Welcome to the Future – China the MODEL Government

If you don’t believe we are headed down this path, take another look at what is already happening to individual rights in this country.  Parents no longer have any rights to decide what is best for their children, individuals have no rights to freedom of speech, our rights to keep and bear arms are disappearing as we move closer to gun confiscation, we have no rights to privacy, our property can be ceased without cause, we are no longer free to move about without surveillance and restrictions, we have no rights to access real news or to speak the truth, and we are not free to worship as we choose.  We have no say in what is put into our food, our water,  the air that we breathe or how our tax money is spent.  If the swat team pounds on our door in the middle of the night, we have no right to refuse entry.  If the government comes to our house to take our children, we have no recourse. Our home is not ours, our children are not ours, our life is not ours.  We are much closer to the final dictatorship than you know. 

There is a reason why Christians and Jews are everybody’s worst enemies these days. Those who KNOW the CREATOR GOD and are filled with His Holy Spirit are the ONLY ones who can discern truth.  The rest of the world is blinded by the enemy of your soul.  He knows that he CANNOT control true believers.  The ONLY thing he can do is get rid of us.  We are the only thing standing in his way. Once the world is free of Christians and Jews, he can reign unhindered. 

The coming tyrannical one world government is designed to cleanse the world of all who would refuse to bow to Satan. Everything that is required to accomplish that goal is being methodically put into place as the world lies asleep, hypnotized by their distraction of choice.  Sadly the masses are so dumbed down and complacent that they are actively participating in the implementation of their own destruction.  

If you want a preview of what is soon to be YOUR WORLD, take a look a CHINA. China is a living model of the coming AntiChrist system. In a GODLESS nation, there is no morality, no absolute truth, boundaries. 

The Luciferian’s don’t want you knowing this bit of Info

Fascist Book and the Chicom’s don’t want you seeing this News!

I tried to share a news story recently on face book only to get this notice:

I copied and pasted the article here on my website thinking it just might get through from a different domain. NOPE!! Same message as above. They are scared of what you will find out so we must get creative and share by email and by mouth what they are up to. 

As I was browsing the rest of the news this morning, I came across another article at Now the End Begins that takes these clowns to task. I tried to share it on Fascist book and…. you guessed it, same message!  Go try it for yourself with this one and the other two.

So now you can’t speak ill of Tranny’s, Muslims and now the Communist Chinese of Fascist Book.  Oh, BTW, I was able to share on Twitter!

What is abusive? Nothing!! Who are the “other people”? Take a guess!

They just don’t want you to know that face book, Twitter, Google, Youtube and others are in bed with the Communist Chinese! Russia is not a problem. China IS!!

They are afraid that YOU will find out about this and you will spread the news. 

Confirmed: US Tech Giants Developing Social Credit System For US To Mirror China

Americans have either heard about the “social credit system” in use by the government of China to inflict punishment upon its citizens that engage in activity the government deems unacceptable or have read numerous news articles about the intrusive, totalitarian, oppressive measure.  Reports have indicated that Chinese citizens who have poor “social credit” scores are barred from using public transportation, excluded from top jobs, and have prohibitions set that prevent their children from entering top schools, just to name a few punishments inflicted by the government because of this system.

Many warned this system could be coming to the united States as tech company giants have engaged in silencing conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, and those expressing viewpoints in opposition to what tech company giants owners/employees hold.  As it turns out, Fast Company confirms that big tech “Masters of the Universe” are in the process of developing similar systems to China’s in order to “monitor and regulate personal behavior.”

Breitbart News reported:

Fast Company has caught on to what Breitbart News has been highlighting for some time: that the Big Tech Masters of the Universe are developing systems to monitor and regulate personal behavior that closely resemble China’s totalitarian “social credit” system.

The “social credit” system assigns all Chinese citizens a “social credit score.” A citizen’s score drops if he engages in a range of disfavored activities, ranging from littering to supporting political dissidents.

Citizens whose score drops low enough can find themselves subject to strict punishment, including bans from the use of public transport, exclusion from top jobs, and prohibitions on their children attending top-rated schools.

This may sound alien and Orwellian, but as Fast Company notes, Silicon Valley is bringing a version of this grim reality to America.

Via Fast Company:

Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.

China’s social credit system, called a work still in progress, has been in place since 2014, but could evolve into a single, nationwide point system for all Chinese citizens.  Similar to a financial credit score, this totalitarian system punishes citizens for “transgressions that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, and other actions deemed illegal or unacceptable by the Chinese government.”

The system awards citizens with points for things as simple as charitable donations or taking parents to the doctor.

Punishments under the Chinese government social credit system can be harsh.  One could be barred from leaving the country, checking into hotels, from obtaining high-speed internet connections, as well as others previously mentioned.  The worst punishment is the social stigmatism as a result of being registered on a public blacklist.  (offenders are austricized from society, denied housing and food, literally left to starve.  The same fate awaits anyone who associates with them.)

Social media companies in China have formed partnerships with the communist government.  These companies are aiding and abetting the government to persecute its citizens.  But, this is not unfamiliar here in the united States.  According to Breitbart News, “social media platforms have become a means of extra-judicial censorship for politicians.”  While the First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws infringing upon speech or inflicting sanctions against those asking government for a redress of grievances, aka peaceful protest, the US government can always bully or coerce the big tech giants to do their dirty work for them.

Wasn’t it President Trump who suggested using Amazon Echo and Google Assistant to listen in on private family conversations to determine who should and should not have guns in the home?  Don’t forget about the revelations Edward Snowden presented to the public about measures and systems already in place to listen in, record and preserve private conversations, activating computer and cellphone microphones and cameras remotely, gaining access to homes via “smart” TVs, and other intrusive measures the citizenry was oblivious that the government implemented after 9/11.  While the response of the citizens was mixed, divided along party and ideological lines, the outrage was less than many expected and lasted such a short time that politicians knew they could ride the wave to the end while engaging in dog and pony “congressional” hearings and investigations to satisfy a gullible public.

These big tech giants that implemented social media platforms are now going to decide how valuable individual citizens are in the US through the implementation of a social credit system similar to ones being implemented in China.  By whose authority are these companies and the CEOs charged with violation of privacy of individuals?  No one and no founding document of the united States or any of the individual States.  Moreover, no authority is given to government or has been given by our founding documents to engage in any of the unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, and immoral violation of the right to privacy in any shape or form.

A system such as this is about as communistic, totalitarian, authoritarian and Orwellian as it can get.  It’s Pavlov’s dog system these companies seek to implement to modify behavior to what “they” deem appropriate and acceptable.  Anyone who claims this is just another way for the government to keep this republic safe from terrorism and if you are doing nothing wrong there is nothing to worry about is a full-blown ID10T card-carrying member.  This is nothing more than classical conditioning for thinking modification through programmed learning using reinforcement.

If this system is implemented because no one stops it, one could wake up one morning to find a rejection for a car one wants to purchase, eviction from one’s apartment, denial of buying a home, inability to access public transportation to get to work, or denial for promotionall based on a social credit score.

A form of this is already in use by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Fast Company reported:

The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money. (Insurance companies have to demonstrate that social media evidence points to risk, and not be based on discrimination of any kind—they can’t use social posts to alter premiums based on race or disability, for example.)

The use of social media is an extension of the lifestyle questions typically asked when applying for life insurance, such as questions about whether you engage in rock climbing or other adventure sports. Saying “no,” but then posting pictures of yourself free-soloing El Capitan, could count as a “yes.”

This should put the icing on the cake for anyone still using Facebook who values privacy since there are alternatives now available for conservative, Christian, constitutionalist, and freedom-loving individuals.

However, if you patron a bar, a Canadian company called PatronScan has you in its sights.  The products in kiosk, desktop or handheld form is designed to “help bar and restaurant owners manage customers”.  PatronScan is a subsidiary of Servall Biometrics and is available in the united States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

What does PatronScan do?  It assists with spotting fake IDs and troublemakers.  Upon arrival to the bar, the individual’s ID is scanned using the PatronScan software.  “The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for ‘fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,’ according to its website.”  This list is public and shared with all PatronScan customers.  So, if you are flagged from entering one bar or restaurant that uses PatronScan, you are banned from all bars and restaurants using the software in the US, Canada and the UK for one year.

Who judges the behavior that qualifies for inclusion on the list?  That is left to the bar or restaurant owner and/or managers.

According to Fast Company:

Judgment about what kind of behavior qualifies for inclusion on a PatronScan list is up to the bar owners and managers. Individual bar owners can ignore the ban, if they like. Data on non-offending customers is deleted in 90 days or less. Also: PatronScan enables bars to keep a “private” list that is not shared with other bars, but on which bad customers can be kept for up to five years.

PatronScan does have an “appeals” process, but it’s up to the company to grant or deny those appeals.

UBER and AirBnB have similar systems in place. AirBnB can disable your account for life, for any reason it decides and retains the “right” to keep you from knowing the reason.  Moreover, the decision is “irreversible” and affects future accounts.  With UBER, drivers can rate the customer, meaning if you receive a rating of “significantly below average”, you can be prevented from accessing UBER services.

