China`s WEF (World Economic Forum) started on March 25, and the forum`s last day is today. China`s WEF is called CDF (China Development Forum). CDF is committed to «Engaging with the World for Common Prosperity», the CDF is renowned as a high-level forum serving as an important platform for the Chinese government, global businesses, academia, and international organizations.
CDF 2023 is held in Beijing from 25th to 27th March, and the theme of this year`s forum is «Economic Recovery Opportunities and Cooperation». CDF`s slogan is «Engaging with the world for common prosperity».
IMF`s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva had a speech at the CDF forum, and she said; «China`s economy is seeing a strong rebound, and the IMF`s January forecast puts GDP growth at 5,2% this year. A sizeable increase of more than 2% points from the 2022 rate.
This matters for China, and it matters for the world. The robust rebound means China is set to account for around one-third of global growth in 2023, giving a welcome lift to the world economy. And beyond the direct contribution to global growth, our analysis shows that a 1% point increase in GDP growth in China leads to a 0,3% point increase in development in other Asian economies, on average, a welcome boost.»
«So, what can policymakers do? Let me highlight two opportunities:
The first opportunity is to raise productivity and rebalance the economy away from investment, and towards more consumption-driven growth that is more durable, less reliant on debt, and will also help address climate challenges.
To get there, the social protection system must play a central role through higher health, and unemployment insurance benefits to cushion households against shocks.
At the same time, market-oriented reforms to level the playing field between the private sector, and state-owned enterprises, together with investments in education, would significantly lift the economy`s productive capacity.
The combined impact of these policies could be significant.
IMF research shows that productivity-enhancing reforms in China could lift real GDP by as much as 2,5% by 2027, and by around 18% by 2037. the growth that would be both higher quality and more inclusive.
What`s more, it would also help offset demographic pressures and narrow the gap to advanced economy income levels even faster. But the benefits of rebalancing don`t stop here, and this brings me to the second opportunity;
Green growth.
We welcome China`s goal of net-zero emissions by 2060. A commitment that underlines the importance of tackling climate change for long-term development. Unmitigated warming could lead to estimated GDP losses in China of between 0,5 and 2,3% as early as 2030.
China`s goal could lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 15% over the next three decades. This translates into benefits for the whole world: a fall in global emissions of 4,5% over the same period.
Importantly, lower emissions mean a cleaner environment. This is good for people, as it helps to reduce pollution and improve air quality, and public health. And it`s also good for biodiversity.
The spirit of solidarity is very much needed in these difficult economic times. IMF`s role is to bring the members together to address global challenges.
China has played a constructive role in this regard, including through its contributions to our Poverty Reduction, and Growth Trust, its vital financing for our new Resilience, and Sustainability Trust, and helping highly-indebted countries.
In the months, and years ahead, continuing to support the world`s most vulnerable countries will be vital. We can only solve the world`s biggest challenges, and avoid the pitfalls of fragmentation, through cooperation.
Let us work together to foster more peace and prosperity. A global economy in full bloom», Kristalina Georgieva said in her speech at CDF 2023.
Apple`s CEO Tim Cook is one of the few US CEOs to attend CDF 2023. Some U.S. companies are sending only a few executives, but many others are boycotting the event. But Apple is one of the few U.S. companies that is doing great business in China, and Tim Cook is a regular attendee of the Forum.
Tim Cook has also co-chaired the event. CDF is an annual conference sponsored by the Chinese government. The event is an opportunity for Western corporations to speak with officials, and generally help the relationship between China and the West.
In addition to Apple, Pfizer, the founder of the world’s largest hedge fund, Ray Dalio`s, and his Bridgewater Associates, and Invesco`s president, Martin Flanagan, Procter & Gamble, and Blackstone attend the forum this year.
Despite the trade tension between China and the U.S., Apple is attending because China, South Korea, and Japan are the second largest area in the world for buying Apple hardware after the U.S. Money talks.
Picture; World Bank – The Belt and Road Initiative include 1/3 of world trade and GDP and over 60% of the world’s population.
China has always been ahead of the West. The silk road can be as much as 10,000 years old, and the name comes from the silk they sold in Europe. People in Europe didn`t know what silk was, so they believed that silk was growing on trees in China. But, how is it today?
We still have a similar situation. China is way ahead of the West. They are the factory of the world. And most of all; they are very innovative. And innovation is solving problems. Innovation growth and prosperity.
Why not build similar factories in the West? In Europe? Unfortunately, Europe and the West don`t have the same skills. Sorry, but it’s a fact.
China`s silk road is replaced by the Belt and Road initiative, Xi Jinping’s most ambitious foreign policy. It was launched in 2013, and it involves China underwriting billions of dollars of infrastructure investment in countries along the old Silk Road linking it with Europe. And their neighbor, Russia of course.
China is spending around $150 billion a year in the 68 countries that have signed up for the scheme they have. Xi Jinping`s ultimate aim is to make Eurasia (dominated by China) an economic, and trading area to rival the transatlantic one (dominated by America).
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
The days we are living in are historic, and they will go down in history books forever. What we see is a huge shift in the balance of power. A New World Order. The term «New World Order» refers to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power in international relations.
Despite varied interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of world governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address global problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.
It started about 100 years ago. The phrase «New World Order» or similar language was used in the period toward the end of the first World War in relation to Woodrow Wilson`s vision for international peace;
Wilson called for a League of Nations to prevent aggression and conflict.
The League of Nations was the first worldwide intergovernmental organization whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. It was founded on 10. January 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War.
The main organization ceased operations on 20 April 1946 but many of its components were relocated to the new United Nations.
The League`s primary goals were stated in its Covenant. They included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiations and arbitration.
Its other concerns included labor conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe. In 1919, U.S president Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as the leading architect of the League.
But, the League of Nations failed, and neither Franklin Roosevelt nor Harry S. Truman used the phrase «New World Order» much when speaking publicly on international peace and cooperation. Indeed, in some instances when Roosevelt used the phrase «New World Order» it was to refer to Axis powers for world dominance.
