, 08:42

“That would be tantamount to India sabotaging an agreement between Bhutan and China.’
‘
I suppose that India actually DID step in. Why?

.
Have you ever been to Lanzhou? Or Jiayuguan? Or even Chengdu?

.
Do you know how close Tibet is to China’s corridor to the West?

.
Now imagine, if the PRC hadn’t invaded and occupied Tibet but if Tibet had declared independence and Uncle had his troops just uphill from Lanzhou!

.
Having traveled across China and India, it’s obvious to me why Tibet is important for China’s security. And it’s just as obvious that the same holds true for Bhutan with regard to India’s security.

.
It’s bleeding obvious, actually. Some reciprocal understanding on the Chinese side would well be in order.]

.

1) China DOES understand that. That is why China always wants a settled border with India. With a settled border, which both sides are committed NOT to cross without the other’s permission, security is assured. It has been India that is dragging its feet over establishing settled borders.

.

2) As regards to Doklam, given in one of the references earlier, China notified India in advanced so that objections could be voiced. Instead, India waited for the road works to start and then sent troops across a undisputed China-Sikkim border. What has that to do with “security”?

.

3) In the area around Doklam, it is Indian troops stationing in Sikkim and Bhutan that are on the high ground. Why should India feel “insecure” in this area?

.

In some videos that I have watched. Some India nationalists advocated that India should not withdraw its troops from Doklam– NOT because India’s position around there was vulnerable but precisely because it had a strong position, which they believed China would be incapable of challenging. It all shows that this particular operation is NOT about making India more secure but one to make the China know its place– THAT is what the true dispute is about!!!}

.

Devil’s

?

Recommend11ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 4 more replies
venzeDec 16th, 02:18
Beijing aims to spread its economic influence in all continents, mainly in underdeveloped and developing countries. Trading is the goal, no military hegemonic intention.
One would not forget in 1900 when eight western nations jointly marched into Beijing, people yelled, “White soldiers are coming, run, run for shelter.” Now when Chinese flew into an African country, people cheer, “Chinese are coming, welcome, welcome.” See the difference?

Recommend11ReportPermalinkReply
XDRTQnBNFAin reply to venzeDec 16th, 02:47
And we are just going to gloss over the fact that China is building military installations in the middle of south East Asia are we? I guess the economics there are, if the fishing boat isn’t Chinese then our military will blow you out of the water. How peaceful China’s rise is.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
chinachipin reply to XDRTQnBNFADec 16th, 03:54
Extremely peaceful. China and America have a “Special Relationship” as did England and America in WWII. Got that?
.
;-D

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 2 more replies
pykouilleDec 15th, 19:54
The one-party system in China softens extremism at both ends, which can not be done by the two-party American system, which each groups these extremists together and has given the “free” world that wonderful leader. And when China has progressed sufficiently, and will be self-sufficient, it will no longer need to copy the West. It could then, in turn, be protectionist against the divided West!

Recommend10ReportPermalinkReply
Michael Dunnein reply to pykouilleDec 16th, 08:34
The one party system was around during the cultural revolution. What softening happened there? How was your Lin Biao?
`
And then there was the Great Leap Backwards prior to that, with devastating results.
`
The rest of the post there didn’t make much sense.
`
China is already protectionist economically.
`
Why the exclamation point – sounds like some over-excited extremism there…

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
msajaDec 15th, 19:19
“rules created largely by America and western Europe and routinely invoked by them to justify their own actions”

One of the best lines written by The Economist that I can’t believe that I read it here actually!

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
Victor E.Dec 15th, 18:28
The avalanche of comments from members of the 中国共产主义青年团 on this particular article (and the paucity of them on others) is remarkable. The Economist is to be applauded for doing what no mainland Chinese newspaper will do – give all of its readers a platform where they can practise free speech with impunity – but it really needs to consider ways of avoiding laying itself open to such conspicuous intimidatory trolling.

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
Felipe CoelhoDec 15th, 18:21
Post-Mao China and Putin’s Russia are starting to do what the USA has done since 1945, with far more subtlety, to use the soft power. Till now they have not invaded any country (Crimea was Russian till Kruschev gave it to Ukraine) or staged military coups. One major failure is in culture: up to now they did not manage to have anything similar to Hollywood or popular music.
They are learning also a few hard lessons, for example both nations lost money invested in Maduro’s Venezuela and lost moral capital by supporting Bolivarian/Petista/Peronista autoritarian regimes. This strategy may work in recently independent African and Central Asian countries, with institutions that are new and weak (for example, Angola), but not in the so-called Latin America. Here in Latin America the institutions may be weak and inefficient – this varies much from country to country – but this should not be overstated as these institutions are five centuries old and copy even older institutions from Iberia.
The same holds true for ancient civilizations in South Asia. like Pakistan, the Khmer Republic, India, Vietnam and Indonesia, or in the remaining nations of the Islamic and the Budhist Worlds. One must thread very, very carefully there.
Regards from Rio de Janeiro
PS: China and Russia know something about Europe and the Anglo-Saxon World (Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand) but know very little about Africa, West, Central, and South Asia and Latin America.

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
Michael Dunnein reply to Felipe CoelhoDec 16th, 08:42
Well Russia did invade Crimea, and other parts (eastern Ukraine).
`
The PRC has encroached on claims by the Philippines and acted clumsily and aggressively with a number of maritime claims.
`
Not sure how far you want to go back, but:
The Soviet Union sure invaded a number of countries after WWII (Hungary, Czechoslovakia).
The PRC also invaded a number of countries, including Korea, India and Vietnam.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
Pedro MacedoDec 15th, 16:26
“Has the Universe any unity of plan of purpose, or is it just a fortuitous concourse of atoms?” Bertrand Russell

Can the West (US) compete with the East (China)?

The answer is no. https://youtu.be/-VTciPTiiFc

The “West” (US) is between a “rock and a hard place”.The East, China in particular, is “dealing” with reality, as they see it.
The value of this discussion is similar to the one that concerns neuroscientific moral psychology.
From neural “is” to moral “ought”. A “hard road to travel”. Science deals with was is the case, whereas ethics deals with what ought to be. As Hume would term it, “one can´t derive an “ought” from an “is”.
It appears that China is taking the place of Science (dealing with what is the case), and the West (US) the place of Ethics (dealing with what ought to be.) Neural based decisons or moral based decisions have consequences. The West is living a “Maile Meloy´s moment”: “both ways is the only way i want it”.
The neurological and moral “clock” is ticking.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
toytonyDec 15th, 15:37
what a bunch of cry baby? Operation Condor ? Operation Ajax? Color revolutions? There are too many excercise of “sharp power” to name them all.

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
toytonyDec 15th, 15:25
sharp power ? Is this some sort of code word for 21st century racsim?
Hello,Radio Free Asia? Voice of America? Arab spring ? Color revolutions? Did the west collectively bumped their heads and lost all their memories at the same f’king time. F U C K ing histerical.
What a bunch of hypocrites !!

Political EconomistDec 15th, 14:53
So, I’m guessing that old adage “never bite the hand that feeds you” is falling on deaf ears, huh?
.
The Economist has always been an advocate of facilitating the influence of money in politics. Except when it comes to Chinese money. Not foreign money in general (a la AIPAC), mind you, just Chinese money.
.
China shouldd grant the distinguished gentlemen at The Economist their wish: just pull out all money tomorrow. Let’s see what they will have to say then. My bet is that these very same gentlemen will cry wolf again, they will call that a “coercive” tactic by the Chinese.
.
“Sharp power” is a dumb phrase concocted in a dumb think tank that normally doesn’t garner any respect. But assuming we accept that phrase, please keep this in mind: The act of pulling out a knife hurts just as much as the act of stabbing.
.
The Economist used to be opinionated but smart. Now it’s just opinionated.