The problem will all of this is simple – it’s outside the legal system, punishing crimes without due process, any assumption of innocence, legal representation, no judge, no jury and no appeals process.  In a “social credit system”, you have no rights whatsoever.  Basically, it’s an end run around the legal system where there are no elections to remove those making the rules.

Fast company summarized the use of a social credit system in the following context. “In the future, law enforcement may be determined less by the Constitution and legal code, and more by end-user license agreements.”

Before everyone gets up in arms, ask yourself this question.  “Aren’t these companies just following the government example of the no-fly list and various surveillance mechanisms the people have silently accepted through continued compliance?”

Now, this is different from a business owner’s freedom of association and being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.  This system denies the individual services across multiple businesses for some behavior already considered criminal that should be addressed through the legal system and for some reasons the individual is not privy and therefore has no recourse to correct the information if incorrect.  Moreover, while the system prevents those who commit criminal offenses from entering those establishments, no mention is made about contacting law enforcement.  Simply being rude in an establishment could get one banned from all similar establishments.

America is heading toward a slippery slope, if not already sliding down one.  Government and the big tech giants already are cozy bedfellows.  This would be another avenue government could use to inflict punishment on those who object to its continued corruption, usurpation, illegality, immorality, and lawlessness.

Posted with permission from Sons of Liberty



March 15, 2019
by Brandon Turbeville

Some well-informed Americans may be aware of China’s horrifying “Social Credit System that was recently unveiled as a method of eradicating any dissent in the totalitarian state. Essentially freezing out anyone who does not conform to the state’s version of the ideal citizen, the SCS is perhaps the most frightening control system being rolled out today. That is, until you consider what is coming next.

Unbeknownst to most people, there appears to be a real attempt to create a system in which all citizens are rationed their “wages” digitally each month in place of a paycheck, including the ability to gain or lose money. This system would see any form of dissent resulting in the cut off of those credits and the ability to work, eat, or even exist in society. It would not only be the end of dissent but of any semblance of real individuality.

Here’s how the Social Credit System operates in China.

First, however, for those who are unaware of the Social Credit System as it operates in China, we should briefly describe just what has taken place there. The Social Credit System in China isn’t merely a punishment for criticizing the state as is the case in most totalitarian regimes, the SCS can bring the hammer down for even the slightest infraction such as smoking in a non-smoking zone.

One summary of the SCS can be found in Business Insider’s article by Alexandra Ma entitled “China has started ranking citizens with a creepy ‘social credit’ system — here’s what you can do wrong, and the embarrassing, demeaning ways they can punish you,” where Ma writes,

The Chinese state is setting up a vast ranking system that will monitor the behavior of its enormous population, and rank them all based on their “social credit.”

The “social credit system,” first announced in 2014, aims to reinforce the idea that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful,” according to a government document.

The program is due to be fully operational nationwide by 2020, but is being piloted for millions of people across the country already. The scheme will be mandatory.

At the moment the system is piecemeal — some are run by city councils, others are scored by private tech platforms which hold personal data.

Like private credit scores, a person’s social score can move up and down depending on their behavior. The exact methodology is a secret — but examples of infractions include bad driving, smoking in non-smoking zones, buying too many video games and posting fake news online. (source)

The article points out that violating the “social code,” can result in being banned from flying or using the train, using the internet, decent schooling, getting a job, staying in hotels, and having your pet taken away. China is also taking advantage of the mob mentality by branding violators as “bad citizens.”

Almost everyone one of these “punishments” have already taken place in China as of the writing of this article and the country has announced its plans to have the system fully in place and functioning by 2020.

The most frightening part? That system is coming HERE. Soon.

While most Americans have scarcely noticed their descent into a police state, they are quick to dismiss the idea that such a system could be implemented in the land they still perceive to be free. However, all the moving parts are in place in the United States. They only need to come together to form the Social Credit System here.

And they are coming together.

Social media is one important method of judging “social scores.” This is mainly because of the willful posting of social media users on virtually every aspect of their lives. This data is extremely useful to governments who monitor and store the information acquired freely by users who give away the most personal and intimate details of their lives and do so without charge.

Whether it is political opinions, pictures of yourself and your food, or private conversations over Messenger, that data is being sent directly to the corporation and respective governments then have access to that data via a variety of means and they put that data to good use.

But despite the fact that social media acts as a giant web, snatching users information and acting as a useful tool of NGOs and governmentsin engineering social movements and human behavior, major social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter have become ubiquitous and common. They are nearly as essential communication tools for the 21st Century as telephones were for the 20th.

The Social Credit System goes along with the dark side of social media.

This is also despite the fact that social media has been proven to make its users depressed, angry, and less social. Much like any other drug, however, social media is addictive, causing real-world loss of quality of life while the user simply cannot tear himself away even when he knows it is best for him to do so. For that reason, it appears social media, whatever platform it may take, is here to stay. It’s also an important part of the structure of the coming technological control grid.

But beyond the negative effects social media has on the mind of the individual or in the creation of top-down social movements, the “internet mob mentality” has now become a fact of American life. Any celebrity, business owner, or just a regular person can be subject to digital flash mobbing simply as a result of a 2-second picture ( see the MAGA hat kids or the Chipotle girl, for instance) where a person’s reputation is destroyed, their job/business is lost, or their career is over as a result of virtue signaling and “outrage” by masses of people on the internet who are simply following what they believe the rest of the herd is doing. We are in the age of digital lynchings. It doesn’t matter whether the victim was truly wrong. What matters is that he/she is punished as harshly as possible.

The Social Credit System goes along with the move to a cashless society.

And then we must address the coming cashless society. Indeed, we already live in a world that is replacing cash with digital currency. In some cases, the move to become cashless is made by social engineering and predatory marketing to convenience. In others, such as India, the cashless society has been brought forward by law.

As I have written in many articles in the past, cashless programs are almost always first introduced under the guise of convenience. Then, as more and more people take the bait, the older methods of payment are seen as cumbersome and, eventually, are phased out completely. Mandates then replace what was once a personal choice.

Yet, what is so ironic about these programs is that, while the program is touted as providing so much more convenience, even when putting privacy and Cashless Society issues aside and, with the program running at its optimum, they aren’t often really much more convenient.

But that doesn’t stop the rollouts and it certainly doesn’t stop the mandates. It’s as if people believe that masses of scientists, corporations, and DARPA are putting their noses to the grindstone for their convenience and not some other purpose. Do we really believe that those organizations have, as their top priority, our health, freedom, convenience, or happiness? Do we really believe this or do we just not think about it at all?

Regardless, with the disappearance of cash also goes the ability to live outside the mandates of the State which has always been the goal of moving toward a cashless system. The United States is rapidly approaching the phase out of cash as a means of exchange. Don’t believe it? Just go to your local convenience store with a $100 dollar bill.

Enter the Universal Basic Income scheme.

Then there’s Universal Basic Income. The UBI has been tossed around as a legitimate solution to poverty and violation of workers’ rights for some time. It’s an old idea and even establishment philosophers/activists like Bertrand Russell espoused it in the early 20th Century. But while economists debate the idea’s success in regards to those two issues, no one seems to notice how the UBI, taken in concert with cashless society and social media addiction, will coalesce to produce just the world mentioned at the beginning of this article.

Without getting into the details of why a UBI is a bad idea in terms of society and economics, it is still useful to point out that the building blocks of the technological control grid are already in place and, with a UBI, those building blocks form a rather solid foundation.

Here’s how the Social Credit System is already being used in America.

With the ubiquitous presence of social media and the current culture of social media outrage, the social credit scheme is already in place. The State only needs to implement a coherent strategy that is no doubt itself already in place and merely waiting to be rolled out. Already, employers are able to check prospective employees’ credit scores on a condition of hiring and many now require social media passwords for the same reason. The SCS is right around the corner.

Pair the SCS with the UBI, however, and you can easily see how the SCS can be the litmus test for whether or not you receive your “benefits.” This means that, in the very near future, we will see someone who dares say something politically incorrect, makes a bad financial decision, or drinks before 10 am, literally frozen out of society.

If the government (or some private corporation) is in charge of doling out your “benefits” and the government/corporation is in charge of rating your social credit, what do we think is going to happen to violators? Already, governments are cutting social safety net payments to individuals who do not meet what those governments deem to be “acceptable” healthcare decisions. Similar schemes are in place where recipients are drug tested as part of the requirement for receiving “benefits.”

This is how society progresses into totalitarianism, by the way.

There are no doubt some readers of this article who were horrified at the society described within it but who then reached the paragraph above and justified the methods currently used against “welfare families.” The truth is that those readers are just another step in bringing this system about.

Now a younger generation is being used for the same purposes, manipulated by social engineers and reinforced by the generation before them, of bringing in the technological control grid, one giant leap at a time.

Of course, many people who read dire predictions such as these may be tempted to laugh at the idea that such a system could be implemented in the United States, one thing is for sure – the Chinese aren’t laughing. And we shouldn’t be either.