Axis powers, better known as the Rome-Berlin Axis, was a military coalition that initiated World War II and fought against the Allies. The Axis grew out of successive diplomatic efforts by Germany, Italy, and Japan to secure their own specific expansionist interests in the mid-1930s.
The Allies, formally referred to as the United Nations from 1942, was an international military coalition formed during the Second World War (1939-1945) to oppose the Axis powers. Its principal members by the end of 1941 were the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union.
Truman’s speeches have phrases such as «better world order», «peaceful world order», «moral world order» and «world order based on law», but not so much «new world order».
The phrase «new world order» was explicitly used in connection with Woodrow Wilson`s global zeitgeist during the period just after World War I during the formation of the League of Nations. «The war to end all wars» had been a powerful catalyst in international politics, and many felt the world could simply no longer operate as it once had.
World War I had been justified not only in terms of U.S. national interest but in moral terms. To «make the world safe for democracy».
After the war, Wilson argued for a new world order which transcended traditional great power politics, instead emphasizing collective security, democracy, and self-determination. However, the United States Senate rejected membership in the League of Nations, which Wilson believed to be the key to a new world order.
Nazi activist and future German leader Adolf Hilter also used the term in 1928. World War II started in 1939, and a year later, H.G. Wells wrote a book entitled «The New World Order.» It addressed the ideal of a world without war in which law and order emanated from a world governing body, and examined various proposals and ideas.
I don`t the Nazis read the book, and World War II continued until 1945. It was goodbye to the United Kingdom, as the United States was the new leader with a new world order. But then the Cold War started. A war that ended in 1989, and believe it or not; that was the beginning of a new world order. Once again.
The principal statement creating the new world order concept came from Mikhail Gorbachev`s December 7, 1988 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Gorbachev described a phenomenon that could be described as a global political awakening:
«We are witnessing the most profound social change. Whether in the East or the South, the West or the North, hundreds of millions of people, new nations and states, new public movements, and ideologies have moved to the forefront of history.
Broad-based and frequently turbulent popular movements have given expression in a multidimensional and contradictory way, to a longing for independence, democracy, and social justice.
The idea of democratizing the entire world order has become a powerful sociopolitical force. At the same time, the scientific and technological revolution has turned many economic, food, energy, environmental, information, and population problems, which only recently we treated as national or regional ones, into global problems.
Thanks to the advances in mass media, and means of transportation, the world seems to have become more visible and tangible. International communication has become easier than ever before.»
Later on, in June 1990, Gorbachev said: «For a new type of progress throughout the world to become a reality, everyone must change. Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order.»
Former United Kingdom Prime Minister, and British Middle East envoy Tony Blair stated on November 13, 2000, in his Mansion House speech: «There is a new world order like it or not». In 2003, he stated that «the call was for a new world order. But a new order presumes a new consensus. It presumes a shared agenda and a global partnership to do it.»
Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated on December 17, 2001: «This is not the first time the world has faced this question. So fundamental and far-reaching. In the 1940s, after the greatest of wars, visionaries in America, and elsewhere looked ahead to a new world and, in their day and for their times, built a new world order.»
Brown also called for a «new world order» in a 2008 speech in New Delhi to reflect the rise of Asia and growing concerns over global warming and finance. Brown said the new world order should incorporate a better representation of «the biggest shift in the balance of economic power in the world in two centuries».
He went on to say: «To succeed now, the post-war rules of the game and the post-war international institutions, fit for the Cold War, and a world of just 50 states, must radically reform to fit our world of globalization.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a «new world order» based on new ideas, saying the era of tyranny has come to a dead-end. He also said that it is time to propose new ideologies for running the world.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul said: «I don`t think you can control all the world from one center. There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world.
So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions, and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge.
Some scholars of international relations have advanced the thesis that the declining global influence of the U.S., and the rise of largely illiberal powers such as China threaten the established norms, and beliefs of the liberal rule-based world order.
They describe three pillars of the prevailing order that are upheld and promoted by the West, namely peaceful international relations (the Westphalian norm), democratic ideals, and free-market capitalism.
Stewart Patrick suggests that emerging powers, China included, «often oppose the political and economic ground rules of the inherited Western liberal order», and Elizabeth Economy argues that China is becoming a «revolutionary power» that is seeking «to remake global norms, and institutions».
Russian political analyst Leonid Grinin believes that despite all the problems, the U.S. will preserve the leading position within a new world order since no other country is able to concentrate so many leaders’ functions. Yet, he insists that the formation of a new world order will start from an epoch of new coalitions.
Xi Jinping, China`s paramount leader, called for a new world order, in his speech to the Boao Forum for Asia, in April 2021. He criticized U.S. global leadership and its interference in other countries internal affairs. «The rules set by one or several countries should not be imposed on others, and the unilateralism of individual countries should not give the whole world a rhythm,» he said.
U.S President Joe Biden said during a gathering of business leaders at the White House in March 2022 that the recent changes in global affairs caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine provided an opportunity for a new world order with U.S leadership, stating that this project would have to be carried out in partnership with «the rest of the free world.»
According to Tony Blair`s annual Ditchley lecture in July 2022, China, not Russia, will bring about the most significant geopolitical change of this century. The era of western political, and economic domination is to an end.
The world’s future will be at the very least bipolar, and possibly multipolar.
The east and west can now coexist on equal levels for the first time in contemporary history.
Now, it is March 2023, and a new world is rising. Once again. A new world that is crushing the old Globalist Order. The Globalist order will be replaced with the reawakening of renewed Civilization-States.
The war in Ukraine strengthens the ties between Russia and China as the liberal world order is fading out, while we see a rise in the Civilization States. Putin rips the West and said Biden and the U.S. are trying to hold back the economic development of both Russia and China.