Recommend11ReportPermalinkReply
canabanain reply to Political EconomistDec 15th, 21:02
Now it’s not just opinionated, but superficial and comical.

Recommend11ReportPermalinkReply
Bismarx777in reply to canabanaDec 17th, 05:31
When are you going to join the PLA?

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 2 more replies
MarquoPoloDec 15th, 14:08
Sharp power? Isn’t that what CIA does? Operation Ajax anyone? When the Brits and Americans instigated a coupe in Iran to overthrow their DEMOCRATIC government over oil interests. And Americans wonder “why do they hate us so much?” And what do you call invading other countries forcing regime changes when they don’t agree with you? Sometimes using non-existent WMD as a pretext, sometimes just because. O right, gunboat diplomacy… All this done in the name of spreading liberty and democracy… right…
Considering the human cost of of all above, really puts things in perspective. China’s sharp power doesn’t seem so sharp in comparison. Reality is big world powers sees all resources spent gaining influence as an investment, risky but with potentially powerful returns, China is trying to gain influence just like everyone else much like the author mentioned in his first opening paragraph. It’s really not that different from lobbyists from the commercial sector trying to influence politicians.
The only defense is indeed transparency, which is one of the fewer and fewer morale high grounds that Western society holds over the current Chinese political system. We really need to look at the various ways our politicians can be influenced, whether by special interest groups or foreign agents. Only then, can we devise a solution on limiting foreign influences.

Recommend9ReportPermalinkReply
Michael Dunnein reply to MarquoPoloDec 16th, 08:50
Operation Ajax was when? 1953?
`
A year when the war that China helped start, the Korean War, was brought to an end.
`
Sounds like you are grasping for straws here.
`

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
guest-njllwosDec 15th, 13:18
Chinese State media have signed a slew of partnerships with Western and African media recently (Newsweek, The Daily Telegraph, Le Soleil, Jeune Afrique). The Economist’s Daniel Franklin (Executive Editor) visited Beijing Review on November 28 to discuss a possible partnership. My question is simple : will The Economist publish China-made content ?

Recommend0ReportPermalinkReply
statsmanDec 15th, 12:22
As John Pilger’s film, ‘The Coming War with China’ shows clearly, it the US empire that is the aggressor, not China.

It is the West that extracts surplus value from Chinese workers.
It may not be a colony, but like all developing countries it suffers from the imperialism of the West.

Recommend9ReportPermalinkReply
Michael Dunnein reply to statsmanDec 16th, 08:55
No, the book doesn’t say that. I have a copy.
`
The finger pointing doesn’t make much sense either – China has done quite well from access to western markets, notably the American won, since the late 1990s. The growth of the industrial base and economy overall was quite dependent on having the United States as an export market of first and last resort.
`
Then there were all the technology and know how transfers. See the automobile market in China as a prime example.
`
China hasn’t suffered from western imperialism since the 1930s. The Nationalists asserted tariff autonomy then and got rid of most vestiges of imperialism before the Communists assumed power. Exceptions: Macau, Hong Kong, and then Soviet privileges (both those guys were not western).

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Bismarx777Dec 15th, 11:13
How China inflitrates a country depends on the domestic environment. What she doing in Australia, wouldn’t work in the US, and could land the politicians in jail. What she does in the US and Canada, would land the politicians in jail in Singapore or if it were Indonesia, possibely dead.

In the US, Chinese pays lobbiest to lobby politicians. In Australia, foreignb compaies / individuals can donate to individual politicians, something you can’t do in the US. At the moment, Chinese activities in the US hasn’t change much from before, but in Australia its gotten to the point where its very aggressive and blatant. The best way to combat this isn’t to target China, but to target poliuticians who accept these bribes or gifts, with stuff jail sentences, assets seizures and even the death penalty / corporal punishment. If you can’t scare China, you can scare Western politciians. After a couple bullets in the head, China will most likely move on to a country that is an easier target, because no politicians would risk their life for a even a million dollar donation..

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
ý@ýýýýHin reply to Bismarx777Dec 16th, 05:16
[Bismarx777Dec 15th, 11:13

How China inflitrates a country depends on the domestic environment. What she doing in Australia, wouldn’t work in the US, and could land the politicians in jail. What she does in the US and Canada, would land the politicians in jail in Singapore or if it were Indonesia, possibely dead.]

.

The first Dalit China should give money to is Bis!

.

Devil’s

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
Bismarx777in reply to ý@ýýýýHDec 17th, 05:30
My response to you, as I often say “When are you going to join the PLA?”, and your reply is “I can’t”. Has Australia stopped Chinese Australians from joining the Australian military? Hong Kongers can even join the French Foreign Legion, but can’t join the PLA.

As a Hong Konger you shouldn’t bash the West, China doesn’t even trust Hong Kongers with being cannon fodder.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 3 more replies
BHARAT-Dec 15th, 11:11
For such a long time western proselytisers went into China and ploughed their influence .
.
Not so different from how colonisation was started
.

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
guest-noewosjin reply to BHARAT-Dec 15th, 13:03
Yours is a good point.
As the article writer says “West [should] use its own values to blunt China’s sharp power”, however, West for decades has been showing a lot of hypocrisy and the promotion of terrorism, colored revolutions and proxy wars has been its real agenda.
The worse is that as of today in any continent and place they know that, hence hypocritical rhetoric and marketing are not anymore as effective as they used to be,

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
guest-56a5926a20e72Dec 15th, 11:02
Unless you change the current economic system there will always be superpowers. It is immaterial whether it is Great Britain, USA, China or any other country, it is always harmful to the progression of human civilization.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Michael Dunnein reply to guest-56a5926a20e72Dec 16th, 09:02
The concept of a superpower hadn’t been around until WWII and its aftermath – that is 75 years.
`
Prior to that, Britain maybe got close, but its metropolitan/home country was still a small polity, quickly faced competition after its industrial revolution took off (after 1860, by the US and Germans), and had its dominions move rather rapidly towards autonomy and then independence in the late 19th century/early 20th centuries.
`
Prior to that, the Mongols came close to a Eurasian Empire.
`
Other than that, most empires were regional, and the world was not so integrated in terms of communications/transportation, or developed to allow a “superpower” (lack of an industrial base, scientific/technological foundation, etc. to achieve superpower status).

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
martin8888Dec 15th, 09:56
The best defence transparency?
I think the Economists editor has been spending too much time with the pixies again.

If you want to write about China, a revision, a brush up, a look through of David Landes, the wealth and poverty of nations and Paul Kennedys, the rise and fall of the great powers, just might be in order.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
3U2t87RGiaDec 15th, 09:15
History shows that empires come and go. From the lost ancient Persian empire to the recent British empire all have risen and then have been pushed aside by a new rising empire. Technology and capital has been the driving force behind the rise of new empires. Napoleon Bonaparte France went bankrupt waging wars and had to sell Louisiana to the Americans to fund his wars whereas the British had a superior banking and taxation system avoiding the problems faced by the French.
The Chinese are graduating over two million STEM students each year and are catching up technically with the US. In a decade China will be technically more advanced than the USA. The USA is in a conundrum with problems from immigration, pension and an aging population. The boiling pot where new migrants would assimilate is dead as new districts spring up populated by new migrants specific to source countries. As the number of non whites in the USA increase and in the not distant future whites become a minority, the US will become akin to present day Brazil.
Resorting to China phobia is a short term solution. In the medium term China will be the number one economic and military power and the world will have to accept this new reality however bitter this realization is to the USA, Europe and China

Recommend13ReportPermalinkReply
Michael Dunnein reply to 3U2t87RGiaDec 16th, 09:10
“Technology and capital has been the driving force behind the rise of new empires. ”
`
In terms of world history, that had been relatively recent, like since the last 400/500 years. And, the dynamics/benefits around technology/finance didn’t really get going until the end of the 17th century.
`
The second paragraph didn’t make much sense. The American population is aging at a slower pace than many other countries, including China. And there isn’t much of a pension problem, if you are referring to social security.
`
As for immigration, aside from some demagoguery, there isn’t much of a problem there either, and quite a few people are still immigrating to the United States.
`
And don’t think the US resembles Brazil, certainly not the north or the Amazon region, or even the Matto Grosso area. Maybe some parts of the US roughly resemble areas in states like Rio Grande do Sul, or Parana, or Santa Catarina?
`
It doesn’t sound like you have traveled much to either the United States or Brazil?
`
Sounds like you have been listening to some racists rantings of fringe types – alt right kind of stuff. LIke you realize, there are white hispanics? Like folks of Cuban background, who vote Republican?