Social media, universal basic income, and a cashless society: these are the stepping stones to a dystopian Social Credit System like the one in China. | The Organic Prepper
Is your behavior naughty or nice? Forget Santa: Government and corporations will soon be taking notice.
Oct 12, 2018That means that the time for entrepreneurs to begin preparing for … In a social credit system, honoring your commitments will be paramount.

Entrepreneurs to Capitalize

Is your behavior naughty or nice? Forget Santa: Government and corporations will soon be taking notice.

'Social Credit' Tech Is Coming: 5 Ways for U.S. Entrepreneurs to Capitalize

Image credit: Patrick George | Getty Images

Steven Kaufman
Finance Enthusiast
7 min read
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.


It sounds like something out of science fiction: the daily behavior of billions of citizens, tracked digitally and rewarded or punished by an unknowable, all-powerful algorithm. But, such digital control is no longer simply the stuff of pulp novels. The Chinese government will soon complete a system of social credit scores to incentivize citizens for virtuous behavior — and penalize them for less-desired activities.

The idea is that if citizens behave unethically or dishonestly in their day-to-day lives, they will lose access to everything from government benefits to public transportation. In the Party’s eyes, direct consequences will help create a more transparent society — or at least one more easily controlled.

It’s a new experiment in human society, so we can’t predict the results. But while you may see this as a crazy idea happening in a far-away place with no connection to our own lives, think again.

True, China will be the first proving ground for a societywide social credit system, but the technology exists already. Some system of social credit scoring — perhaps smaller in scale, or perhaps even more ambitious — is certain to touch our own society sooner than later. The growing breadth of available data on social behavior is simply too valuable for the powerful to ignore.

Maybe such a system won’t be controlled by any government, but by corporations or community organizations. We don’t yet know what form it will take in North America, but you can bet that social credit scores are coming. That means that the time for entrepreneurs to begin preparing for them is right now.

This may all sound frightening, but a system devised by human beings to control others can also be controlled, if you know what you’re doing. If you’re a true entrepreneur, then you see the opportunity in every social evolution. And big changes mean even bigger opportunities. Are you ready? Here are six ways to begin thinking about how to prosper under such a system when — not if — it arrives:

1. Live life in the open.

“If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason not to be transparent.” — Mohamed ElBaradei

Privacy is a relic of a different time. Everyone has a camera in his or her pocket, many of our most intimate details are the property of publicly traded companies, and digital stalking has never been easier.

But don’t cling to your privacy. To thrive in the coming age of the social credit score, live your life openly with honor and transparency. Trying to hide indiscretions or shut out prying eyes will no longer be possible, so shift your energy into ensuring that you have nothing to hide. If you can’t let go of some socially unacceptable behaviors, then you must at least be up-front and honest about your reasons for doing so. Always remember that whatever you do, you will be visible.

2. Be trustworthy.

“I look for a person I feel is trustworthy, driven and smart. I invest in the person first, because in the event the business fails, the person and I can move forward and create another business.” — Daymond John

One of the main justifications China has for its new social credit system is that its society lacks the necessary trust to conduct business with confidence. The system’s original proposal puts it this way: “[Such an initiative] will forge a public opinion environment where keeping trust is glorious. It will strengthen sincerity in government affairs, commercial sincerity, social sincerity and the construction of judicial .”

Do people trust you? Make sure they can. In a social credit system, honoring your commitments will be paramount. If your boss can’t trust you to come into work on time, you may find that your preferred bank no longer trusts you to repay a loan — or that the government won’t trust you with air travel privileges. In order to succeed in your goals, make sure you can be trusted by everyone you meet. If you do, your privileges and rewards are sure to increase.

3. Apply the same rules to everyone.

“Watching a good actor is the best way to learn.” — Kieran Culkin

Just because you’re being watched doesn’t mean you can’t do a little watching of your own. Screen those you do business with. Check their backgrounds, examine their relationships and keep close tabs on their social credit scores. Why? Because your social credit score will be affected by those with whom you associate!

Doing business and spending time with people whose social credit score is higher than your own will bring you up; those with lower scores will bring you down. Make sure you aren’t being held back by those whom the system deems untrustworthy. That way, you can boost the scores of your own friends, associates and family by association.

4. Capitalize on good credit.

“If you don’t take good care of your credit, then your credit won’t take good care of you.” — Tyler Gregory

A good social credit score is like a good traditional credit score: It does you no good unless you use it. Exercise your privileges at every opportunity: Take a better job, fly first class, associate with other high scorers and enroll your kids in better schools. Every privilege you successfully exercise will help cement the fact that you belong: After all, social credit is self-reinforcing. As long as you do everything right and refuse to take shortcuts, a good social credit score will be as good as cash.

5. Know where the real value lies.

“You can have data without , but you cannot have information without data.” — Daniel Keys Moran

As valuable as a good credit score will be, nothing on Earth will be as valuable as the mountains of big data that must be collected to make such a system work. That data will be the property of whoever will be collecting it, but that doesn’t mean that those people or companies won’t share it or sell it to the right company or individual.

In this context, it won’t take long before society is stratified between those with access to social data and those without, and those without will forever be at a serious disadvantage to those with data on everyone in society. Make sure that your own social credit score is good enough to put access within your reach.

Now, even in light of the social credit system that China is implementing, this kind of thinking may seem cynical or calculating. I would argue, instead, that it is pragmatic. After all, the beginnings of such a system surround us every day. Everything from the information that we are shown online to the prices and opportunities we’re offered are wrapped up in the way the digital world curates identity.

China’s Social Credit System – America’s New Nightmare? … The SCS aims to be a unified program that provides a “social credit score” for every citizen.
How the Social Credit System Is Coming to America 

In 2015, a 16-year-old student from Jiangsu, China, tried to board a train.

She couldn’t even purchase a ticket.

The student, Zhong Pei, tried enrolling in classes at her university. But she was not allowed to do that either.

Zhong had committed a serious crime: She was guilty of being related to someone else.

Her father had killed two people and died in a car accident. So the Chinese government blacklisted her as “dishonest.”

It took her four months before she was able to overturn the decision and go to her university.

China’s Social Credit System – America’s New Nightmare?

What Zhong experienced was the result of testing for China’s new “Social Credit System.”

The SCS aims to be a unified program that provides a “social credit score” for every one of China’s 1.3 billion citizens.

But the Chinese government needed help develop the algorithms that determine social credit scores. So it enlisted eight companies for pilot programs, including its two largest, trusted social media companies: Tencent and Alibaba. They both came up with their own solutions: Alibaba’s affiliate Ant Financial rolled out its own “Sesame Credit” system. And Tencent had a nationwide system that was trialed for less than a day before it was taken down with pressure from the People’s Bank of China.

Both Alibaba and Tencent own enormous Chinese payments systems. They also own the largest Chinese marketplaces.

So Tencent’s program and Alibaba’s Sesame Credit can easily measure how much, how often, and what is bought online in China… and more importantly, when it is paid for.

Chinese regulators are pressuring both as neither have received an official licence to operate their social credit systems. But Tencent and Alibaba are pushing aggressively because they see the benefits – these seemingly innocent systems could help bring order to the chaos of Chinese commerce.

The plan, however, does not stop there. And the Chinese government has already laid the framework for the dystopian future.

Laws from 2012 and 2016 require internet companies to retain customers’ real names and information.

  • There will be no opting out from this future.

In 2020, the system will become the Social Credit System (SCS). And it will be owned and operated entirely by the Chinese state government.

The SCS will take into account not only purchases, but also hobbies, your lifestyle, and even who you hang out with.

If you raise a child, attend government events, or do well at your jobthings considered ideal for a model citizen – your social credit score will go up.


If you drink too much, play too many video games, or speak ill of the governmentyour social credit score will go down.

  • It’s a national database that will hold information on every citizen.

It will assess information as innocent as whether an academic degree was actually earned. And as personal as if a female is supposed to be taking birth control.

In short, the SCS will not be a measurement of how regularly you pay your bills.

It will show the government precisely how well you toe the party line.

Social Credit – Obedience to an Authoritarian State

It’s a great idea, right?

There are a lot of people in China. And it’s hard to prevent crime.

Just think of all the great things it will do for the country:

    • Citizens know exactly how trustworthy someone is before they befriend them.
    • Bad driving gets punished (if you have ever driven in Vancouver, Canada-this would be a welcomed feature). While good driving gets rewarded.
  • People become more confident in public institutions.

If your social credit is high, you’ll reap huge benefits…

    • You’ll be able to rent better cars and homes, without a deposit.
    • Your children will have access to the best schools in your area.
    • You’ll get access to better health insurance.
    • Prospective employers will be more likely to hire you.
  • It’ll be easier to get the paperwork to travel or to get a loan.

Chinese officials say that by 2020, the SCS will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven…”

But that’s only looking at the benefits for people with a high score.

Here’s the end of that quote: while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

If your credit score drops too low, you’re basically ejected from society.

    • You’ll be rejected for housing and loans.
    • Your children won’t be able to attend good schools – even if their grades say otherwise.
    • You’ll have a harder time finding a date (dating sites and apps in China allow people to advertise their social credit score).
    • You’ll be turned away from good job opportunities.
  • Your internet speed could be cut.