«The crisis in Ukraine, which was provoked and is being diligently fueled by the West, is the most striking, yet not the only, manifestation of its desire to retain its international dominance, and preserve the unipolar world order,» Putin added.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, political scientist, political economist, international relations scholar, and writer Francis Fukuyama came out with a book called «The End of History, and the Last Man».
He argues that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies, free-market capitalism of the West, and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity`s sociocultural evolution and political struggle, and become the final form of human government.
Fukuyama claimed that there is no alternative to liberal democracy, so the unipolar liberal world order started with the invasion of Iraq, and the plan was the democratization of the Middle East. But it was a mistake.
Charles Krauthammer argued that the unipolar moment after the fall of the Berlin Wall made the U.S. a remarkably powerful country and that the U.S. could do a lot of things with that power. Both Fukuyama and Krauthammer admit that the unipolar moment and the end of history is coming to an end.
Fukuyama is now saying that this is the end of the American hegemony. Afghanistan does not mark the end of the American era; the challenge to its global standing is political polarisation at home, he says.
The peak period of American hegemony lasted less than 20 years, from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to around the financial crisis in 2007-2009. The country was dominant in many domains of power back then.
Military, economic, political, and cultural. The height of American hubris was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when it hoped to be able to remake not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but the whole of the Middle East, Fukuyama said.
Right after the fall of Kabul back in August of 2021, Fukuyama said it was the end of the neo-liberal era. The end of the neo-globalist era. The end of liberal democracy. The end of leftist wokism, and cultural Marxism.
On that day, exactly 20 years after the invasion of Iraq, Putin and Xi had a three-day meeting, and that marked the end of the liberal globalist world order. Now, we`re seeing a rise of a new world with Russia and China and the rise of the «civilization state».
Civilization states are not united by politics but by culture. The civilization states up-end the old liberal international order that`s centered on the nation-state.
Russia, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Hungary, France, and Poland are all indicators of a rising polycentric world. The liberal world order cares nothing about your culture, except for how it violates liberal woke norms. How it manifests racist, sexist, and phobic tendencies.
Liberal globalists don`t care about your culture, because liberalism is all about imposing a system rather than a civilization on all people`s times and places. It`s about making nations more liberal democracies.
The liberal order tries to incorporate others into common institutions like the WTO and IMF to name a few. They all operate according to the same rules, understandings, and goals. But now it has changed. What we see now is the rise of a world where many populations are returning to culture custom and tradition, and as such the old civilizations are reawakening
A neo-orthodox Russia, neo-confusion China, Shinto-Japan, Hindu India, Neo-Ottoman Turkey, theocratic Iran and Afghanistan, and so on. A civilization world is dawning as the liberal world is coming to an end.
The term «civilization-state» was first used by American political scientist Lucian Pye in 1990 to categorize China as having a distinct sociopolitical character, as opposed to viewing it as a nation-state in the European model.
The use of this new term implies that China was and still is an «empire state» with a unique political tradition and governmental structure, and its proponents asserted that the nation-state model fails to properly describe the evolution of the Chinese state.
Proponents of the label describe China as having a unique historical and cultural unity, derived from a continuous process of cultural syncretism. The term was further popularized by its use in «When China Rules the World» by British political scientist Martin Jacques.
Putin and Xi are crushing the liberal globalist order, and replacing it with «civilization states».
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
People in the West like to think that democracy in the West is much better than autocracy in Russia and China. But, what if China`s «one rule» party, the CCP (China Communist Party) is a better solution than the democratic mess (according to Vladimir Putin) in the West?
Democracy is one of mankind`s greatest achievements. But, for democracy to thrive and grow it must also adapt. We need to know what a democracy is.
The word democracy comes from the Greek words «demos», meaning people, and «Kratos» meaning power, so democracy can be thought of as «power of the people». A way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
It is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed under a system of democracy.
People in the West vote for their president, political parties, politicians, and prime ministers. In other words: a democratic process. But what about China? They are ruled by one party, and that is CCP. China`s Communist Party. Is it a democracy?
The answer is yes. But it`s more sophisticated than we like to think. People in China call it «Whole-process people`s democracy, which is a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political concept describing the people`s participation in, and relationship to, governance under socialism with Chinese characteristics.
The term «whole-process democracy» was used to describe existing governance practices such as Chinese experiments with democratic elements in the legislative process and in local government activities.
CCP general secretary Xi Jinping first used the term publicly on November 2, 2019, while visiting Shanghai, and he stated:
«China`s people`s democracy is a type of whole-process democracy» in which legislation is enacted «after going through procedures and democratic deliberations to ensure that decision-making is sound and democratic.»
On July 1, 2021, Xi incorporated the word «people`s» into the concept during his speech at the 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, coining the concept’s current name «whole-process people`s democracy.»
Xi tied the concept to «common prosperity.»
The addition of «people`s to the concept emphasizes the Maoist practice of the mass line.
Xi describes four components of whole-process people`s democracy, expressed as pairs relationships:
Process democracy and achievements democracy
Procedural democracy and substantive democracy
Direct democracy and indirect democracy
People`s democracy and the will of the state
According to Xi, this results in «real and effective socialist democracy.»
The concept`s emphasis on «whole-process» is intended to further distinguish the CCP approach to democracy from the procedural qualities of liberal democracy. It includes primarily consequentialist criteria for evaluating claims of democracy`s success. In this view, the most important criterion is whether democracy can «solve the people`s real problems,» while a system in which «the people are awakened only for voting» is not truly democratic.
Liberal democracy or Western democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a representative democratic form of government. It is characterized by-elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people.
To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.
Whole-process people`s democracy also serves as a political tool to both defend the Chinese government`s governance practices and criticize liberal democracy.
In the CCP`s view, whole-process people`s democracy is «more extensive, more genuine, and more effective» than American democracy.
The CCP uses the concept of whole-process people`s democracy as a means to participate in global discourses on democracy, seeking to deflect criticism and improve its foreign relations. This ties into the government`s larger efforts to promote its global leadership.