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
ThadeuDec 15th, 09:05
The Chinese tactics are quite the same western countries have practiced in developing countries. This soft power have never existed, politicians and media in poor countries are constantly influenced by western countries in the same dirty ways China is being accused — welcome on board

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
HibroDec 15th, 07:15
China is becoming great again while the West is distracted by Trump.

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
HinduKafirDec 15th, 06:24
Economist has lent credence to Trumpian Fake News charge.
Chinese are harmless, where would the West be without a 6 dollar noodle bowl, 5 dollar seedy massage parlors and 2 dollar commodity shops. Chinese influence has has fed many, kept crime against women low and allowed the anti socials to sustain on welfare benefits.
Infiltration of political class is a lame bogey. Billions can be made by re-zoning the councils and erecting Grenfell clones, who cares about peanuts that Chinese business offers
And lastly such bigotry about attacks on Chinese students in the Universities. Heaven forbid if they decide to strike back, they will have to travel far and wide away from the University campus to find a target 

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
Andrew KlepatskyDec 15th, 06:20
A hollow article. It lacks concrete examples of China’s illegal behavior but instead displays a disgustful set of China phobia.

Recommend8ReportPermalinkReply
canabanaDec 15th, 04:40
How dare China uses the West’s patent of “Sharp Power”!! ……. without paying any copyright dues. Bad China.

Recommend13ReportPermalinkReply
JT302Dec 15th, 04:36
“Part of [western] defence should be counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion.” —- subversion is precisely what steve bannon, with trump as his vassal, has in mind with his “deconstruction of the american administrative state,” with an independent media first on the agenda of destruction. with people like roy moore assisting, it plays right into china’s hands. with isolationist traitors like trump, bannon, moore, and a hapless, compliant repuglican party, china needn’t put much effort into subverting america and its interests around the world. there’s plenty of white nationalists and religious zealots willing to do it for them.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
BswPAGt3gLDec 15th, 04:26
I see a lot of hypocrisy in this chest thumping article. Compared to all the manipulation and outright physical coercion the West has done to the rest of the world over the last few centuries what China is doing today is very tame. At least they’re not sending gunboats to attack London because England won’t accept its opium.
Peddling influence using money has been going on for centuries and is actually the norm, albeit unacknowledged, in international affairs. China is just playing the game it learned from watching the West. It’s just doing a better job of now than we are and so we’re pissed. But sucking our thumb and feeling hurt is a very poor way to counter the problem.

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
Polar ResidentDec 15th, 02:25
Thanks TE for this very informative report and suggested courses of action. China -shame on you and if you want to step up and lead just say so and share. The world is big enough for all. Do not do a Putin and disgrace yourself. Thanks.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
ý@ýýýýHin reply to Polar ResidentDec 15th, 06:05
[Polar Resident3 hours 36 mins ago

… The world is big enough for all. ]

.

And the Pacific is big enough for 2. Some Chinese general did offer Amelika to move back to it own half of the Pacific and promised that China would not get over to Amelika’s half but Amelika refused.

.

Devil’s

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
homocidalmaniacDec 15th, 02:09
If bureaucrats and politicians are stupid enough to be manipulated by foreign powers, then they should be guilty of sabotage or treason but I am not of legal mind. Therefore, I presume the said collaborators, could be prosecuted for such actions?

Recommend0ReportPermalinkReply
GoodluckHin reply to homocidalmaniacDec 15th, 02:11
Good point. And isn’t it what politicians do to try to lobby and manipulate others?

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
tgmoogDec 15th, 01:59
I think this “sharp power” is understandable as it took China 30 years ( from 1949 to 1979 ) to get back on its feet and 20 years ( from 1979 to 1989 ) to establish themselves as a reliable manufacturing country and lift most people out of poverty … from my experience I feel Chinese wish to feel proud of their national accomplishment and will ignore their shortcomings as they know the shortcomings of Westerners and regard them, the shortcomings, a consequence on the march to betterment … I also notice that the Chinese I have come in contact with have no regard whatsoever about history or politics and not that they are against these but regard history and politics as unimportant … Western countries are more and more aware of their histories especially as histories are always being analysed and re-analysed from all interpretations and thus, are constantly being made to pay for the many mistakes and cruelty of their histories especially in North America … Chinese regard history as unimportant and thus, have essentially lost their culture as without history how can their be culture … Yes, now Chinese do have the Confucius Institute and this is very remarkable especially in teaching Chinese as, at least for me, Chinese is very difficult to understand especially with the various tones … However, young Chinese cannot be talked to about Confucian ideas as they look at me blankly when I try to ask them of my feeble understandings of Confucian translations … This being said, Chinese do not need to be persuaded to promote China and current Chinese values even when living in foreign lands and all non-Chinese will always be regarded as “foreigners” … As Mao said, “Whatever the enemy says, go against” as Maoism is still very much alive since Mao Zedong thought and Den Xiaoping theory is the primary instruction taught in grade and secondary schools … I am not against this and I value and have become close to Chinese but this should be realised as there are many more people in China then Britain and North America and by the numbers and thinking it is inevitable that there is some influence and it need not be good or bad … Openness is a strength but more honesty is necessary as any appearance of deceit will cause severe problems ……….

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
JT302Dec 15th, 01:28
“Part of [western] defence should be counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion.” —- subversion is precisely what steve bannon, with trump as his vassal, has in mind with his “deconstruction of the american administrative state,” with an independent media first on the agenda of destruction. with people like roy moore assisting, it plays right into china’s hands. with isolationist traitors like trump, bannon, moore, and a hapless, compliant repuglican party, china needn’t put much effort into subverting america and its interests around the world. there’s plenty of white nationalists and religious zealots willing to do it for them.

venzeDec 15th, 01:05
TE’s spiky sphere is both unnecessary and demeaning, as if China is that piercing or threatening. It reflects the west’s fear of China’s meteoric rise of economic power, drawing lots of envy and red eyes from western countries. More often than not, TE has little good thing to say about Asians, China and India included. For a respectable newspaper, one would expect TE to be more objective and impartial to be acceptable by readers.
As for the obvious gradual decline of economy in Europe, compounded by high unemployment rate, the nations have themselves to blame for overdependent on former colonies and subjugation of developing countries. Things have changed. Wake up, Europe, with eyes open wider to see things in the right perspective..