Or, like Zhang, you’ll be locked out of being able to buy train tickets and plane tickets.

You won’t be able to leave the country.

In effect, the SCS is designed to completely eliminate mobility – social, class, or travel – for those who do not agree with the government’s definition of a model citizen.

If the punishments are so severe, surely it must be hard to get a low score. Only for horrific crimes, right?


The common slogan in China is: “whoever violates the rules somewhere shall be restricted everywhere.”

Punishment is already happening on a broad scale. Chinese authorities have already banned more than 10 million people deemed “untrustworthy” from boarding flights and high-speed trains.

It’s actually really easy to watch your SCS drop. Hang out with someone with a low score, and your own will go down.

You can lose points based on spending time with your family and friends.

By the way, that’s how North Korea keeps its citizens in line.

It gets worse. When you check your score, you can see precisely who is dragging it down. So you know instantly who to avoid in your life.

In a speech, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence described the SCS as:

“…an Orwellian system premised on controlling virtually every facet of human life.

Every Move You Make, Every Step You Take… China’s Watching You

Here’s the kicker: The Chinese people seem to want this system.

It’s perfectly gamified, after all. People want to participate in the system to watch their score go up. They’re also unknowingly participating in a system of ostracism and social pressure.

  • The social credit system is a tool to get people to fall perfectly in line.

It’s not mandatory yet. Which means that all the people who want to do it – the ones who willingly toe the party line – are going to get in early to get super high scores. It will seem innocent. Fun, even.

The social credit system is not scheduled to reach full nation-wide implementation until next year. But parts of it have already been put into play.

Many communities around China are already running their own versions of the social credit system…

Last year, 17 million flights and 5.4 million high-speed rail trips were denied to would-be travelers who found themselves on the government’s blacklist.

It’s said that most of the people on the blacklist are debtors. These are people who have defaulted on loans.

And some of the current implementations of the social credit system only deduct social credit points when you break the law. Like getting a speeding ticket.

Again, there’s a Sesame Credit app, which encourages users to compare their credit scores to those of their friends. It’s an obvious push to get people to share their ratings as a status symbol.

More than 100,000 Chinese people have “tweeted” their SCS scores on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter.

Above: A billboard in a Chinese community displays citizens with the highest social credit score.

The madness has not yet begun.

The logical implications of the system are horrifying to think about.

You can literally die a death by a thousand paper cuts. Buy the wrong thing on Alibaba too many times, and you can no longer even get a job.

Hang out with the wrong friends too many times, and you can’t get a loan or trade in the stock market.

And once you’re out of society, you’re out for good. There’s virtually no way to get back in. You’re muted and invisible. Persona non grata.

It’s an appalling return to the caste system of India. If your credit score is too low, you’re untouchable.

People will turn on each other. China’s elite State Council published a planning document on the SCS that says that the “new system will reward those who report acts of breach of trust.”

That’s a page straight from Soviet Russia’s KGB – only more effective.

Accurate information on China is hard to obtain. It’s likely the current reality is already far worse than we know.

The Land of the Decree, and the Home of the Slave

The majority of the elements are in place for the Social Credit System to be implemented.

Not in China.

In the United States.

We have:

    • The databases
    • The digital surveillance
    • The national credit score system
    • The systems of reward and punishment
    • The government-knows-best attitude
    • The electronic purchasing data
  • The ubiquitous social networks

Think about it. China started with Alibaba and Tencent.

In the United States, we have Amazon and Facebook and Google.

They know everything you read, see, search, buy, and say.

Your Android or iPhone already tracks your location and reports it hundreds of times per day.

And that information is already being used for complete censorship.

In 2018, Facebook began a program that assigns every user a reputation score, which predicts their “trustworthiness.” Sound familiar?

Here is how China implemented the Social Credit Score system in just under five years:

    • They subjected all online behavior to intense study.
    • They collected, stored and analyzed all social media and banking information.
  • They began to severely regulate the freedom to travel.

And here’s what’s going on in the United States…

Police threat-scoring algorithms are used to determine who the police should be tracking and surveilling. Social media is already being used in these algorithms.

For the past decade, the NSA has been gathering information on people’s social media, locations, friends, and who they travel with.

The agency can enrich the data with bank information, social media information, voter information and even GPS location information.

The TSA has a rapidly expanding “no-fly” list. The list has no government accountability, and there is no recourse – unless, of course, you’re a powerful government official who ends up on it.

Indeed, a report from the World Privacy Forum indicates that in such a credit score system “error rates and false readings become a big issue.”

Implications on the Yuan and U.S. Dollar

Never underestimate the currency butterfly effect. This has huge implications for the yuan, which is the currency of China. The Social Credit Score will have incredible implications on business, government and ultimately, the strength of the currency.

The world has never seen anything like this. And it’s only going to grow. China is the first country to implement this and certainly won’t be the last. You know others will do so to maintain power, increase power and manipulate power.

Pay attention to this and it will be very important in the coming years, and will have significant indirect effects to your portfolio.

What could possibly go wrong?

Last year, Chinese authorities said that part of the program would be to freeze the assets of anyone deemed to be “dishonest.”

Imagine all of your assets suddenly disappearing because a red light camera read your license plate wrong.

The infrastructure for this system is already in place in the United States.

It’s just not about train rides or university classes anymore.

Any individual not aligning with the current social and governmental norms will face poverty… homelessness… starvation… or worse.

Under the new system of life by government approval, survival becomes simple:

Obey… or die.


America’s Social (Justice) Credit System

Writing on Arc Digital, Tomás Sidenfaden says that we watch with horror what China is doing with its “social credit” system of implementing state control over culture and society, but we ought to be aware that the US is doing the same thing,in its own way. Excerpts:

China’s draconian censorship efforts appear a world apart from the freedom of speech protections tenuously preserved in American society. But as the two world powers evolve the similarities are becoming just as striking as the differences.While their social designs diverge, their intended results do not: both seek to shrink the Overton Window in favor of what the governing class considers a healthier, more orderly, more moral discourse.

In China, censorship isn’t just limited to critiques of the government. It also includes what the ruling party considers moral rot. Underage drinking, drug use, violence, and hyper-sexualized content get scrubbed from media and film. This top-down social engineering finds its shape in the country’s new social-credit system, which punishes undesirable behavior like canceling dinner reservations or jaywalking by restricting travel rights or access to (financial) credit.   (It also includes any religious belief that is not sanctioned by the Communist Regime.)

Far from feeling threatened by this development, ordinary Chinese seem to actually welcome it. A 2017 Ipsos poll revealed that 47 percent of the population regards moral decline as the country’s biggest threat and an astonishing 87 percent believe the country to be heading in the right direction. According to the same poll, only 43 percent of Americans feel their country is heading in the right direction, and most would argue we are undergoing a moral reckoning. (It is important to note that a cross-national comparison of survey results is complicated by China’s punitive monitoring of criticism.)

The pattern is predictable: targets are identified based on their statements or positions, their offenses are amplified on social media, and then a litmus test is presented.

Companies overwhelmingly respond by capitulating. Universities respond by de-platforming speakers, or students drown them out with protest. Though universities have historically been the bastions of rigorous intellectual debate, they are also, like businesses, adapting to their new boundaries. Media entities, especially mainstream ones, more often than not succumb to calls for eliminating perspectives that fall afoul of the approved discourse.

In Stalinist Russia, citizens were encouraged to report their neighbors for “counter-revolutionary” thought or behavior.Mere accusations were often enough to ensure the banishment of the state’s “enemies” to gulags to die of torture, starvation, and disease.

The United States is not Soviet Russia or Maoist China. Neither is modern-day China.Nevertheless, both share outcasting as a potent social and economic weapon. The ruling class in Russia and China was of course the government. In the U.S., where the government is regularly refreshed, our ruling class is comprised of those who define our accepted modes of discourse through the institutions—many of them non-governmental—that they control. While no one serious has suggested the transgressors of today be sentenced to hard labor in a gulag (though certainly some non-serious individuals have), it is alarming how accepting many have become to inflicting on these transgressors a direct hit to their careers as just punishment for their wrongthink. Today’s mob scans and censors the citizenry like past regimes have, except businesses and academia are the enforcement mechanism.This dynamic will continue to evolve.

Read the whole thing. 

I mentioned yesterday thatthe BBC’s plan to invite its employees to wear a badge that identify themselves as LGBT “allies” is a form of social controldesigned to identify and marginalize those who are not“social creditworthy.” Wearing that badge does not signify anything other than that you hold the correct opinions, or are too afraid of being seen as holding incorrect opinions, as defined by the cultural elites.

It’s horrifying what China is doing, but I can understand why so many people there find it appealing. The country has undergone a staggering amount of social change and dislocation within the past few decades. People can’t be blamed for feeling insecure. At some point in the middle of the last decade, I went to a conference in Dubai on the media in the Arab world. A prominent Lebanese journalist — a liberal — explained to me why so many in the Arab world regarded the media with suspicion. It wasn’t simply a matter of authoritarian political and religious figures wanting to clamp down on dissent. He said that Arab societies were undergoing the kind of change that took a century to unfold in the West, all in a very short period of time. And not only that, they were dealing with that as societies that are quite rigid and conservative to begin with. The rate and content of change that we in the West perceive as normal is not remotely normal to most people in the Arab world. This is the context within which the Arab public’s attitude to mass media has to be understood, he said.