In that regard, the Chinese government`s 2021 white paper China: «A Democracy that Works» emphasizes the whole-process people`s democracy perspective in an effort to demonstrate the country`s «institutional self-confidence.»
The white paper argues that the whole-process people`s democracy is the impetus behind China`s development and growth.
Qin Gang is a Chinese diplomat and politician, and he stated this. «Isn`t it obvious that both China`s people-center philosophy and President Lincoln`s «of the people, by the people, for the people», are for the sake of the people? Shall we understand China`s socialist whole-process democracy as this: from the people to the people, with the people, for the people?»
China practices the whole-process people`s democracy, which not only means that people engage in democratic elections, but they`re also involved in consultations, decision-making, management, and oversight.
According to CCP, people`s democracy is the lifeblood of socialism, and it is integral to China`s efforts to build a modern socialist country in all respects.
If we compare Chinese Democracy with American Democracy or Western Democracy, the key difference is that China focuses far more on substantial democracy. Western Democracy places more emphasis on procedural democracy. A Democracy in the West is equivalent to «one person, one vote, universal suffrage, and a multi-party system.»
China`s democracy focuses far more on the purpose and objectives of democracy. Especially good governance, and what they can deliver to the people.
Whole-process democracy encourages the expansion of democratic channels, and diversifies the forms of democracy, so as to ensure that people can participate in the management of State, economic, cultural, and social affairs.
It also ensures that people`s congresses at all levels are formed through democratic elections, and guarantees that people`s congresses and their standing committees lawfully exercise the powers of enacting laws, conducting oversight, making decisions, appointing, and removing officials.
It improves the working mechanisms for drawing on public opinion and pulling the wisdom of the people. And these are not only words. When Chinese leaders say something, they mean it and take action to turn that into reality.
The Chinese people`s political consultative conference (CPPCC), is China`s highest advisory body and plays a vital role in China`s consultative democracy. It encourages active participation in the deliberation, and administration of state affairs, promoting the democratic, and scientific decision-making process of the party, and the state.
The CPCC has more than 3,200 organizations at four administrative levels. National, provincial, city, and country, with more than 600,000 CPPCC members from 34 areas, including 8 other political parties, and representatives from Science and technology, literature and art, economics, sports, religion, and other areas.
According to Chair Professor at Soochow University, Victor Gao Zhikai, few people in Western countries want to acknowledge that the Communist Party of China is not the only political party at all. In addition to the CPC, there are 8 other democratic parties;
The Communist Party of China
The Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang
The China Democratic League
The China Democratic National Constitution Association
The China Association for Promoting Democracy
The Chinese Peasants and Workers Democratic Party
The China Zhi Gong Party
The Jiu San Society
The Taiwan Democratic Self-government League
In addition to this, there is a large Chamber of Commerce, which caters to business owners, private business owners, etc, and on top of that, there is a larger group of people called people without political affiliations.
This is the only way China has achieved such explosive productivity, efficiency, and economic, and political transformation over a short period of only about 43 years.
The legislative information offices not only promote China`s rule of law, but also practice whole-process people`s democracy by listening to the public and gathering the wisdom of the people for efficient, and high-quality National legislation.
The small grassroots legislative information office has become a significant democratic platform.
It`s all a part of a Chinese evolution. In November 1931, before the People`s Republic of China was established, the first national people`s Congress of the Soviet Republic of China was held in Zhangshi province.
In caves along the northern Shanxi Plateau, they used soybeans to cast their votes to elect the cadres. In September 1954, the first session of the first national people`s Congress was held. Marking the official establishment of the people`s Congress system as the fundamental political system in China.
After decades of practice, and exploration, China has been continually improving the people`s Congress system. People accessing their voting rights is an important manifestation of people being the masters of the country, which is the essence of democracy.
Among the nearly 3,000 deputies to the 14th NPC, 16,69% are workers and farmers. Besides the Communist Party, there are 8 other political parties that all have representation in the NPC. There are also a sizable proportion of delegates without any stated political affiliation. The 55 ethnic minorities hold 14,85% of the NPC seats.
For many people in the West, democracy means the right for each person to vote for their leaders. This is basically why they reject the idea that China has a democracy. But what people in the West don’t understand is that Chinese people are deeply involved in the elections of leaders of various levels.
Millions of urban and rural citizens do in fact directly vote for the representatives who govern their daily lives, who then make decisions that accurately reflect the needs, and desires of the people from the most fundamental level.
It`s normal for more than 90% of Chinese voters to turn out in the village, and Community elections all across China, which is much higher than in most Western democracies.
There are now over 2,7 million deputies in the people`s Congress across the country. More than 1 million registered voters have participated in county, and Township level elections.
The ultimate goal of elections is to choose the virtuous, and the capable who can solve today`s most urgent problems, and lead the country toward development.
China`s political system guarantees the rights of its people to elect their representatives, but more importantly, it guarantees that those representatives will be held accountable to the people.
The CPC leadership regards democratic supervision by the people as one of the highest priorities. Article 3 of the Constitution of the people`s Republic of China states:
«All administrative, judicial, and procuratorial organs of the state are created by the people`s congress to which they are responsible, and under whose supervision they operate.»
Democratic supervision refers to consultative supervision carried out by means of opinions, suggestions, and criticism. China has implemented several channels of democratic supervision. Today, democratic supervision is part of everyone`s daily life. People can monitor, and supervise how authorities exercise power at any place, and at any time through many kinds of democratic channels, and platforms.
China has a 1,2,3,4,5 citizen hotline service center, and that has been going on since 1987. When you call 1,2,3,4,5 to file a complaint, an operator will put you through to the right department to talk to. In 2019, the hotline was upgraded with time-sensitive feedback services.
In 2021, the mechanism was further improved and upgraded. They selected the most common issues that people called about that were hard to solve. They dedicated special task forces to focus on these issues.
About 350 cities have these hotlines, and they provide first-hand information about public opinions and concerns that City officials could hardly get in other ways.