Recommend11ReportPermalinkReply
JT302Dec 15th, 01:01
china’s “sharp power” vs. the impotent power of trump’s white nationalism. he threw away TPP and with it surrendered american hegemony in the pacific realm. with a clueless nitwit like donald chump, why worry about china’s intentions? he’ll forfeit american interests to ANYONE who coddles his ego – not hard to do for someone so vain, emotionally & psychologically fragile, and ignorant as all get out.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
Bruce1253Dec 15th, 00:59
I would use China’s ambition to help the US solve the North Korea problem. I would offer North Korea a 3 way treaty. The US and its allies would pledge not to attack North Korea on a first strike. China would guarantee that pledge by regarding a first strike on North Korea by the US and its allies as an attack on China. North Korea would agree not to attack the US and our allies and China would guarantee that pledge by regarding an attack on the US or its allies by North Korea as an attack on China.

There would be a million details to work out such as what to do with NK nuclear weapons, what about food, etc., etc. All of these would take some time to work out, but if China wants to use its power to advance on the world stage, let it demonstrate its willingness to act as a peace maker for one of the most dangerous issues we are currently facing. China is perhaps the only power who has influence with both the US and North Korea.

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
TellitasitisDec 15th, 00:27
These replies and comments to your article bare evidence that we live in a free society. This would not be allowed in China. Censorship would prevent this.
One thing that stands out in many of the comments and replies to this article, is the very poor standard of English grammar. It begs the question , “ How many of these comments are fake people ? “. I may be mistaken.

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
GoodluckHin reply to TellitasitisDec 15th, 02:05
The question you beg does not reflect your standard of English grammar.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
GoodluckHDec 15th, 00:16
I respect The Economist’s 200-year-old tradition and quality writing. However, I do think you should not judge the world the way you did 200 years ago. I am disheartened to read this article. It sounds like you are deliberately pandering the Western democracy (similar to the state-owned news publication in China) while ignoring the same ‘sharp power’ it has jabbed to its colonies.
China is influencing the West by investing and building, although in an authoritarian way. In contrast, USA parks its aircraft carriers all over the world…
Also, I’ve found you are quite enjoying dictating others. In your articles, the most seen word is ‘should’. Don’t you feel that you are quite like the ‘China’ in your writing? That you are trying to manipulate readers’ view and thought?
I think you should reflect on how British Empire progressed from its global colonisation to its downfall. Because you might as well treading on the same road.

Recommend18ReportPermalinkReply
RediHabDec 14th, 23:56
you say “The first step in avoiding the Thucydides trap is for the West to use its own values to blunt China’s sharp power.”
.
Unfortunately, the West, and the USA in particular, has lost a lot of its moral authority.. The difference between the USA and China is now just one of degree, like China, the US:
.
* also tortures and assassinates citizens via CIA rendition, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib
* operates a vast spying network on its own citizens and those of other countries via the NSA
* now has a centrally controlled economy via the Federal Reserve Bank and entities that are “too big to fail’.
* lobbyists and money rule, voters opinions no longer matter much
.
Authority comes from force and morals. Sadly, the West no longer has the latter in world affairs.
.

Recommend12ReportPermalinkReply
X_SiphoDec 14th, 23:44
The Chinese already own Australian politicians.
.
* ex-Trade minister Andrew Robb got a $800,000 a year “do nothing” job for selling out the Port of Darwin to the Chinese.
.
* current foreign minister Julie Bishop got $450,000 last year for her Chinese funded “Julie Bishop Glorious Foundation”
.
* ex-foreign minister Bob Carr is on a $1,100,000 a year salary for a Chinese funded think-tank in Sydney
.
* current opposition leader Bill Shorten changed his mind on key China policies after a $50,000 donation from China.
*
Australian politicians are cheap and easy to corrupt. For a fraction of the cost of a modern fighter-jet they provide excellent value to the CCP and PLA.
These traitors will do anything for money.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
guest-ajliiawjDec 14th, 23:41
The most urgent threat is ‘Economist’ put so much effort in politics, why Economist doesn’t talk more about cooperation. Does China really threat the western world or they just wanna judge others base on their white/left value system?
forget it, Economist, please talk more economic issues! this world is not gonna better as you being so arrogant and prejudice. In other words, DON’T WASTE MY MONEY. I pay you guys not for reading bullshit.

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
plutonianDec 14th, 23:37
The Economist should simplify the entire article by just saying “Let’s try to forbid China from doing what we (the West) have done and still do all the time. They do not have that right, only we do!”

Recommend17ReportPermalinkReply
kiratwanDec 14th, 23:00
Being high handed at home, Chinese leadership doesn’t know the alternate method
of persuasion. It seems to use the same in other countries. It imposed trade sanctions
against South Korea and restricted Chinese tourists to that country to retaliate for
installation of THAAD (anti missile system) approved by convicted former president
Ms Park. With strong push back from western countries they will learn. The problem
is west doesn’t have a leader of stature which provides China an opportunity to
increase its sharp power. Trump and May are mired in their own problems to care
much about China.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
mullah_assassinDec 14th, 22:27
The Economist would be wise to look at “managing” the threat coming from the US rogue empire of thuggishness, given the long resume of disastrous results it has brought upon the world in recent decades.

China is hardly a problem when weighed against Anglo-Zionist crimes against humanity.

Recommend51ReportPermalinkReply
HoushuDec 14th, 22:10
About manipulating decision-maker, no one can out do TangRuoWang (I can find you guys his real western name). He was a Jesuit who went to China and became the chief astrologist for the early Qing court (~1650). His crime, according to conservatives of the Qing court, was exactly ‘manipulating decision-maker’, ie, the boy emperor Kangxi. But even those uncivilized Chinese were pragmatic enough to subject their charges against a test: to see who can predict the next solar eclipse more accurately. Tang won, and was able to keep his position (and influence on Kangxi).
The whole story was so close to what described in Mark Twain’s only SiFi novel (as far as I know) called “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”, I really think Mr. Twain stole it.
.
Anyway, TE’s (and its reader and commentators) complete lack of knowledge of Chinese culture is expected, what annoys me is the lack of knowledge of theirs, ie, western culture. About the distrust and even hostility against democracy, one does not have to go to Confucius, one can find enough material in Confucius’ contemporary, Mr. Plato. But people here seemed completely ignorant of.
.
“It is of utter importance to educate the bumpkins” — V. Lenin.

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
JAIHAin reply to HoushuDec 15th, 03:31
To the contrary, all is well. In fact, it couldn’t be any better afaiac… 
.
Functioning, mature democracies across the globe, from the US and Canada to Australia and India, Germany, the EU and so on, are reacting and standing up to China’s authoritarian challenge, and that too at all levels, whether it’s trade, military spending or domestic legislation, and in an increasingly coordinated way! Amazing. Awesome.
It’s a resilience test. And they’re passing! Beautiful.
The challenge brings about the reaction. Like an inoculation, a shot in the arm. Thank you, Mr Xi.
.
Ultimately, it’s just another clash of civilizations that was bound to happen as the world becomes one. The sooner the better. Such civilizational friction is unavoidable, and it’s been happening throughout all of recorded history.
While the end of history might be near, it’s not here yet… 

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
Bismarx777in reply to JAIHADec 15th, 11:31
Most of our Chinese posters try hard to impress others with convoluted faux intellectualism, and Onshu is a shining example. just like yourself.

The Chinese pick on easy targets, and you Australians are easiest targets. Do you know how you frighten the bejsus out of the Mainalnd Chinese and their Western lackeys. Do what Singapore does. They kicked a pro-Beijing Chinese American scholar teaching at NUS for trying to influence Singaporean government officials. No trial or but, they just kicked him out.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2105475/chinese…

Signapore lives in a dangerous neighborhood and the last thing Singapore wants to be seen by its Muslims numbers as a puppet of China. The professor was lucky he didn’t end up in an ISA cell.