Heaven knows this is no defense of what China is doing, but it is necessary context within which we should attempt to make sense of it.

But in the West? It is undeniably the case that we are disintegrating, but it ought to scare the hell out of us that we are developing a system — without government control, mind you!within which people can lose their jobs, even their careers, for having expressed a single opinion despised by the progressive mob. This is exactly what people raised under communism, but now living in the West, keep warning us about: it’s coming here, and it’s not being imposed on us by the government, but emerging all the same.

Let us think, and think hard, about the fictional greengrocer in Czech anti-communist dissident Vaclav Havel’s essay, “The Power of the Powerless.” Excerpt:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.  (This is brought about by all the indoctrination that we are all one… all to think as one, to believe as one to all be in agreement, to ALL behave as we are told. WE are taught that this is tolerance, acceptance and even love.  That we love each other enough to comply…THIS IS EVIL.  WE are NOT all the same, we DO NOT all Worship the same GOD, we do not have to be in agreement on all things.  We can agree that we are different.  That is real love… to understand that we are different and live together in peace anyway.  That is not only tolerance, that is acceptance! )

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.

We all like to think of ourselves as the kind of person who would have the courage to be Havel’s greengrocer, if put to the test. We all flatter ourselves. Me too. You’d better start thinking hard about the greengrocer, because sooner or later, you’ll be put to the test by the American social credit system.

UPDATE: I cite the greengrocer story so often that I forget that not everybody knows it. In The Benedict OptionI summarize the lesson of the rest of the greengrocer story:

Every act that contradicts the official ideology is a denial of the system. What if the greengrocer stops putting the sign up in his window? What if he refuses to go along to get along? “His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth”— and it’s going to cost him plenty.

He will lose his job and his position in society. His kids may not be allowed to go to the college they want to, or to any college at all. People will bully him or ostracize him. But by bearing witness to the truth, he has accomplished something potentially powerful:

He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth.

Because they are public, the greengrocer’s deeds are inescapably political. He bears witness to the truth of his convictions by being willing to suffer for them. He becomes a threat to the system—but he has preserved his humanity. And that, says Havel, is a far more important accomplishment than whether this party or that politician holds power (a fact that became painfully clear during the debasing 2016 U.S. presidential campaign).

“A better system will not automatically ensure a better life,” Havel goes on. “In fact the opposite is true: only by creating a better life can a better system be developed.”

  • EU Chamber of Commerce report says data collected could be used to compile blacklist of ‘unreliable entities’
  • Companies will be subject to series of rewards and punishments and they have been told ‘no one should be naive about this’
EU firms were warned that the Chinese government’s new measures could be turned against them. Photo: Bloomberg
EU firms were warned that the Chinese government’s new measures could be turned against them. Photo: Bloomberg

Foreign companies have been warned that China’s social credit system could become a weapon to be used against them in international trade disputes.

A report from the EU Chamber of Commerce in China published on Wednesday warned that data collected under the system could be used to compile a blacklist of companies, with one contributor to the research adding that companies should not “be naive” about its possible uses.

The system, which is due to be fully implemented by the end of next year, will use technology to monitor and assess the behaviour of both businesses and individuals using a system of rewards and punishments to incentivise them.

The report warned the corporate social credit system would cover all aspects of a company’s business in China. Their behaviour in a number of fields – such as tax, customs, environmental protection and product quality – will be rated as will their compliance with the government’s requirements.

China’s social credit system may soon target online speech

For companies, higher scores will mean lower tax rates, better credit conditions, easier market access and more public procurement opportunities, but lower scores could lead to sanctions and blacklisting.

The Chinese authorities are taking a number of other steps to strengthen their control over foreign companies.

The Ministry of Commerce has said it will publish a list of “unreliable foreign entities” deemed to have damaged Chinese interests – a move that is likely to further ratchet up tensions in the country’s intensifying trade conflict with the US.

Separately, the State Administration for Market Regulation is preparing a similar list of “heavily distrusted” organisations, a draft version of which has already been sent to companies for comment ahead of its likely publication next month.
“The blacklisting mechanism for heavily distrusted entities will also turn the corporate social credit system [into a tool] for trade conflicts,” the report said.

It warned that companies could be blacklisted for many reasons – some of them unrelated to trade. These include “carrying out fraud, coercion, malicious collaboration or compulsory trading and other methods”, “endangering the national or public interest” or “infringing the legitimate rights and interests of customers”.

Björn Conrad, chief executive and co-founder of Sinolytics, an independent research firm that worked on the report, told a press conference following the publication of the report that the credit system would be a powerful weapon if used against individual companies.

Is it is system designed to target specific companies? No. Is it possible to use it as such? Sure

He said that while there was currently no evidence that China was using the data it collects from foreign firms to punish them, “no one should be naive about this”.

He was asked if the system could be “weaponised” against foreign companies, and said: “Is it a system designed to target specific companies? No. Is it possible to use it as such? Sure.

“It’s a very powerful regulatory tool. If the government decides to do so, it can also be used in that manner. We don’t have evidence on that yet. But it is obviously not unthinkable.”

The sleepy village testing China’s social credit system
2 Jun 2019

The report cited the case of the US courier FedEx, which is under investigation over a case where a gun was found in a parcel sent from the US to China.

Mirjam Meissner, a director at Sinolytics, said references to endangering national security, or hurting the rights of Chinese customs, were among the criteria that would see foreign firms being put on the blacklist.

“This is what FedEx has been accused of recently, [it’s] exactly the same wording,” she said.

She said it was likely that the Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration for Market Regulation will coordinate when it comes to blacklisting foreign firms using data collected under the social credit system, according to Meissner.

“We actually interpret the unreliable entities list will not be a separate list, but part of this new mechanism or this extended list produced by the State Administration for Market Regulation.

“The Ministry of Commerce may come up with its own list at some point, and you can be blacklisted by two government authorities.” she said.

However, she argued:“I wouldn’t think [that there will be two separate lists] because they do coordinate pretty well.”

A recent case involving a gun shipped by Federal Express was cited as an example of the risks companies face. Photo: Reuters
A recent case involving a gun shipped by Federal Express was cited as an example of the risks companies face. Photo: Reuters

Multinational companies in China are already subject to roughly 30 different regulatory ratings and compliance records, most of which have already been implemented.

In total, multinationals can expect to be rated against around 300 requirements under the new system. “A more comprehensive, non-financial credit rating, like the corporate social credit system, is envisaged to counter the current dominance of Western credit-rating companies,” the report said.

Jörg Wuttke, president of European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, said the social credit system had some advantages for foreign companies but there were concerns about the submission of sensitive data.

Speaking ahead of the report’s publication he warned that it was the “most comprehensive system created by any government to impose a self-regulating marketplace, nor is it inconceivable that the Corporate Social Credit System could mean life or death for individual companies”.

On Wednesday he said that it could also mean that the Chinese government would ask firms “to do something that our laws back home, our corporate ethnics do not permit us to do”.

At this stage we think it is not discriminatory. It actually levels the playing field

“For example, particularly with banks, insurance and health care companies – to what extent can you disclose information to the local government?”

Conrad said that “97 to 99 per cent” of the data the Chinese government wanted was not sensitive and companies would not have a problem with handing it over.

“This means the missing 2 or 3 per cent is even more important,” he said. “We always find single data points that are sensitive that the company has a problem transferring to, that’s on the list for the dialogue with the government.”

Wuttke also said the requirement to hand over data could put firms’ intellectual property at risk – a long-standing grievance for both US and European business.

But he said: “At this stage we think [the system is] not discriminatory. It actually levels the playing field. It enforces Chinese law, the way it is more driven by technology and artificial intelligence and can be less fiddled around by local officials.”

The report urged EU companies to identify risks and work with the regulatory authorities to ensure no information about sensitive technology or personal information leaked during the data flow to the authorities.

It also called on the Chinese authorities to set up communication channels with foreign companies to enable them to raise questions and concerns, and suggested there should be a transition period if a company was facing sanctions for non-compliance.

The report also noted that the system has already started monitoring the behaviour of Chinese companies abroad – particularly those involved in the Belt and Road Initiative – in an attempt to safeguard the country’s interests and reputation.

“Monitoring of European companies’ behaviour in other markets, including their cooperation and business relationships with Chinese companies even if they are not present in China, is possible in the future,” it continued.

The chamber also called on EU institutions and member states to establish a formal process to enhance understanding of the system’s international implications and build a “clear and strong” position on this issue.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: companies warned of social credit risks


In Hangzhou and throughout Shandong province, gold stars and black marks have begun to shape public and private behavior.

Jan 23, 2019 – The most important measure is the new “social credit” surveillance system. … Bank of China adopted the credit-scoring principle, which, like its US counterpart, … The system is being tested until 2020 by 43 municipalities, each with its own …. “I’m not ready to call the assessors just because I’ve helped out a …
China social credit system, punishments and rewards explained …


Click this link to watch the video.