Since the founding of New China, people have expressed their opinions on state affairs, both large and small, and party leadership has been relentlessly exploring appropriate, convenient, and diversified forms of supervision by the people.
Satisfying the public need for information, and the need to speak out is no easy task for a country of 1,4 billion people. Undeterred by this daunting task, the country`s leadership has emphasized democratic supervision throughout the whole process of performing duties.
The only litmus test of a democracy is whether it can generate real benefits. Making the country a better place to live, and making the lives of its people better.
Democracy has always been cherished by China, and its people, and it will continue to evolve in China with its own Chinese characteristics. China has lifted nearly 99 million out of poverty. It has built the world`s largest social security system, and health care system, covering more than 1,3 billion people. More than 10 million jobs have been created each year for 15 consecutive years.
China`s success is caused by one major thing: capitalism. It doesn`t matter what system you have if you don`t earn money. Even the Soviets would have succeeded if they earned money. The editor’s opinion is that the difference between democracy, autocracy, or dictatorship is very tiny. It`s all about money. It`s money that matters. Money comes first.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Xi Jinping visited Vladimir Putin today, and they both called each other «dear friends.» Xi says China is ready with Russia to stand guard over world order based on international law, on Moscow visit earlier today. Xi added that with Russia, China was ready to defend the UN-centric international system.
Xi pushes China to play a more dominant role in managing global affairs. China`s New World Order is on the way.
This is what the war in Ukraine is about: the new world order. The war in Ukraine is set to fundamentally transform the International order, and some people call it the world`s «de-Westernization».
A World Order is an impressive work that focuses on the geopolitical distribution of power, Henry Kissinger wrote in his book World Order.
During the 20th century, political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill used the term «new world order» to refer to a new period of history characterized by a dramatic change in world political thought and in the global balance of power after World War I and World War II.
The interwar and post-World War II periods were seen as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance by collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to resolve while nevertheless respecting the right of nations to self-determination.
Such collective initiatives manifested in the formation of intergovernmental organizations such as the League of Nations in 1920, the United Nations (UN) in 1945, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949, along with international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), implemented to maintain a cooperative balance of power and facilitate reconciliation between nations to prevent the prospect of another global conflict.
After World War II, they all said; «Never again», and the winners, led by America, drafted conventions that defined unpardonable crimes against humanity, and sought to impose costs on those committing them.
Recalling the economic disasters and human miseries that paved the way to world war, the framers of this order built the UN and other international institutions to promote cooperation and development.
Progressives welcomed international organizations and regimes such as the United Nations in the aftermath of the two World Wars but argued that these initiatives suffered from a democratic deficit and were therefore inadequate not only to prevent another world war but to foster global justice, as the UN was chartered to be a free association of sovereign nation-states rather than a transition to democratic world government.
British writer and futurist H.G. Wells went further than progressives in the 1940s by appropriating and redefining the term «new world order» as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state, and of a planned economy, garnering popularity in state socialist circles.
Right-wing populist John Birch Society claimed in the 1960s that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, «greedy» bankers, and corrupt politicians who were intent on using the UN as the vehicle to create a «One World Government».
This anti-globalist conspiracism fueled the campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the UN.
In his speech, Toward a New World Order, delivered on 11 September 1990 during a joint session of the US Congress, President George H.W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states. He stated:
«Until now, the world we`ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict, and the cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the genuine prospect of new world order.
In the words of Winston Churchill, a «world order» in which «the principles of justice and fair play …. protect the weak against the strong…..»A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.»
The New York Times observed that progressives were denouncing this new world order as a rationalization of American imperial ambitions in the Middle East at the time.
And now, everything has changed. Again. China`s New World Order is coming.
We are moving from a Unipolar world to a Multipolar world where Europe and the U.S. are less influential. The war in Ukraine is dividing opinions between people in Western nations, and those in countries like China, India, and Turkey, a new poll suggests.
The war in Ukraine has laid bare the «sharp geographical divides in global attitudes» on «conceptions of democracy, and the composition of the future international order,» according to a new survey from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
While Western allies have «regained their sense of purpose on the global stage,» the gulf between their perspective and the «rest» has grown wider, the ECFR added.
There are different views about the general role the West will play in the future world order. Some people expect a new bipolar world of two blocks led by the U.S. and China, whereas there were signs that most people in major non-Western countries see the future in more multipolar terms.
China has always been in front. The silk road is known for all the roads from China to Europe, and nobody knows how old it is, but it can be as old as ten thousand years. The silk road was popular because the Chinese sold silk to Europe.
Today, China is still in front as they are considered to be the factory of the world. But this is probably not a surprise for people in China. Why?
For more than two millennia, nomarchs who ruled China proper saw their country as one of the dominant actors in the world. The concept of Zhongguo (the Middle Kingdom, as China, calls itself), is not simply geographic.
It implies that China is the cultural, political, and economic center of the world.
This Sino-centrist worldview has in many ways shaped China`s outlook on global governance. The rules, norms, and institutions that regulate international cooperation. The decline and collapse of imperial China in the 1800s and early 1900s, however, diminished Chinese influence on the global stage for more than a century.
But China is back. China has reemerged as a major power in the past two decades, with the world`s second-largest economy and a world-class military. It increasingly asserts itself, seeking to regain its centrality in the international system, and over global governance institutions.
These institutions, created mostly by Western powers after World War II, include the World Bank, which provides loans and grants to developing states, the International Monetary Fund, which works to secure the stability of the global monetary system; and the United Nations, among others.
President Xi Jinping, the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, has called for China to «lead the reform of the global governance system,» transforming institutions and norms in ways that will reflect Beijing`s values and priorities.
For over two thousand years, beginning with the Qin dynasty (221-226 BCE) and ending with the collapse of the Qing (1636-1911 BCE), monarchs who ruled China proper invoked a mandate of heaven to legitimate their own rule and rhetorically assert their own centrality to global order, even though they never built a truly global empire.