Thge biggest problem is Australian politicians are corrupt. HE should have been kicked out of Labor and removed as a Senator. Australia needs to bring back the death penalty and corp[oral punishment, and good caning would stop this nonense. That is something you can learn from Singapore. They didn’t take crap from China. Withg Mainland Chinese its like playing Chicken. Do you know why they don’t f*ck around with a country like Indonesia, because the Indonesia are sinophobic and they kicked China out in 1965. To bve taken seriously by China, you have to be willing to cut off your arm, the Ibdonesian are crazy enough to do that. Australia should have pulled its Ambassador ouot of Beijing, even if China decides to stop buying Australia resourcesm, Australia should jack up tarifs on Chinese goods, and start seizing assets of Chinese government officials n the basis of corruption.

Australians pussies and you, when China was caught for influencing an Australian politician Sam Dastyari , they called the Australian Ambassador in Beijing. Shouldn’t it be the other way around. Your people are cunts. I would have told China to f*ck off, and pull the ambassador back, and close the embassy

Recommend0ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 6 more replies
Xp5GMkMddqDec 14th, 22:05
It all sounds very good when you said that we should use our openness to fight Chinese sharp power but will it work? Western universities can be made to change their kowtowing by publicity from the press but can scholars from democratic society stop kowtowing when they need to access China for their researches or to be able to access Chinese grants. And not only China. Countries like Vietnam are learning fast. I have known western scholars stopped short of open criticism because of their need to be able to go to those countries and do research. And that could also happens to media and others. News agencies have toned down reports in order to keep their bureaus open. Apple kowtowed to keep access to the Chinese market. And their inputs will influence decision-makers.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
VativeDec 14th, 21:51
Wow, so many agents commenting. Be careful not to blow your cover boys and girls.

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
Polar Residentin reply to VativeDec 15th, 02:50
They are already on the CIA and MI6 lists : )

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
RemoteBlueDec 14th, 20:41
I don’t understand why the west can’t focus on working together with China/India instead of looking for fighting? What is the motivation behind it?

Recommend10ReportPermalinkReply
Vativein reply to RemoteBlueDec 14th, 21:54
China is not trustworthy.

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
mullah_assassinin reply to VativeDec 14th, 22:19
Coming from the rogue US regime of imperial thuggishness, that’s a real laugh.

Still trying to locate those “WMDs” in Iraq and that Russian “meddling” though.

Recommend51ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 1 more reply
J WorthingtonDec 14th, 20:34
Money is power. Creditor nations call the tune. Just like the west in the 19th-20th centuries.

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
guest-noljijsDec 14th, 19:55
What a hypocrite to state China is manipulating decision-makers in Western democracies, while big businesses/companies have been influenced/manipulated (tend to use the phrase “lobby”) the Western democracies all these time to achieve their own benefits.

For example, Rupert Murdoch is known for influenced, and manipulated the British election, policy.

Really best defense is transparency? The common people, general public have no say in any of the decision making at high level. Another best example is healthcare, be it America healthcare or the UK National Health Service, the biggest beneficial are those private multinational companies who rip a huge profit and pay so little tax. Guess how much money those companies spent each year in lobbying, millions if not billions!!! Oh and they sometime also the advisors for the government in shaping up the health policy.

True and pure democracies is long dead.

Recommend19ReportPermalinkReply
Bruce1253Dec 14th, 19:40
China has been moving toward becoming the major player on the world stage for a very long time. They view this as their rightful place in the world, especially for a country that has a history stretching back about 3,000 years. They are willing to pay a heavy price for this move forward, witness what they are doing to their environment, their people and their economy. Their use of money and influence is the same as other countries have been doing for some time. At present they are preying on the weaker links in their target countries. Individuals and groups who would yield to pressure and or money from someone even if it wasn’t China. As time passes they will learn from their early heavy handedness and become more sophisticated in their subversion.

Countries and groups would to well to look inside China, to see how they treat their own people, to remember the dissidents who have disappeared, to look at the millions who have been forced out when China decides to build a dam, or the censorship China imposes on ideas from outside on their own media. China may be useful, but they will never be your friend. In fact China is very much like a poisonous snake, totally focused on its own needs, to be treated with respect, and don’t ever turn your back on it.

Recommend14ReportPermalinkReply
nannitein reply to Bruce1253Dec 14th, 20:33
In theory, America has similar natural resources, more navigable riverways and coastlines, an established culture of free enterprise and democratic attitudes, and most importantly, we don’t have multiple major enemies ringing our coast.
.
Trade, immigration(exchange of minds and ideas) and treating our pacific rim partners as equals (specifically in regards to their role as our military allies) is the best way to manage China.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
chinachipin reply to Bruce1253Dec 15th, 01:34
Hi Bruce1253,
You might be amused to hear that a ways up the Yangtze from Nanjing some 24,000 year old eating bowels were found. So they have been eating and talking about things that long, and it seems, without interruptions. Should we stretch that 3,000 to 24,000?
.
And I taught for a decade in Nanjing, and my friends email list there is 14,000 long. So My experience is: you are wrong about Chinese friends. But then, you’re a bot?
.
;-D

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 7 more replies
RajawaliDec 14th, 19:38
Transparency ? Not from Canada’s Liberal government or from the province of Ontario. I am afraid you won’t find too many “patriotic” western policy makers as long as the are susceptible to the corruption disease.

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
nanniteDec 14th, 18:46
Increase immigration from China to America. We can win minds with our superior political environment and superior democratic culture. (in theory)

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
kiratwanin reply to nanniteDec 14th, 23:12
Watching the republicans in American congress, one hardly doubts the parody of
political culture. By the way, congressmen spent $17million of public money to settle
the sexual harassment cases with the women. They don’t have courage to stand up
after stooping so low. Donald Trump is writing the obituary of American democracy.

Mike DsouzaDec 14th, 18:44
The west has been doing this for the last 300 years. They have been either attacking, occupying or committing genocide. Now that they cant colonize anymore or commit any more genocide, they use air power and sharp power and soft power if none of the others are possible.

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
Victor E.Dec 14th, 18:43
The irony everyone has missed is that if China’s leadership were able to acknowledge to themselves that their system of government was accountable, even-handed and above-board, they would have no problem whatsoever with the suggestion that they have been trying to influence overseas lawmakers; on the contrary, they would wear the detection of their attempts to exert influence as a badge of honour.
.
China’s hostility to the suggestion that it has been sedulously exerting political influence overseas is as clear a sign as we could hope for that its leadership are uncomfortably aware they are pushing a political system that is in some vital respects morally repugnant by any yardstick of evaluation.
.
Just as an aside, the antonym of “soft” is “hard”, not “sharp”.

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
rewt66in reply to Victor E.Dec 14th, 19:04
‘Just as an aside, the antonym of “soft” is “hard”, not “sharp”.’
.
True, but “hard power” is normally used to mean military power, which is not the topic here. So they need a different term than either “hard power” or “soft power”.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
HoushuDec 14th, 18:37
It’s interesting to learn that a “mature” democracy like Australia all of sudden needs to pass new laws to prevent foreign influence….
Sounds to me like a hasty changing of rules when yellow-man wants to join white-man’s game and may, god forbid, win.
hehehe….

Recommend17ReportPermalinkReply
Mishmaelin reply to HoushuDec 14th, 20:47
Exactly.
Australia was colonized by western values, and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure their conquest is not diluted by anyone else’s values.

Recommend8ReportPermalinkReply
Houshuin reply to MishmaelDec 14th, 21:55
Well, a penal colony’s western moral value? That’s rich.
.
Talking about ‘dilute’ value, there are many good books on the saga of Bounty mutiny. In them one can find many examples of how British government encouraged the diluting of Polynesian culture and their values… Don’t read much, do you?
hehehe….