Hong Kong has seen China’s “social-credit” system weaponized in the mainland and now it’s being done in HK. But do Americans realize that “social credit” and government blackmailing corporations to enact it has ALREADY begun in America?

They have been conditioning you for China’s Political Model for a long time.  They are also preparing you to accept the fact that your rights are not gifts from your Creator, but privileges granted by the Government, and the Government can take them away at any time.  Excerpts from these articles are posted here.  You can read the entire article by clicking on the title.

Six advantages of China’s political system

Updated: 2010-03-19 14:40

On March 10, Singapore’s zaobao.com published an opinion written by its columnist Song Luzhen entitled “Why is China Superior to the West in the Political System”.

In his article, Song pointed out that the great achievements of the China Model will undoubtedly lead to a global study of it, but all of these studies have one flaw in common: evading the great importance of China’s political system. Actually, he wrote, the real unique characteristics of China is its effective political system, which is the reason China could make great economic achievements and pave a completely different way to modernization named China Model. The author summarized six major advantages of China’s political system compared with the Western multiparty system.

The first advantage, he wrote, is that under the one-party system, China could formulate a long-term plan for national development and ensure stabilization of its policies without being affected by the alternation of parties with different positions and ideologies.

The second one lies in its high efficiency, and promptly effective reaction to emerging challenges and opportunities, Song added, especially in response to sudden and catastrophic accidents. He gave some examples as follows: Terminal Three of Beijing Capital International Airport built for the Beijing Olympics was finished in three years, which is not enough time for the approval process in the West. In 2008, after the Wenchuan earthquake that hits once in a generation, China impressed the whole world by its fast and efficient response.

The third is its effective containment of corruption in the social transition period. Song pointed out that China is in a period of economic prosperity and social transition, which is generally faced with large amounts of corruption throughout human history. However, compared with India and Russia in the same period, China has far less corruption.

The fourth is a more responsible government. He said, in democratic societies, many officials are elected with fixed terms, and they then will not fall out of power before the expiration unless they break the law or make wrong decisions or take no action. Once their terms expire, they will not be blamed for any problem. In China, however, the Principal Officials Accountability System is gradually improved and officials must be responsible for their incompetence, negligence of duty or mistakes at any time.

The fifth one, he stressed, lies in its personnel training and selecting system and avoiding the waste of talented people. In practice, China’s systems of selection from one level to another and conscious personnel training is superior to the West’s election system.

The last one is that one party (Chinese Communist Party) can truly represent the whole people. He wrote that under the Western multiparty system, each party represents different interest groups. But in China, since the reform and opening up, economic policies have been made without special bias in favor of any interest groups.



In today’s America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.

China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.

However, China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.

That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.

The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.

The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.

The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.

History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.

Chinese president Xi Jinping has repeatedly told the world that China is ready to lead on issues like free trade and climate change. Now, he’s ready to extend his leadership to political parties everywhere.

At the big annual gathering of Chinese lawmakers and political advisors that kicked off March 3, Xi said that China is offering a “new type of political party system”—a Chinese solution that contributes to the development of political parties around the world, according to state media.

The internationalization of China’s political system is in fact well underway. Since 2014, the Communist Party has hosted an annual summit in Beijing inviting political party leaders from around the world to hear about how it governs China. In recent years, the party has also brought young African politicians to China for training, in a bid to cultivate allies.

When asked whether China is deviating from its self-avowed policy of noninterference in other countries’ affairs, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said yesterday (March 8) that China will “participate more proactively” in reshaping global governance and solving international crises.


When the US bows out of nation-building, China steps in


China is increasingly the go-to country for fragile states seeking economic assistance. 

Unlike Western nations, China rarely shuns, or attaches demands for reform, when engaging with states with weak or failing governments.

Syria is a case in point.

During the seven-year conflict, China has frequently joined Russia in voting down United Nations resolutions against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Last year, the head of the China-Arab Exchange Association, Qin Yong, led what he says is the first business delegation to visit the war-torn nation to survey reconstruction opportunities. He also helped organize the Syria Reconstruction Project Symposium in Beijing, attended by about 1,000 Chinese companies.

Syria’s ambassador in Beijing, Imad Moustapha, says his country is looking to China not only for reconstruction, but also as a role model for economic development.

“Syria does look to China as a model that can be emulated,” said Moustapha, noting he’s issued hundreds of visas to Chinese businesses.

“It has been a model of the state playing the role of an enterpreneur, helping certain sectors in the economy and industry to develop in which they also take care of the more vulnerable classes.”

China’s model is at odds with the democratic, free market prescription promoted by the United States.

Though there is debate about exactly how to define China’s development model, and whether other societies can emulate it, there is broad consensus about what the model does not include: Namely, a specific form of government nor safeguarding human rights.

The Sudanese government turned to Beijing after Washington imposed sanctions on Sudan 20 years ago in the wake of human rights abuses and the government’s links to terrorism.

Today, China is Sudan’s leading economic partner, and it controls a big part of Sudan’s oil industry.

But the billions of dollars from China don’t reach the neediest, …

“The government [doesn’t] care. [We] don’t have the hospital,” said Ali. There are no chairs in the bare classroom.

According to the anti-corruption advocacy group Transparency International, Sudan ranks among the world’s five most corrupt nations. Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, is the first sitting president to be indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

“The government minister take the money, not do anything,” said Ali.

China is frequently criticized for its willingness to engage with rogue regimes in return for natural resources, as well as for extending loans that bury poor countries in debt they can’t repay.

There are signs China is preparing to become more systematic and strategic with its development aid in order to support its global agenda.

Last summer, Chinese President Xi Jinping opened a new development think tank, the China Center for International Knowledge on Development.

This year, Beijing announced it’s forming a new International Development Cooperation Agency.

Xie Yanmei, a former senior China analyst at the International Crisis Group, says the goal is to put Chinese foreign aid to work for great power diplomacy.

“There will be an agenda attached,” said Xie. “There will be more strategic using of Chinese foreign aid. ”

China may also edge further away from it’s longstanding policy of not getting involved in local conflicts, namely nonintervention and non-interference.

Beijing is sending more troops to United Nations peacekeeping missions in Africa, and last year China’s navy opened its first overseas naval base in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

Ubi, who has published widely on China, Africa and security, hopes China will eventually play a more active role in conflict resolution.

The United Nations of China: A vision of the world order

The United Nations of China: A vision of the world order

China Analysis

François Godement, Moritz Rudolf, Marc Julienne,
Marie-Hélène Schwoob & Kata Isenring-Szabó

12th April, 2018


Articles in this edition of China Analysis include:

  • François Godement: Introduction
  • Moritz Rudolf: Chinese scholars’ increasing outspokenness on UN reform
  • Marc Julienne: China’s evolving role in peacekeeping operations
  • Marie-Hélène Schwoob: Chinese views on the global agenda for development
  • Kata Isenring-Szabó: China’s views on the Human Rights Council (UNHRC)


François Godement

China’s participation in the United Nations system is often viewed through a succession of single lenses: its use of the veto over the last few years (less often than Russia, but more than Western permanent members of the UN Security Council); its financial contribution (now the second largest, but this is a simple consequence of China’s GDP); its contribution to peacekeeping operations (at 2,350 blue helmets at the time of writing, it is far less than is often surmised, but with a vast potential increase in participation); its fight against interference on human rights and for prioritising development and dialogue over sanctions and intervention (but China has avoided full-frontal opposition in many cases, now preferring backroom action via its influence  on the UN budget).

What the sources deftly mined for this edition of China Analysis reveal is that there is sophisticated thinking, and hints of policy debates going on about the UN, its reform process, the various stands taken by other member states, and, to some extent, China’s present and future role in the organisation.

The phrase “to some extent” is important, because many of the writings captured in this edition seem to take a disembodied view of China. Vetoes are not discussed, nor is persistent opposition to a permanent Security Council seat for Japan (and less obviously to India’s – although one source takes the line that accepting India would bond the country to a neutral foreign policy, therefore closer to China). The role of the secretary-general does not even merit an allusion. And the true extent of China’s longstanding fight against human rights action within the UN is hidden under criticism of the “politicisation” of human rights and the mention of Chinese NGOs – in fact, quasi-governmental organisations – showing up in Geneva to enrich collective thinking. How far speech can deviate from actual policy is even more elegantly revealed when one source reclaims the Republic of China’s human rights spokesman in 1948, when nothing could have been farther from the politics of the actual winners of China’s civil war.

But the above is only the negative face of China’s increasing discursive power (话语权 huayu quan) along with some sophisticated analysis and overall proposals. What comes through is how much China values the UN – as an intergovernmental rather than a supranational institution, that is; how much China thinks of the UN as part of a continuum with some of its international efforts (the newly minted Belt and Road Initiative above all) but also with the branding of its own developmental and financing style; how much Chinese experts openly debate the interests and coalitions in the UN General Assembly – and most of all on the intractable reform of the organisation, and even more precisely on UN Security Council membership. And it is also clear that China’s increasing contribution to the UN, including in new sectors comes with the global export of China’s thinking. Drily, one author notes that a reduced US budget contribution will simply mean less American influence over the organisation. One can apply the reverse judgment to China, of course.