Even when China`s influence collapsed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Chinese elites dreamed of regaining global influence.
At the end of World War II, China became an initial member of the United Nations and seemed poised to play a larger role in the new international order. But after the Communist Party won the civil war and took power in 1949, China rejected the international system and tried to help create an alternative global governance order.
Frustrated with the existing international system, the Republic of China (Taiwan) remained seated on the UN Security Council, instead of the People`s Republic of China, Beijing promoted alternative values and institutions.
In 1953, Premier Zhou Enlai enunciated «The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence», mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, noninterference in each other`s international affairs, equality, mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
Endorsed by leaders of many newly independent former colonies, these principles formed a basis for the nonaligned movement (NAM) of the 1960s. NAM became a counterweight to Western-dominated global governance.
China returned to the international system in the early 1970s and rebuilt its ties with the United States. It accepted a weaker international role and sought to participate in the institutions and rules set up after World War II.
After the end of the Mao era, China opened up in the 1980s and 1990s, reformed its economy, and increased its role in global governance, including by cooperating with international institutions. During this time, China adapted many domestic laws to conform to those of other countries.
Deng Xiaoping, who ultimately succeeded Mao, oversaw major economic reforms in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which launched China`s growth and ultimately increased its global reach. Deng introduced market reforms, and encouraged inflows of foreign capital and technology, among other steps.
During this period, China also joined more global financial and trade institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the Asian Development Bank.
In 1989, the Chinese government violently cracked down on democracy protestors in Beijing`s Tiananmen Square, and elsewhere in the country, which resulted in widespread international condemnation.
To help rebuild its reputation and ties with other countries, beginning in the early 1990s, Beijing increasingly embraced multilateralism and integration with global governance institutions. Beijing signed multilateral agreements it had previously been reluctant to join.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, China often proved willing to play by international rules and norms. As its economy grew, however, Beijing assumed a more active role in global governance, signaling its potential to lead and challenge existing institutions and norms.
The country boosted its power in four ways; it took on a bigger role in international institutions, advertised its increasing influence, laid the groundwork to create some of its own organizations, and sometimes subverted global governance rules.
In 2010, China surpassed Japan to become the world`s second-biggest economy and earned the third-greatest percentage of votes in the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It also created its own Multilateral Organizations.
China started to create its own Beijing-dominated institutions. A process that would expand in the 2010s. In the previous decade, Beijing had established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which built on the earlier Shanghai 5 group, and brought together China, Russia, and Central Asian states.
In the 2010s, the SCO would become a vehicle for China to challenge existing global norms, such as pushing its idea of closed internet controlled by governments, rather than one global, open internet.
Under President Bush and Obama, Washington generally accepted that Beijing would increasingly support global governance norms and institutions. In 2005, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick publicly urged China to become a «responsible stakeholder» in the international system.
The Donald J. Trump administration, by contrast, has expressed greater concern over Chinese efforts to subvert existing norms and has pushed back against Beijing`s efforts to use international institutions to promote Chinese foreign policies and programs like the Belt and Road Initiatives.
But China challenges International norms and rules. Under Jiang Zemin`s successor Hu Jintao, China more openly challenged international norms. Beijing asserted that its sovereignty over disputed areas of the South China Sea was a «core interest,» and «non-negotiable, « despite participating in negotiations with other claimants.
Beijing also expanded its footprint in the South China Sea; it built military facilities on disputed islands and artificial features. And it expanded its aid around the world.
Since the early 2010s, as China`s economic and military power has grown, so too has its ambition and capability to reform the global governance system to reflect Beijing`s priorities and values.
Some of the priorities Beijing promotes in global governance are defensive in nature and reflect long-standing. Chinese aims: preventing criticism of China`s human rights practices, keeping Taiwan from assuming an independent role in international institutions, and protecting Beijing from compromises to its sovereignty.
Yet China also now seeks to shape the global governance system more offensively, to advance its model of political and economic development. This development model reflects extensive state control over politics and society and a mix of both market-based practices and statism in core sectors of the economy.
Xi Jinping has called for more shared control of global governance. He has declared that China needs to «lead the reform of the global governance system with the concepts of fairness and justice».
The terms fairness and justice signal a call for a more multipolar world, one potentially with a smaller U.S. role in setting international rules. The Donald J. Trump administration`s retreat from global leadership has added to China`s opportunity to fill the void and promote multipolar global governance.
China is now pushing for a bigger role in International agencies. Chinese officials lead four of the fifteen UN specialized agencies. They are also creating alternative institutions. Beijing is building its own, China-centered institutions.
In 2013, Beijing launched the Belt and Road Initiatives. A vast plan to use Chinese assistance to fund infrastructure, and boost ties with, other countries, like their neighbor Russia. Beijing`s more proactive global strategy serves the Xi administration`s dream of returning China to its past glory.
China`s evolving global governance strategy is most apparent in four major issues; global health, internet governance, climate change, and development finance.
China seeks to become a leader in global internet governance and to promote the idea of «cyber sovereignty». That a state should exert control over the internet within its borders. In October 2017, Xi Jinping unveiled his plans to make China a «cyber superpower.»
Globally, Beijing promotes its domestic cyber sovereignty approach to internet governance, which hinges on Communist Party control and censorship. Xi`s administration uses increasingly advanced technology to dominate the domestic internet and social media, blocking global search engines, and social media sites, and promoting domestic versions.
China`s domestic internet offers an alternative to existing, freer models of internet governance, and Beijing also uses its influence at the United Nations, and other forums to push countries to adopt a more closed internet.
Meanwhile, Chinese corporations such as Huawei, and CloudWalk have supplied repressive governments in Venezuela and Zimbabwe with surveillance tools like facial recognition technology.
And the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) contains a «Digital Silk Road Initiative» that includes inviting foreign officials to participate in workshops on information technology policy, including controlling the internet.
If China and Russia can set the standards for internet governance, they could pave the way for other countries to embrace cyber sovereignty, sparking a divided world with two internets. One is generally open, and the other is closed and favored by autocracies.