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
this_MartinDec 14th, 18:37
Given contemporary history is explorative of an unprecedented arrayness of totality considering competitive states juxtaposed some resolution of the political experiments of the 19th and 20th century, likening China, to as being a ‘prickly pear’, is probably inappropriately accusative, and, more to the point, that that current history is a reflection of where tangentile explorations of recusitive and such, politics being what it is, the narrative exploration of the diversity of political ambitions and aspirations, decision making should always be reminded as reasonable.

Calls for transparency are problematic, as considering for example, the extent to which transparency is an exercise in marketing, and, however market making, is suppositional of a capacity of leverage to negotiate continuity.

Perhaps, more worthwhile though, to remind, considering what China was, is, and aspires to be, as however juxtaposed, whatever is thought of it, (as if a national unit of analysis is reasonable considering such notions, and, towards necessarily dissuading the supposition there are only a handful of decision makers negotiating the prospects of the future.)

Narratives demonstrative of a necessary continuum of growth, are exploring limits, while there is some vague idea a modern China would describe a scenario where there is a ‘new market’ for 1 billion or more customers for automobiles, there are practical constraints to population density, and, the legitimacy of a supposition considering the extent to which there is a discontinuity of reasoning, of western powers to suppose themselves, Chinesing, to orient their ability to effect to capitalize on a market, and, repatriate profits, without, ex ante, repatriating Communist reasoning, in response, as some supposition of a suppositional notion of efficiency contending with an involuntary propositional of bargainality.

What is true, is that, Modern China, is thoroughly invested in trade, and, is as much capacitated of gains of trade as could be imaginable, considering its capacity to translate a bargain of trade, as even however now operant of those gains, and as considering diversification, and, projection of a capacity to effect terms of trade that are not entirely central to the Orient.

The problem of protaganists negotiated greeted beyond the political context of their happening, is a dimension of geo-politics that is interpretable of a biased read of history, and, of course, superficial reasoning, considering the locality of the sovereign determinative of any particular state, is as problematic of assessing the problems of a-symmetries of what is made transparent, and, what is however contrarily factual.

Of course, domiciled corporate organizations, do not conduct, inveterably on the basis of norms of congruence considering contemporaries of foreign domiciles, and, the most reasonable exercise of integrable interpretability of efficacy, is that, in fact, one or the other, achieves what, on the basis of however.

And, there are super-national organizations to effect to negotiate the different attitudes of what constitutes subsidy, influence peddling, and, problems of elocution of reasonable determinability. This is why trade agreements exist, and, are negotiated in the frameworks of their coming into being.

Disproportionate skew to expectations attributable to ‘manageable foreign’ markets, is introductory to the kind of mechanisms of arbitration propositionally effected by reasonably functional markets. So, it really is a phase of determining ‘accuracy’, rather than, as supposing to enthuse ‘growth’. And that that accuracy is denuded of its speculative fluffing, regularly, via mechanisms of transparent demonstration of actuality.

(You recall interest rate returns, and, dividendies, of course!)

Given, the latitude extenuated the propositional extenuation of gains of trade, as however enumerated of equity claims, there is a disconnect, as per those claims of equity, being manifest a structural supposition of value, and, of course, politics and arbitrage, are entirely distinct, and, different exercises.

So, we are reminded of course, of how Western Banks once enthused a notion of a Chinese Wall, as rendering distinct activities of underwriting opposed brokerage, I suppose the Chinese are canny also, the difference of co-ordinating to mitigate, the extenuation of arbitrary politics, that is contrary what can be supposed determined negotiable of its negotiation of politics reflected discernable interpretations of comparative law.

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
popcorndaddyDec 14th, 18:29
Only a few years ago the progressives of the West were cheering China on and couldn’t wait for them to displace the US. What happened?

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
chinachipin reply to popcorndaddyDec 15th, 14:47
Good Question!
.
What do YOU think Happened? And who were the then-progressives?! Were they from both parties, and what was the ratio of Dems to Reps? We probably agree in various parts. I come from the school of folks that had known China from the time when some Americans, French, and British, Italians, (Like Jesuits) and etc quite respected China:
.
“It is widely acknowledged by Western scholars today that China’s imperial examination system exerted direct influence on the modern civil service examination system in the West,” said Li Shiyu, a guest-visitor to the exhibition and researcher with the Institute of History under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. ”
.
See:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/159019.htm
.
;-D

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Hatch CDec 14th, 18:06
An argument can be made that it is intolerant to ignore China’s cultural practices, and that if subversion and bullying are its culture, then we should embrace the qualities of this emerging world player, cast off our own traditions and conform to their new age thinking. However, I would not make such an argument.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Mishmaelin reply to Hatch CDec 14th, 20:50
What is the evidence for “subversion and bullying?” Why is it principled and acceptable for the US to sanction countries, but “bullying” when it is China?

We need to downgrade the influence of western culture and western values in order to make an more inclusive world, and encouraging more Chinese-ness is at least a start.

Recommend8ReportPermalinkReply
Max the PenDec 14th, 17:58
The Chinese have a saying “wherever there is land, there is China”, and that includes building fake islands in the south China sea, along with the new “silk road” which will allow better access to resources from Africa and Mid East. No one has an issue when its done within the laws. However, manipulating foreign governments, slowing/blocking imports, not honoring commercial contracts, IPR and fake copy products are all illegal and have been going on for many decades. All this is overlooked by the West, since greedy multinationals continue to make $$$ from re-selling Chinese products.

Recommend21ReportPermalinkReply
guest-aainmnlein reply to Max the PenDec 14th, 18:15
except for the fake copyrights perhaps all of the other tools on your list including… manipulating foreign governments, slowing/blocking imports…have been used by the west on foreign albeit developing countries, if not directly, indirectly through the Bretton Woods institutions. The difference I believe is as this article suggest, the West needs to make room for china’s proportionate influence/ambition albeit not in the sense of kowtowing to China or by compromising principled stance on issues of law.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
Houshuin reply to Max the PenDec 14th, 18:34
The Chinese have a saying “wherever there is land, there is China”
.
Really? what that “saying” in original Chinese might be? (many here know enough Chinese to know that you are lying).

Recommend13ReportPermalinkReply
guest-owwmiewDec 14th, 17:52
The sum-total of recent Western media coverage on China seems to be that we are engaging in a war so cold it’s descended into a shadow war. No guns, no proxies, hardly even the overt diplomatic and media-driven ideological war we saw during the Cold War. Of course this one is about influence, not ideology (does China even have a coherent ideology outside of CPC power and social stability at all costs?). Western media, politicians and businesses will go along with China throwing its economic weight around to gain international influence for a while, but not forever. Google, Facebook and Twitter already decided to forgo the Chinese market rather than bow to Chinese censorship, as have many Western publishers (the backlash against Cambridge University Press being particularly notable). Ironically, the CPC will end up harming its image in its attempt to improve it. Exporting authoritarianism only works for so long before, sooner or later, the rest of the world pushes back.

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
guest-ojlssaaDec 14th, 17:49
I think this article is well-meaning, but perhaps a bit Eurocentric in its views. China has been a unified society with its own cultural norms for a very long time, and its failure to figure as a world power was initially due to its choice of isolation, then a consequence of external interference. This is sensitive ground.
My point is that China does not see political interference as separated from economic influence. It is essentially pragmatic, and perhaps in its pragmatism is a little more honest ( in the sense of self-delusion) than Western democracies.
I suspect that China feels that its sharp power is merely is merely a logical economic strategy, and also it may feel a sense of schadenfreude at returning a past favour.
If you want to stop China using sharp power you will have to find a way to make this work to China’s advantage. That’s the real challenge.

