A signed article published by The New York Times on Oct 18, headlined “Thank you, Xi Jinping”, is written by Pulitzer Prize winner Bret Stephens. Stephen wrote that Xi’s third term “will one day be recognized as one of the greatest unexpected blessings in the history of the United States”, in his article that was tinged with sarcasm.
In my opinion, the attitude shown in the commentary — an old-fashioned way of the US approach toward China and the international community — is one of the biggest reasons for the continued weakening of the United States.
In his article, Stephens compared China’s situation during Xi’s ten-year leadership and that before his inauguration. Before Xi took office, he said many in the West believed that China would soon become the world’s largest economy. In comparison, for the period under Xi’s leadership, he said Xi’s reforms “amount to the return of typically inefficient State-owned enterprises as dominant players”.
Instead of providing any evidence to support his idea, Stephens adapted a line from another New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and asked if anyone wants to be Xi’s China for a day. At the end of the article, Stephens said the US system and leaders are flawed, and the society’s edges are frayed, but nobody would want to use the “dismal alternative” of Xi’s system.
Stephen’s narrow view reminded me of “a frog in the well” that sees himself as a person that is superior to everyone else. They close their eyes and cover their ears while seeing the world through a unilateral and narrow point of view, which hinders not only their own progress, but also the development of the global community.
To begin with, I would like to comment on the comparison between the situation between and after Xi took power. Stephens said that China failed to remain as an admirable country after Xi took the leadership. Regarding this, I would like to ask two simple questions based on facts. Has the Chinese economy recorded sustained growth over the past decade? Has China’s global status been continuously enhanced?
Unlike what the majority of people in the West projected, China has not fallen into the middle-income trap. Instead, it recorded continued growth with its GDP doubling since Xi took office.
China’s GDP per capita surpassed that of Russia, achieving the high-income status defined by the World Bank. Thanks to the economic growth, nearly 100 million Chinese people were lifted out of poverty during the past ten years of Xi’s reign as the country became a moderately prosperous society in all respects.
Can Stephens raise such a ridiculous assertion if he can properly acknowledge the facts? Moreover, he criticized that Xi’s economic reforms “amount to the return of typically inefficient State-owned enterprises as dominant players”. If this is the case, how do you explain the projections by key international research institutions like the Centre for Economics and Business Research in the United Kingdom and Nomura in Japan that China’s GDP could overtake that of the US by 2030, and perhaps even as soon as 2028?
Stephens’ comment on Xi’s foreign policy, which he said is the reason for Japan’s rearming and President Biden’s statement of standing with Taiwan region of China, raises questions as to whether the columnist is a fair, impartial and objective intellectual.
The West has been terming China’s foreign diplomacy as “wolf warrior diplomacy”. As an individual with limited resources, I cannot rebuke their biased reports one by one. But let us take a look from an objective point of view: How appropriate is the term “China’s wolf warrior diplomacy”?
I recently posted the following comment on South Korean social media platforms. “Let’s think about the two countries’ position under the US-China rivalry. Didn’t this show an attacking US versus a defensive China? In fact, how aggressive and hostile is China toward the US? At the beginning, China adopted a passive defense. But recently, it took some countermeasures against the US’ attack. If we call China’s defensive diplomacy as ““wolf warrior diplomacy”, how should we name the offensive diplomacy of the US?”
At present, the international community is highly concerned about the US-China rivalry. But who started this rivalry? Who is the aggressor and increasing the uncertainty in the world? Though there are many reasons for US-China rivalry, the fundamental reason, as pointed out by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, is a falling US versus a rising China.
When China just began its reform and opening up, its economic size was only 10 percent of that of the US. But China’s economy has continued to maintain solid growth, including in the past decade under Xi’s leadership, and has reached a point where it can surpass the US economy. Alarmed by this, the US began to attack China.
The US soon realized that it cannot fulfill its goal on its own, which is why it has been trying to unite allies to attack China at all levels. This divided the international community and led to confrontation. For example, besides G7, the US has formed alliances such as AUKUS, QUAD and the “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework” to enhance its attack against China.
As China remained restrained over Japan’s rearming, the US finally played the “Taiwan card”, the most sensitive topic for China, to attack the country. The anxiety of the US, the only hegemony in the world, showed how China has maintained solid growth during Xi’s term.
Stephen’s question on who will want to be China shows how blind and deaf he is even though he has eyes and ears. It is a stupid question if he can just look at the rising number of foreigners and international enterprises entering China since Xi took office.
I also wonder how The New York Times, a leading newspaper in the US, carried this article, which is far from being a fair political comment due to lack of facts and its narrow view, in its opinions section for readers from the US and the world. The misunderstanding, bias and wrong facts generated from this kind of articles will directly affect international relations and communication.
Instead of mocking Xi, the international community should pay heed to how China has continued to develop and prosper amid all the challenges and hardships. Despite rumors such as “China recession” and “China collapse” theories, China is determined to make progress to prove the success of the “Xi Jinping model of development”, showcasing a way of sustainable growth and prosperity. This is what the US, as well as the whole world, should thank President Xi for.
The author is president of the Korea-China Global Association.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.