The world has become less democratic in recent years. Democracy is in decline. The number of people that have democratic rights has recently plummeted: between 2016 and 2022, this number fell from 3,9 billion to 2,3 billion people.
The world underwent phases of autocratization in the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, people fought to turn the tide and pushed democratic rights to unprecedented heights. But what now? Can we do the same again?
A new Chinese world order is coming, and they are not democratic.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Many people around the world do not want a surveillance society, but the truth is that it has never been easier to follow different people 24/7/365. Many are looking to Communist China, and its tactics and impact on society.
But surveillance isn`t something new. The Nazis did it. So did the Communists in East Germany. The Nazis had Gestapo, while the Communists had Stasi, and Stasi is the official name for Ministerium fur Staatsicherheit (German: «Ministry for State Security»).
Stasi was a secret police agency of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Furthermore; the Stasi was one of the most hated and feared institutions of the East German communist government. It all started after World War II: in 1950, and it lasted until the end in 1990 (after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989).
The difference between Gestapo and Stasi is that Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million. One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.
By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.
The Stasi employed one secret policeman for every 166 East Germans. By comparison, the Gestapo deployed one secret policeman per 2,000 people.
Stasi agents infiltrated and undermined West Germany`s government and spy agencies.
The Stasi was much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people, according to Simon Wiesnthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. But, why was the Stasi so extremely good?
Many of the techniques used by the Stasi had actually been pioneered by the Nazis and in particular the Gestapo. They relied heavily on information-gathering and intelligence in order to create an atmosphere of fear and to get citizens to denounce one another. It worked extremely successfully. But, why did they do it? What was the goal of the Stasi?
The goal was to destroy secretly the self-confidence of people, for example by damaging their reputation, organizing failures in their work, and destroying their personal relationships. Considering this, East Germany was a very modern dictatorship. The Stasi didn`t try to arrest every dissident.
They had many different tactics, including questioning, repeated stop, and searches, strange noises on telephone lines, and conspicuous visits to the workplace so that bosses and colleagues were aware of the police interest.
The Stasi steamed open letters, copied them, filed them, and sent them on. They went into homes when people were out and bugged them. They tapped into the phone infrastructure of the building, maintained contacts and occasionally cooperated with West German terrorists.
The Stasi`s function was similar to the KGB, serving as a means of maintaining state authority. This was accomplished primarily through the use of a network of civilian informants. KGB also invited the Stasi to establish operational bases in Moscow and Leningrad to monitor visiting East German tourists.
The Stasi also acted as a proxy for KGB to conduct activities in other Eastern Bloc countries, such as Poland, where the Soviets were despised.
Due to their close ties with Soviet intelligence services, Mielke referred to the Stasi officers as «Chekists». In 1978, Mielke formally granted KGB officers in East Germany the same rights and powers that they enjoyed in the Soviet Union.
Between 1950 and 1989, the Stasi employed a total of 274,000 people in an effort to root out the class enemy. In 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 people full-time, including 2,000 fully employed unofficial collaborators, 13,073 soldiers and 2,232 officers of the GDR army, along with 173,081 unofficial informants inside GDR, and 1,553 informants in West Germany.
Regular commissioned Stasi officers were recruited from conscripts who had been honorably discharged from their 18 months’ compulsory military service, had been members of the SED, had had a high level of participation in the Party`s youth wing`s activities, and had been Stasi informers during their service in the Military.
The candidates were then made to sit through several tests and exams, which identified their intellectual capacity to be an officer and their political reliability. University graduates who had completed their military service did not need to take these tests and exams.
They then attended a two-year officer training program at the Stasi college (Hochschule) in Potsdam.
By 1995, some 174,000 inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (Ims) Stasi informants had been identified, almost 2,5% of East Germany`s population between the ages of 18 and 60. 10,000 Ims were under 18 years of age.
From the volume of material destroyed in the final days of the regime, the office of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records (BstU) believes that there could have been as many as 500,000 informers.
A former Stasi colonel who served in the counterintelligence directorate estimated that the figure could be as high as 2 million if occasional informants were included.
Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extent of any surveillance largely dependent on how valuable a product was to the economy), and one tenant in every apartment building was designed as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo).
Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another`s apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras.
Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.
A large number of Stasi informants were tram conductors, janitors, doctors, nurses, and teachers. Mielke believed that the best informants were those whose jobs entailed frequent contact with the public.
In some cases, spouses even spied on each other.
The roles of informants ranged from those already in some way involved in state security (such as the police and the armed services) to those in the dissident movements (such as in the arts and the Protestant Church).
Information gathered about the latter groups was frequently used to divide or discredit members. Informants were made to feel important, given material or social incentives, and were imbued with a sense of adventure, and only around 7,7%, according to official figures, were coerced into cooperating.
The Stasi had files on everyone. They spied on almost every aspect of East German`s daily lives, and they carried out international espionage. It kept files on about 5,6 million people and amassed an enormous archive. The archive holds 111 kilometers of files in total.
The Stasi was the official state security service of East Germany, the German Democratic-Republican in short the GDR. The Stasi`s motto was «Schild und Schwert der Partei» (Shield and Sword of the Party).
«The Party» was the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany.
The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung, which is a term borrowed from chemistry that literally means «decomposition». Chemical decomposition means chemical breakdown.
For example, the stability of a chemical compound is eventually limited when exposed to extreme environmental conditions such as heat, radiation, humidity, or the acidity of a solvent. Because of this chemical decomposition is often an undesired chemical reaction.
The goal was to paralyze people, and it could do so because it had access to so much personal information and to so many institutions.
By the 1970s, the Stasi had decided that the methods of overt persecution that had been employed up to that time, such as arrest and torture, were too crude and obvious. Such forms of oppression were drawing significant international condemnation.
It was realized that psychological harassment was far less likely to be recognized for what it was, so its victims, and their supporters, were less likely to be provoked into active resistance, given that they would often not be aware of the source of their problems, or even its exact nature.