Many of these endeavours still face the test of reality. China claims to defend the UN above all, but the limitations and constraints it puts on the UN’s role, as well as its use of coalitions within the G77 group of so-called developing countries, may well be neutering a more effective role for the organisation. Is it with tongue in cheek that one of our sources deplores that member states lack a coherent and mature reform programme?

What this actually says is that China in the UN has gone well past the stage of being the conductor for an orchestra of those who can say no … Disunity – or lack of interest – among key members of the UN often ensure that China is far less under pressure than in the aftermath of 1989.

One day, a neutralised UN could become a vehicle for China’s worldviews; it is clear that China has the analytical capacity to canvass the ranks of UN members, and therefore to coddle or press them in the direction that it seeks. If and when it achieves that goal, the concept of multilateralism, which has very little prominence in our sources even though it figured in Xi Jinping’s 2017 UN Geneva speech, will surely return with force.


Moritz Rudolf

As China re-emerges as a global power, it is assuming a prominent role in the United Nations reform process. Chinese scholars and think-tanks have recently been more outspoken in identifying deficiencies in international governance, and have become more detailed in their reform proposals.

The necessity of UN reform

A study by the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations Research Group (CICIR) argues that the UN is facing unprecedented challenges in maintaining its authority.[1] It argues that the UN system has lost credibility, since globalisation and transnational phenomena constitute a challenge to the principle of sovereignty as anticipated by the UN Charter. Sovereign governments are less able and willing to participate in seeking to fulfil the UN’s mission. In addition, the rise of emerging powers does not sit comfortably with the traditional global power structure underlying the UN system. The authors point to deficiencies in the UN safeguarding international peace and security and they express doubts about whether it is able to effectively address global development issues. In addition, they question the ability of the UN to solve global problems in the areas of finance, cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, and epidemic prevention.

The reform process: an overview

The CICIR study notes that over the past 70 years the UN has shown resilience and proved capable of adjusting its “three pillars” – safeguarding peace and security, promoting development, and human rights – to the shifting international environment. According to Chen Xulong of the China Institute of International Studies, the main achievements of the reform process, in recent years, when it comes to security are: establishing the UN Peacebuilding Commission, reforming the UN peacekeeping mechanism, and strengthening the UN anti-terrorism mechanism.[2] On development, Chen emphasises the UN Millennium Development Goals, while with regard to human rights, he points to the establishment of the Human Rights Council with its Universal Periodic Review mechanism. In addition, he cites efforts to increase the efficiency of the UN administration, including the establishment of an ethics office, advances in risk management, and improvements in resource management – personnel, capital, and material. However, Chen identifies reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC) as the most difficult task and argues that it has reached a deadlock.


Key obstacles to reform

According to Li Dongyan of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, changes in the international balance of power are the main driving forces behind UN reform, but Li also criticises UN member states for lacking a coherent and mature reform programme.[3] According to Chen, underlying political power conflicts complicate the reform process. The CICIR study points to fundamental differences regarding the direction of UN reform. While developing states focus on poverty reduction, developed states aim to promote human rights, good governance, and the rule of law. In addition, the study addresses fundamental disagreements among those states around whether to prioritise humanitarian concerns or the national security concerns of sovereign state.

Security Council reform

Mao Ruipeng an associate professor from the Shanghai University of International Business and Economics analyses the intergovernmental negotiation process of UNSC reform. The author divides UNSC reform since 1992 into three stages.[4] In the first period (1992-1998), reform forces focused mainly on the question of fair representation.[5] During the second stage (2003-2007), competing groups emerged, including: the G4, consisting of Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil, which all sought a permanent seat of their own; the Uniting for Consensus Group (UfC Group), which opposes increasing the number of permanent UNSC seats; and the African Union (AU), which backs permanent representation for African countries.[6] Mao attributes the failure of UNSC reform during this period to the competition between the G4 and the AU, as well as to opposition from the permanent UNSC member states. The third period started in 2009, with the official launch of the intergovernmental negotiations.

Mao points out that the unity of the AU, which the author believes is crucial to the prospects of UNSC reform, deteriorated due to competition among African countries over permanent UNSC representation (during the second stage). Mao argues that the L69 Group (a group of developing countries promoting UNSC reform), which includes co-sponsors of the draft resolution which paved the way for the intergovernmental negotiations (A /61/L.69), is trying to establish itself as a link between the AU, the G4, and the “Alliance of Small Island States”. Mao attributes the role of coordinator to India, given its membership of the G4, its leadership of the L69 Group, and its efforts to act as a mediator among the different groups.


Chen advocates the “7-7-7 proposal” as the best means of actually achieving UNSC reform, which was introduced by Kishore Mahbubani, the former Singaporean ambassador to the UN. Under this proposal, seven permanent members would sit on the UNSC: the European Union, the United States, China, India, Russia, Brazil, and Nigeria. Seven “semi-permanent” members would be selected from 28 eligible countries, with each country eligible for election every eight years for a term of four years, and seven “non-permanent” candidates from the remaining countries.

The authors of the CICIR study provide a set of recommendations for UN and global governance reform, including reform to the institutional structure. In addition, they propose more coordination among the permanent UNSC members and between the UN and entities like G7, G20, or BRICS as well as with regional international organisations. The authors say the UN should guide NATO to play an active role in the maintenance of international peace. They argue that in the past NATO has used the UN as a tool to interfere in internal affairs under the banner of “responsibility to protect”. Moreover, they demand enhancement of the UN’s ability to respond to new challenges of global governance, by reforming the international financial system and climate regime, and strengthening the governance of “global commons” such as the internet.

Zhang Guihong of the UN Research Center at Fudan University argues that UN reform is necessary in order to effectively deal with new threats and challenges.[7] However, Zhang singles out Donald Trump’s ten-point declaration on UN reform for particular criticism. The ten points include cuts in funding for UN peacekeeping, which Zhang calls a pragmatic policy of short-sightedness lacking strategic vision. He argues that US financial contributions to the UN are not only a burden but also a source of influence. If the US withdraws financially, this should also have an impact on the power distribution within the UN, he argues. Zhang says that Beijing has continuously strengthened its support and financial contributions to the UN, yet few UN agency offices are based in China, and Chinese nationals remain underrepresented.

Recommendations for Beijing

Mao proposes that China adopt a strategy of “low involvement” (低介入的策略, Di jieru de celüe) in the UNSC reform process and publicly endorse India to become a permanent UNSC member. He reasons that doing so could help maintain India’s neutrality in foreign policy issues that are relevant to China, including the South China Sea. Since UNSC reform is unlikely to reach a conclusion soon, it will take considerable time until India actually becomes a permanent member. Mao further urges China to avoid intervening in the debates among African countries, but to remain committed as a mediator between developed and developing countries.

The CICIR study calls on China to firmly safeguard the authority of the UN, and to use the existing governance framework as a foundation for continuous adjustment and improvement. China should assume greater international responsibility and provide more conceptual support for the UN, since it has introduced new concepts like the “community of shared future of mankind” (人类命运共同体,renlei mingyun gongtongti), the “new developmental concept of win-win cooperation” (合作共赢的新发展观,hezuo gong ying de xin fazhan guan), and a “new security concept that goes beyond zero-sum game thinking” (超越零和博弈的新安全观,chaoyue ling he boyi de xin anquan guan).



Marc Julienne

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) replaced the Republic of China (Taiwan) as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 1971. China’s involvement in United Nations peacekeeping operations (UNPKOs) did not start before the late 1980s, during Deng Xiaoping’s period of reform and opening up. This involvement has since gone through several phases of “gradual adaptation, gradual expansion, and gradual improvement” (逐步适应、逐步扩大、逐步提; zhubu shiying, zhubu kuoda, zhubu tisheng), and has evolved from “passive and simple” participation to “proactive and constructive” (主动和建设型; zhudong he jianshe xing) participation.[8] Today, China proudly claims to be the largest contributor to UNPKOs among the UNSC permanent members (although out of all UN members it is the 12th largest contributor of troops, police, and military experts). In January 2018, China had 2,634 staff participating in UNPKOs in South Sudan, Lebanon, Mali, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Western Sahara, Cyprus, and Afghanistan.[9] China’s role in UNPKOs has been transforming rapidly, especially since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012-2013. China is contributing in terms of troops, but it also intends to contribute in terms of norms and concepts, and it therefore tries to influence reform processes in the UN. China’s new role in UN peace and security actions, however, is facing challenges.

China’s growing contribution to UNPKOs

China’s first participation in a UNPKO was in 1990, when it sent five military personnel to the UN Truce Supervision Organization in the Middle East. China’s contribution to UNPKOs was then low but stable during the 1990s, and started to increase rapidly in the early 2000s, reaching its peak in 2015 with more than 3,000 Chinese blue helmets worldwide. Under Xi, China’s contribution to UNPKOs has entered a new, more proactive, phase. In 2014, China dispatched 400 contingent troops to Mali, in addition to the 400 engineers, doctors, and security guards sent there the previous year. That same year, the decision to send 700 peacekeeping infantry battalion to South Sudan confirmed a new trend.