Recommend12ReportPermalinkReply
deadsparrowDec 14th, 17:44
Look beyond Trump in the US and you will see a country which is in the grip of a military industrial complex that needs ongoing war just to maintain employment and has done so since Vietnam. But you, the Economist – and all the other establishment mouthpieces – think China is the problem. China bought an Australian politician? How much did the US Congress cost its various corporate “donors” many of whom, unsurprisingly, manufacture munitions. China is not the problem but the people who control the United States and who will gladly steer us into a war with China if that’s what it takes to preserve their pay days are a very big problem. But if China disappeared tomorrow, we would still be at war in the ME ,fighting our endless war on “terror” for the benefit of the stockholders.

Recommend12ReportPermalinkReply
guest-owwmiewin reply to deadsparrowDec 14th, 18:05
The military-industrial complex comprises all of 1% of the U.S. economy. You’d be better served arguing against the influence of Big Oil in the US’s ME meddling than the military-industrial complex. Besides, China is too preoccupied with gathering biometric data on Uighers and scooping up political dissenters to worry about Middle East theocracy. As long as the Saudi’s sell them a nice big chunk of Aramco the Chinese could care less how tyrannical ME governments are.

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
guest-aainmnlein reply to deadsparrowDec 14th, 18:21
Can’t agree more on your observations. Indeed, it is like an existential dilemma: consumption and supply both got to perpetual for the arms industry as well as the K-street lobbyists. I see also what China’s ambitious plans for influence, power, control and that would be exactly the same if another country becomes a No.2 economy with such potential. We have seen the US taking over on the United Kingdom during the 20th century, perhaps time for the middle kingdom in the 21 century. The only thing we can so is ensuring states (and individual) adhere to rule of law, transparency, respect for each other values.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 3 more replies
Olaf5466Dec 14th, 17:41
… not to mention cyber warfare, in which China would seem to be very well positioned (the entire country is firewalled and can bring innumerable numbers of malleable young minds to bear)

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
Lotus_MaidenDec 14th, 17:24
“Instead the West needs to stand by its own principles”
–
What principles might this be TE? Truly baffled by this line…. Considering who Trump was supporting as the president of the US. Not to mention other issues like NSA, racism, lack of morals within the US and US politics etc… Can’t say that the UK is faring much better. More like much ado about nothing considering that China is focused on actual issues, environmental, science/technology and attempting to create a more equal society with 1.3 billion people to boot.

Recommend25ReportPermalinkReply
N9EJe9jVkein reply to Lotus_MaidenDec 14th, 19:50
Which is the racist country: China has only allowed 1448 citizens to become Chinese, whereas US takes 700,000 per year?

Recommend8ReportPermalinkReply
Lotus_Maidenin reply to N9EJe9jVkeDec 15th, 00:14
LOL at your logic. Which country have the 1.3 billion people? Why would it need more citizens with that many people already in the country. Really baffled at how that’s considered racist… Are you virtue signaling or something?

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
guest-niimwleDec 14th, 17:24
So Economist thinks China has sharp power… Putin’s Russia is mad… America’s Trump is a nutjob and India’s Modi is a demagogue… What next?!
Maybe Economist should spend more time analyzing the wasteland in it’s backyard..
Vast swaths of land in UK are an industrial wasteland obliterated by drugs and crime.. Huge rise in terrorism acts from migrant populations all across Europe.. crime and robbery sky high in west and Italy run over by the Mafia..
The West is broke, uneducated and on dope!
And we think we can lecture China!.. Get a grip.. Get some humility.. Just because the Brits ran a colony 100 years ago doesnt mean they know whats best..

Recommend32ReportPermalinkReply
siddsaDec 14th, 17:16
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

But this vigilance may be construed to create a similar totalitarian state which it set out to prevent. China is rising power and it will rubs lot of countries wrong way. Especially the eclipsing powers from Europe. Not much can be done to prevent it unless until you are ready to reverse globalisation or risk total war. In an analogy you may have to kill yourself to remain supreme till the end or give away gracefully to younger challenger.

Values of transparency cannot help much against determined statecraft, Soviet Union was not defeated by love but by economy and stealth warfare. However sadly (for western nations) this time economy is in side of Chinese and they are quickly catching up on the military. Deeper alliance amongst themselves would have helped US and western nations and was even tried by Barack Obama in his ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy which had military and economical angle (TPP) but then Donald Trump happened.

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
guest-niimwleDec 14th, 17:12
I welcome China’s power.. It is refreshing than the brainwashing the west has been at for the last 50 years..
Europe keeps talking about human rights and nonsense like that while filling up its cities with migrants (at the recommendation of Economist)..
While China and India are ascending the world with growth, innovation and influence..
For one, armchair journalists from Economist will not be sitting in Islington cafes writing about how the western model of multi-culturalism and human rights have won the day!

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
N9EJe9jVkein reply to guest-niimwleDec 14th, 20:00
The rule is – no “othering”. The other rule is no group shall have hegemony. The assumption is people are born with a blank sale. The challenge is to erase the software being written on the blank slate with the superior insights of the Western progressive mind.

Recommend0ReportPermalinkReply
SuchindranathDec 14th, 17:11
The wheel of fortune turns. The CIA took over from MI6. Now China takes over from the CIA (witness Zimbabwe, Nepal, Cambodia..) Sunni Islam purchased the opinion and decision making of the West. Now Communist China takes over. China is formidable. It marches inexorably across multiple dimensions to carefully laid out plans that span decades. The only silver lining to this dark and lowering Cumulo Nimbus is the possibility that Islam and China may grind each other down.

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
ý@ýýýýHin reply to SuchindranathDec 15th, 06:24
.

China is watching Islam grinding Christianity and hinduism down.

.

Devil’s

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
Suchindranathin reply to ý@ýýýýHDec 15th, 09:46
This is true.

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
daysaccountedforDec 14th, 16:59
Media exposure of influence is the key, but media organizations are among the most vulnerable to it. Struggling papers have been alarmingly happy to run “joint content” sections with Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces. Media outlets are also highly sensitive to claims of bigotry; this has mostly happened in other contexts, but a Twitter dogpile of activists is often enough to get journalists or editors “reassigned”, which has a deep chilling effect on the rest. (Cultural institutions are also often eager to prostitute themselves; I once visited a large science museum with an absurdly unscientific display about qi and the benefits of traditional Chinese medicine.)
–
In all cases, it’s hard to distinguish between direct state influence and the patriotism of individuals, and there is a real risk of allowing justified concern to shade into paranoia and prejudice. Fortunately, the Chinese government seems to have overplayed its hand. Articles like this one are signs of a reaction that may make the general effort counterproductive. The Greek example is the same effect in a different sphere. By pressuring Greece to veto a statement on human rights, the Chinese government achieved three things: it increased suspicion of itself; it drew attention to its human rights record; and it cautioned voters in other countries to beware its influence (the Greeks, of all people, should have been warier of foreigners bearing gifts).

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
Patrick USADec 14th, 16:40
I disagree with TE on China’s power projection capabilities. TE believes that China can project power far from its shores. It cannot. The best example of power projection is a capable carrier strike group. The best that China has in this department is an ageing Russian carrier that barely works, much less project power far from its shores with a strained supply line. TE’s statement lowers the credibility of the entire article and has an air of sabre rattling to it by playing up Chinese capabilities. China is actively trying to only do area denial close to its shores and not power projection.

Recommend6ReportPermalinkReply
guest-aammomwiin reply to Patrick USADec 14th, 17:10
“The best example of power projection is a capable carrier strike group.”

This makes the archaic assumption that international power still only lies in a nation’s military capabilities. While this would hold true if open warfare were still the primary method in which powerful nations (China, Russia, the US, etc.) exhibited and gained power, this is not currently the case.

