One of the truisms I have come to learn as a grown up and therefore increasingly less idealistic, is that you cannot use democracy and socialism in the same sentence for the simple reason that there is no democratic socialist state or vice versa. This truism extends to China too as a country that is not democratic.
Thus, I was somehow piqued by the op-ed that the Chinese ambassador penned a fortnight ago in this very publication whereby he seemingly sought to violate the tenets of that truism. I was relieved on closer inspection to discover that while his piece was interspersed with references to China and democracy, the two were not be found in the same sentence. Had the ambassador turned that truism on its head, he would have achieved a mean feat!
In his September 6 – 2, 2020 op-ed, the esteemed diplomat naturally, sings the praises of his country and revels on the memories of the war against Japan. However as you go through the pieced it becomes manifestly clear that this is just a ruse to get at the ultimate target of the op-ed: the United States of America. You know the more I watch the ambassador he is somehow in the same vein as our former president Ian Khama who during 20 years as vice president and president, held nothing but deep-seated scorn for the private press. The idea of an independent press to a man raised on a diet of people ingratiating themselves at his feet was too much for him. He even actively defunded the private press to bring it to its knees.
So two parties not given to diversity of thought are now all over the private press. And please don’t get me wrong because I defend the right of both Khama and the ambassador to express themselves freely in the media. I hope that one day they will return the compliment and appreciate the right to free expression by those who hold dissenting views.
By writing favourably about multilateralism while ripping withdrawal from international organisations, the ambassador is undoubtedly taking potshots at the US for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Surely he has to love the United Nations (UN) and its agencies. After all, some these agencies have no interest whatsoever in the pursuit of democracy but have become de facto subsidiaries of China.
Ironically, he states that “most nations have come to realise that differences must be settled through dialogue and conflicts resolved through mediation’. The trouble with that is that he does not cite any examples of China using dialogue to resolve differences.”This begs several rhetorical questions; Where is this dialogue and mediation in Hong Kong and Taiwan? Where is dialogue with the Dalai Lama?
I think the ambassador’s talk of win-win cooperation, multilateralism, greater democracy in international relations , international rule of law, sanctity of international law is not only rich but is a distraction by those who don’t uphold such values in their own homelands. Why is democracy and rule of law important internationally but not for individual countries? You would think that the building blocks of rule of law and democracy would be in your own home country first and foremost. Instead, in China and other likeminded countries, there is no freedom of religion, no private or independent media and no freedom of thought and speech.
If you talk about bullying that the ambassador rightfully opposes at the multilateral level, his country is bullying Australia for simply calling for an investigation into the origins of the corona virus.
Some of us subscribe to the bed rock principles of free speech, individual liberty and limited government. We encourage all countries to embrace them. Not at the UN but at home.