International condemnation could also be avoided.
Zersetzung (decomposition) was designed to side-track and «switch off» perceived enemies so that they would lose the will to continue any «inappropriate» activities.
Anyone who was judged to display politically, culturally or religiously incorrect attitudes could be viewed as a «hostile-negative» force and targeted with Zersetzung methods.
For this reason members of the Church, writers, artists, and members further developed in a «creative and differentiated» manner based upon the specific person being targeted i.e. They were tailored based on the target`s psychology and life situation.
Tactics employed under Zersetzung usually involved the disruption of the victim`s private or family life.
This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into their home and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting i.e. Moving furniture around, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls, or replacing one variety of tea with another, etc.
Other practices include property damage, sabotage of cars, travel bans, career sabotage, administering purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns which could include subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target`s wife.
Increasing degrees of unemployment and social isolation could and frequently did occur due to the negative psychological, physical, and social ramifications of being targeted.
USUALLY, VICTIMS HAD NO IDEA THAT THE STASI WERE RESPONSIBLE.
The victims didn`t know what was happening. They were confused, and everybody around the target could watch as he or she crumbled under the relentless pressure of state harassment. Zersetzung was designed by the Stasi, and it was a form of psychological harassment to wreak havoc on an individual, without any need to arrest or torture the target.
Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide were sometimes the results. There is ongoing debate as to the extent if at all, to which weaponized directed energy devices, such as X-ray transmitters, were also used against victims.
A direct-energy weapon (DEW) is a ranged weapon that damages its target with highly focused energy without a solid projectile, including lasers, microwaves, particle beams, and sound beams. Potential applications of this technology include weapons that target personnel, missiles, vehicles, and optical devices.
The main goal was to give the victims a lot of pain because that was much better than putting them in prison and torturing them. One of the symptoms was called the Havana syndrome. It was a syndrome of medical symptoms reported by US personnel in Havana, Cuba, and other locations, suspected by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to be caused by microwave energy.
Some common bio-effects of non-lethal electromagnetic weapons include difficulty breathing, disorientation, nausea, pain, vertigo, and other systemic discomfort.
Interference with breathing poses the most significant, potentially lethal results. Light and repetitive visual signals can include epileptic seizures. Bection and motion sickness can also occur.
After German reunification, revelations of the Stati`s international activities were publicized, such as its military training of the West German Red Army Faction. Stasi experts also helped train the secret police organization of Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia.
They helped Fidel Castro`s regime in Cuba. Stasi officers helped in the initial training and indoctrination of Egyptian State Security organizations under the Nassar regime. They helped to create secret police forces in the People`s Republic of Angola, the People`s Republic of Mozambique, and the People`s Republic of Yemen.
The Stasi organized and extensively trained Syrian intelligence services under the regime of Hafez al-Assad. They also helped to set up Idi Amin`s secret service. They helped the President of Ghana.
Documents in the Stasi archives state that the KGB ordered Bulgarian agents to assassinate Pope John Paul II, who was known for his criticism of human rights in the Eastern Bloc, and the Stasi was asked to help with covering up traces.
The Stasi in 1972, also made plans to assist the Ministry of Public Security (Vietnam) in improving its intelligence work during the Vietnam War.
That was then, but how is it now? We must ask ourselves how our own society is built. The Stasi had a system for monitoring telephone conversations, but if they could do it in the 70s, what can be happening even today? What about social media, emails, smartphones, and computers.
A lot of people believe that China`s social system is scary. But that system is not only about China. It`s in many other countries in Europe and America. They have surveillance cameras, face recognition, and the requirements to always praise the government. It sounds like an Orwellian nightmare come true. Or a Stasi system of surveillance.
China`s social credit system affects freedom of speech, resulting in censorship and self-censorship, ultimately silencing any form of opposition. But this is not only about China. The web itself is a surveillance machine. As it stands today, you are what you click.
Once you`re logged on to your computer and have access to the internet, the system will see what you are doing, and you will be tracked by your browser, by third parties, by cookies, and by almost all the sites you are logging into.
The data you give the third party for free is aggregated and a profile about you is being created. Most of the information you give away for free is being used for targeted advertisements. But it could well be used to create a so-called Social Credit System.
Once all the data is collected, the profile is created, and it can be very difficult to change your own profile. Your profile of yours will lead to real-life consequences.
In addition, China has set up more than 100 so-called overseas police stations across the globe to monitor, harass, and in some cases repatriate Chinese citizens living in exile, using bilateral security arrangements struck with countries in Europe and Africa to gain widespread presence internationally, according to CNN.
The State Security Ministry is the principal civilian intelligence, security, and secret police agency of the People`s Republic of China, responsible for counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and political security. The MSS is active in industrial espionage and adept at cyber espionage.
A document from the US Department of Justice described the agency as being like a combination of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Many foreign analysts describe the Communist «Part-State» and its security agencies as being left without a real ideology, relying only on repression and the stoking of Chinese nationalism, more recent works, however, highlight the increasing importance of Marxism-Leninism in the worldview, internal culture and self-image of the CCP security apparatus; Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong remain the central influences, although classical Chinese thinkers such as Sun Tzu are also studied.
1,412 billion live in China. How many agents do they have? Only 87 million live in Iran, and they have its own Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to protect the priests at the top. It is a multi-service primary branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Active personnel last year was 210,000, while 60,000 was paramilitary forces.
According to BBC, the UK is preparing to formally declare that Iran`s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a terrorist organization. It follows a similar decision made by the US in 2019. After a popular antigovernment protest in Iran, the number of people killed by security forces has increased.
The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized by Iranians and international human rights activists.
The Stasi was one of the most hated and feared institutions of the East German communist government. Nor is CCP so popular. Iran`s Revolutionary Guard is also unpopular. The funniest thing is that they are all funded by «the people».
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Ket Garden
Shiny bull 