In the modern international landscape, we’re seeing more and more that a nation’s power is derived from their wallet, and what they’re able to do with this (i.e. buy influence in an impoverished nation like Greece). That is what this article is suggesting.

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
Olaf5466in reply to guest-aammomwiDec 14th, 17:42
… not to mention cyber warfare, in which China would seem to be very well positioned (the entire country is firewalled and can bring innumerable numbers of malleable young minds to bear)

Recommend1ReportPermalinkReply
Kremilek2Dec 14th, 16:19
I think that it is not surprising that China is manipulating wherever it can and it suits its interests. But TE is right that the best defence is to stick to the principles of free and open government and free media. As long as this works there is far less opportunity for China to meddle and influence.

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
guest-ajajmwjlDec 14th, 16:05
Indeed, China’ influence over Europe grows larger as investments are poured into the region. Obtaining both economic political influence is reasonable, from a country’s perspective. Perhaps, the EU should ask itself why it failed to help its European allies in terms of economy. Human right is important only when the citizens have sufficient economic power that satisfies their basic needs. The rise of populism is the result of poor education and great divergence between the wealth and the poor. Stop blaming other countries and diverting people from the real systematic issue!

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
guest-nomijsain reply to guest-ajajmwjlDec 14th, 18:17
The rise of populism is the result of poor education and great divergence between the wealth and the poor = the rise Trump.

The United States leads the world in terms of income inequality.

Barracuda008Dec 14th, 15:59
And it is completely fair that it do so. Manipulation of elections, leaders, parties is as old as civilization. Furthermore, an in spite of the ridiculous American Russian probe it is completely legal at least in the civilized west. If we want to see some examples we can see Venezuela or North Korea where, luckily for the planet, many countries are trying to influence the situation/ policies of these countries. Do we need to do something about it?
f free markets are being worshipped, it’s a tepid faith honored more in word than in deed. Although the global trend of the last decade has been unmistakably toward freedom, government intervention remains prevalent in most countries. The current economic/ politic troubles are not a failure of free markets, but of bad policy. The reality is that giving too much power to the state and allow unlimited intervention of the state in every aspect of our life is the main problem and the influence of China/ Russia or any other bogeymen are just ridiculous pretentions by a farcical media

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
chinachipDec 14th, 15:53
President Xi visited UNIQUE America as a charming, handsome, impressionable, very intelligent, and elite young graduate of the Chinese school of harsh hard knocks. He’s tough, yet has many personal friends in America who like him, and have communicated with him face to face over decades with significant, even shocking American candor. And compared to most Westerners, he’s EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELY patient, as are the Chinese in general derived from having several magnitudes (+- nine magnitudes ) of longer Direct Experience, (the greatest teacher) which Books, and visits to China as a post-youth, sorry, one must look in the mirror and be real: are you a brief in-out tourist, just cannot achieve…
.

.
And his beloved only child, a fine, careful, and , eh-hemmm,(!) fetchingly easy going daughter attended Harvard, directly experiencing America in depth through its most elite students who’s parents, eh-hemmm, generally have had hands in managed America rather successfully for a few centuries. And she can sing with natural international and quite pro-western appreciations & even romance (-:
.

.
I suggest this represents the Chinese foresight of a bold and pragmatic family with a globally charming daughter.
.
Now good readers ET AL (YES, EVERYBODY NON CHINESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) , and TE staff, executive, investors, and loyalists et al etc, how many Western Leaders VISITED China when they were young and could soak-in and grasp it’s unique and deep character like a hovering sponge, (as most seniors geezers cannot!;-() and have sent a beloved child to a Chinese prep school or University so they can benefit from multi-generational insights into China, and so are able to benefit from it as a family for their national and wider mutual global benefits?
.
ZIPPO, huh?
.
So this silly article should be about solving the Western ignorance-of-China problem, huh? Should be able to get it done in a generation or two, maybe all better by 2067. Piece of cake.
.
;-D

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
VLCCin reply to chinachipDec 14th, 17:03
This is an article about how to respond positively to Chinese subversion attempts – to avoid conflict escalation. Your rambling comment is off topic.

Recommend9ReportPermalinkReply
guest-nomijsain reply to chinachipDec 14th, 18:27
Bingo! 很好!

Recommend2ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 7 more replies
guest-ajmswoieDec 14th, 14:55
So sharp power when China does it but soft power when the U.S. does it?

The U.S. has been grooming political and economic elites from countries it sought to maintain or attract under its influence for decades. As of direct influence on political decisions, the foreign policies of most of NATO countries is essentially dictated by the U.S. government (e.g. Iraq Invasion, support to Israel, support to Gulf monarchies).

Recommend34ReportPermalinkReply
celte71in reply to guest-ajmswoieDec 14th, 15:42
At least do a little fact checking before posting such drivel.

Countries participating in 2003 invasion of Iraq: US, UK, Australia and Poland (symbolic). Most of the other 25 + NATO members either sat on the sidelines or were opnely hostile to the invasion.

Support for Israel: The countries of the EU are regularly opposed to the U.S. and very publicly so eg. recent spat about the recognition of the Jerusalem as capital of Israel. The Israeli government actually considers the EU to be relatively hostile.

Support to Golf Monarchies: When it exists it is independent of the US bearing in mind that countries like the UK and France have had a strong presence in the region since at least the 19th century.

Furthermore, as there is a very free press in both Western Europe & the US, nothing much goes on without serious public debate.

Against that, while there is much to admire about what China has achieved over the last 30 years, it is inching ever closer to the Big Brother type state described in Goerge Orwell’s book 1984

Recommend5ReportPermalinkReply
guest-ajmswoiein reply to celte71Dec 14th, 16:09
No need for the aggressiveness.

1. You list countries who participated to the invasion but don’t mention the ones who supported it and contributed occupation troops (most NATO countries if you exclude France, Germany and the Nordics);
2. Words are cheap. I agree with you that EU countries are usually vocal about their opposition to colonization but it’s never followed by any action beside the usual and useless condemnations at the UN;

Do you really believe that there is a “very free press” in Western Europe and the U.S.? Most news outlets are control by a few media conglomerates with ties to the political establishment and ideological biases. On top of that, social media are becoming the main source of information for a lot of people, with all the dangers it represents (e.g. alleged Russian interference in the election, social programming).

As of the idea of nothing much going on without serious debate, I only need to point to the Iraq War to show that is isn’t true.

Recommend7ReportPermalinkReply
Expand 2 more replies
WT EconomistDec 14th, 14:25
If China is so sharp, how come it lost the 2016 U.S. Presidential election to Russia?

Recommend4ReportPermalinkReply
mullah_assassinDec 14th, 13:22
Western governments are not only drowning in Russophobia and Iranophobia, but now, Sinophobia.

They call it the Thucydides TRAP for a reason. It’s a trap. Western officials seem bent on preserving empire in a panic, as China patiently and coolly expands itself via peaceful means, with construction projects and business deals.

The West has passed its peak. Its pretty evident, with all the fear mongering and constant appeals to knee jerk emotions and short-termism. China looks decades ahead before opening its mouth.

I think the West could do well to learn a few things from China, instead of thinking it is at the centre of the world.

Recommend82ReportPermalinkReply
CaptainRonin reply to mullah_assassinDec 14th, 14:41
Don’t look behind the curtain…Cue the trolls

Recommend3ReportPermalinkReply
guest-snwjwnein reply to mullah_assassinDec 14th, 17:33
Good point about commenting on China’s long view. I just attended a US/China Conference in Washington D.C. where a Press Attache from the Chinese Embassy talked to me about how China reacts to situation. He said they look at studying a subject for a decade before acting whereas the U.S. government looks at months to solve an hefty problem (usually resulting in failure). We sound too “preachy” and should look for common ground with China