22 July 2020, NIICE Commentary 5595
Dr. Sriparna Pathak
A fact that reverberates through the 21st century international order is that China has emerged as an important player, and its astounding economic growth rates along with its astute diplomacy have enabled this emergence. However, what also remains a fact is that Chinese foreign policy making is a black box to the outsiders with opacity as a dominant trait of it. What also remains a permanent feature of Chinese foreign policy is the emphasis on history. In addition to these newer forms of diplomacy such as wolf warrior diplomacy have emerged, which sees much more aggressive stances from Chinese diplomats abroad. While this form of diplomacy has largely emerged from 2019 onwards, the clever usage of words and phrases has played a longer role in Chinese foreign policy, to achieve Chinese national interests.
In this context, it becomes pertinent to mention Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s pioneering work in the book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Herman and Chomsky write about how Orwellian doublespeak is an important facet of the manipulation of the English language in American media through a process called dichotomisation- which basically implies the usage of deeply embedded double standards in the reporting of news. While Herman and Chomsky’s work relates to the American media, similar tactics have been used by the Chinese media as well, which is largely an outgrowth of the state. A quick look at news reportage and tweets by China’s state-controlled mouthpiece the Global Times reveals the usage of the exact same strategies of doublespeak. For example, in the context of the standoff between the Indian and the Chinese army at Doklam, when the armies of the two sides mutually withdrew in August 2017, the Global Times reported how the de-escalation was a win for Asia. However, while the Global Times and other state-controlled media outlets were painting a win-win amicable situation for not just India and China but for the entire Asia, Chinese Army had slowly restarted building its infrastructure at the contested site, as revealed by satellite imagery.
The interesting facet about the usage of double speak is that it is also practised by the Chinese Army as well as by the Chinese State. For example, China’s Military strategy- its white paper released in 2015, stated that China does not seek an overseas constellation of bases. But fact remains China is constructing islands in disputed territory in the South China Sea. The paper also added that peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become an irresistible tide of the times. It also stated how China’s external environment in 2015 was “generally favourable”. Yet the entire paper was about how China intends to cope with challenges to expanding its interests, because of which a larger and more diverse military is needed. In short the paper, full of doublespeak, whitewashed new and assertive content through self-contradiction, usage of ambiguous phrases and seemingly benign statements, while describing a brave, new People’s Liberation Army (PLA) at the same time.
On the state’s usage of double-speak, the example of the imposition of the National Security Law on Hong Kong deserves a mention. To begin with, the National Security Law spells the end of the promise made by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that Hong Kong could maintain its way of life. Deng Xiaoping had formulated the constitutional principle of one country two system in the 1980s, when he was negotiating the return of Hong Kong to the PRC with the United Kingdom. Deng had stated that there would be only one China, but that Hong Kong could retain their own administrative and economic systems, while the rest of Mainland China follows socialism with Chinese characteristics.
However the National Security Law surely means the end of the way of life followed in Hong Kong which includes rights such as freedom of expression and protest- which was to exist till 2047 under the arrangement known as One Country Two Systems.
Similar forms of doublespeak are also seen from the state in its pronouncements at the level of regional and international organisations. An example of this is the BRICS 2019 declaration. The BRICS grouping, even though consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, centres around China which is the economic and diplomatic heavyweight in the grouping. While the U.S.-China trade spat was raging, the BRICS 2019 declaration listed out the importance of free trade and multilateralism. Over the years, the tone in the BRICS declarations has been favouring the Chinese agenda, and fact remains that out of all countries not just in the BRICS grouping but also in the world, China stood to gain the most through free trade, which had taken a hit owing to its trade spat with the U.S.
Ironically, free trade is something that China does not really permit when it comes to imports in to China as revealed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s annual report card on the Chinese economy which criticises the pervasive role played by the state in the economy and the restrictive investment and trade practices of the country. Nevertheless, through the BRICS, China signalled to the world that it is building a coalition of emerging markets that seek to defend the current multilateral trade regime.
Diplomatic double speak has been an integral component of Chinese foreign policy over the ages. Another historic example lies in the fact that on May 15, 1959, Chairman Mao Zedong added a few words to a letter from the Chinese foreign ministry to India’s foreign ministry, which stated that China’s main attention and the principle of struggle is focussed on the east- the West Pacific region- on the ferocious American imperialism, not on India, the southeast or South Asian countries at all… China will not be so stupid as to make enemies with the U.S. in the east and make enemies with India in the west. Pacification of rebellion and implementing a democratic reform in Tibet would pose no threat to India whatsoever. This lead India to believe that a military confrontation was in no way likely with China even though the two sides had begun exchanging notes, memos and letters on the border since August 1954. However, fact remains that China did attack India in 1962 causing the most humiliating defeat for India in contemporary history.
Another recent example is that of Chinese spokesperson- Hua Chunying’s statement when she said countries should help each other in this COVID-19 pandemic. Conversely, when Netherlands, to show its gratitude to Taiwan, revised its Embassy’s name to Netherlands Office, Taipei and flew in tulips and stroopwafels to Taiwan, China cut off its supply of medical equipment and facemasks to the Netherlands.
In order to have a better understanding of Chinese foreign policy, what becomes pertinent therefore is the need to understand the double speak in the Chinese state’s, the Chinese media’s and Chinese military’s statements. A careful historical study of conditions surrounding the statements, the actual conditions prevailing on the ground is needed so as to gain a deeper insight of what might actually be in store for the recipient of the Chinese double speak.