China's Contribution to UNPKO

Source: aggregated data from https://peacekeeping.un.org/ (every year in December)


During the 2015 UN Peacekeeping Summit, Xi restated China’s commitment to becoming a major actor in international peace and security. He announced that China will: join the UN Peacekeeping Capability Readiness System; set up a standing peacekeeping force of 8,000 troops alongside a standing peacekeeping police force; train 2,000 foreign peacekeepers; carry out 10 de-mining assistance programmes; and provide $100m in military aid to the African Union.[10] By December 2016, China had set up a 300-strong standing peacekeeping police force (ie. the equivalent of two Formed Police Units – FPUs), which is based in Dongying (Shandong province) and is composed of troops from the People’s Armed Police.[11]

By September 2017, the standing peacekeeping force had completed the registration of 8,000 troops, including six infantry battalions, three engineers companies, two transport companies, four second grade hospitals, four security companies, three fast reaction companies, two medium-sized multipurpose helicopter units, two transport aircraft units, one UAV unit, and one surface naval ship.[12] This shows the wide scope of missions that Chinese peacekeepers intend to deal with.

China also stepped up its contribution to the UN Peacekeeping Police, which was set up in 2000 and whose numbers rose considerably in 2013 with the dispatch of its first FPU to the UN Mission in Liberia. Comprising 140 police staff, it constitutes almost the entirety of China’s worldwide total of 153 peacekeeping police. It is therefore surprising that the Chinese provisional representative to the UN, Wu Haitao, did not mention this in his statement during the UN Peacekeeping Police Summit in September 2017.[13] Praising China’s active role in peacekeeping police in current UN missions, he only mentioned South Sudan, Cyprus, and Afghanistan (13 staff altogether).

The trend towards increasing Chinese contribution to UNPKOs in conflict areas, such as South Sudan, is also linked to China’s interest in protecting the growing numbers of Chinese nationals abroad, argues Li Dongyan, from the China Academy of Social Sciences. She believes that this trend continues, noting that “China refers to both the UK’s operation in Sierra Leone, as well as France’s operation in Mali”. These two operations were launched on the initiative of the two European powers, without a UN mandate, to evacuate foreign citizens (in Sierra Leone) and to support the local army (in Mali). China’s particular interest in these two operations further supports the notion that China is likely preparing to send national forces abroad in the future.

“Sovereignty” and “peace and development”: China’s conceptual contribution

As a rising power and permanent UNSC member with an increasing role in peace and security, China is contributing more and more on the ground. But China is also seeking to influence the development and reform of the UN and the UNSC, and it is attempting to do this through the promotion of its own concepts.

The concept that China by far emphasises the most is that of sovereignty. Pointing to the UN Charter, China advocates the principles of “sovereignty, equality of sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and peaceful settlement of conflicts”. It constantly promotes its “Three principles of peacekeeping” which it holds should be the “cornerstones of ensuring the sound development of PKOs”: the “neutrality principle” (中立原则 zhongli yuanze); the principle of the “approval by the concerned country” (当事国同意原则 dang shi guo tongyi yuanze); and the principle of “not using force otherwise as under the circumstances of self-defence or duly authorised” (非自卫或履行授权不使用武力原则 fei ziwei huo luxing shouquan bu shiyong wuli yuanze).[14]

The second concept important to China is that of “development promotes peace” (发展促和平 fazhan cu heping). Li explains that the UN approach to peace and security is based on democratic elections and the building of the rule of law, while the Chinese approach of peace-building is based on development: “development is the guarantee of security”.[15] These two approaches, according to Li, are complementary and the UN should put more emphasis on development, in order to better balance the “three major fields of security, development, and human rights”.

This “Chinese way of thinking” (中国思路 zhongguo silu) reflects China’s expectations of the UN’s reforms. According to Li, “China has always stressed that the reform should help enhance the voice of developing countries in international affairs, and emphasised the need to promote reforms that have yielded positive results in the area of development. As for reform of the UNSC, China advocates giving priority to expanding the representation of developing countries, especially from Africa.”

China’s conceptual contribution in the sphere of peace and security dovetails with Xi’s new concepts of international relations, like: the “new type of international relations with win-win cooperation as the core” (合作共赢为核心的新型国际关系 hezuo gong ying we hexin de xinxing guoji guanxi); the “democratisation and the rule by law in international relations” (国际关系的民主化、法治化 guoji guanxi de minzhu hua, fazhi hua); the “new concept of win-win, increased benefits, and mutual benefits” (双赢、多赢、共赢的新理念 shuangying, duoying, gongying de xin linian); and the “new concept of community of interests and destiny” (利益与命运共同体的新概念 liyi yu mingyun gongtongti de xin gainian), developed by foreign minister Wang Yi before the UNSC in February 2015.[16]

The future of China’s role in PKOs

China still faces significant challenges in developing its role in international peace and security. These challenges include its own limited experience and innovation capability in fields like “promoting political settlement, controlling conflict situations, [or] easing humanitarian crisis”.[17] And there are also external (来自外部 laizi waibu) challenges that restrain China’s involvement. Li points out that the “China threat theory” still exists, and that it undermines cooperation on peace and security within the UN. The theory foresees a time when, after becoming a great power, China will impose its “model” (模式 moshi) and “path” (道路 daolu) on the UN. Li argues that, although there are differences and disputes between Chinese and Western “ways of thinking”, these two kinds of model can co-exist and even complement each other. Thus, China struggles to make the weight of its position felt within the UN, including the UNSC.

Facing these challenges within the UN, China might consider using regional (whether formal organisations or ad hoc regional groupings) and even national PKOs. Sheng Hongsheng, from the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, argues that China should anticipate and carry out studies on the legal issues regarding regional PKOs, in order to “enhance the legitimacy and legality of future operations”.[18] Sheng argues that security in China’s periphery is deteriorating, and that the potential of an outbreak of an armed conflict in China’s own region is increasing. In this context, China is likely to “participate or even lead the organisation and implementation of a regional PKO”.[19] China’s lead on regional PKOs could follow existing examples whereby regional or intergovernmental organisations have taken the lead, such as the African Union in Sudan, the Commonwealth of Independent States in Moldova and Tajikistan, the NATO and EU in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, as well as state-led PKOs (France’s Operation Turquoise in Rwanda).

Sheng then touches upon the controversies regarding the legal basis of regional PKOs. The main controversy is twofold. The first centres on the question of whether regional organisations have the jurisdiction to deal with international peace and security issues. The second controversy emerges around the question of exhausting whether a regional solution is not feasible before the UNSC considers stepping in to solve the dispute. For Sheng, the legality and legitimacy of a regional PKO rest on two conditions: firstly, it must be carried out based on the UN Charter and the basic documents of the regional organisation. Secondly, it must obtain the approval of the country concerned to carry out any political and diplomatic actions (this relates to the sovereignty principle). Sheng notes that Chapter 8 of the UN Charter sets out provisions to encourage “regional arrangements” to settle international disputes.

In sum, Sheng Hongsheng advocates that regional or state-led PKOs should not replace UNPKOs, but if they are used then they must be based on the UN Charter. In this regard he believes them to be fully legal, and so China should prepare for the possibility of PKOs in its neighbourhood in the future.

Finally, with China’s increasing interests in unstable foreign countries, PKOs could prove to be a way to both stabilise a country and protect its own interests at the same time, like in South Sudan. Li takes two examples, which, she says, could serve as references for China: UK’s operation in Sierra Leone, and France’s operation in Mali. These two operations were launched on the initiative of the two European powers, without a UN mandate, to evacuate foreign citizens (in Sierra Leone) and to support the local army (in Mali), as well as to preserve assets in those countries. China’s particular interest in these two operations further supports the notion that China is likely preparing to send national PKO abroad in the future.



Marie-Hélène Schwoob

Over the past few years, the position of China on the international stage has gradually evolved, following its rise as an economic power, visible in its rapidly increasing trade and investment flows. China’s evolving role has also had implications for its place in global governance, through a greater involvement in activities ranging from United Nations peacekeeping operations (China is by far the biggest contributor of personnel, with more than 3,000 troops and police committed) to contributions to development funds (Xi Jinping pledged $2 billion in support for the development of poor countries at the Sustainable Development Summit in 2015).

Numerous Chinese scholars have started to rethink China’s role and consider new strategies that would help the country offer alternative models for international cooperation and governance for development.

Cui Wenxing, a post-doctoral fellow at Fudan University, writes that there have been three main stages of evolution in China’s development policy. Firstly, under Mao, when the country’s south-south cooperation was essentially based on political considerations (such as providing assistance to socialist countries).[20] Secondly, after the reform and opening up, when China shifted its focus essentially to economic cooperation with other countries (in all directions), and, finally, the acceleration of the “going out” movement (走出去 zouchuqu) in the 21st century, when south-south cooperation became a way for China to encourage its enterprises to go abroad and to take part in global development.[21] Cui believes that both the “going out” movement and China’s development agenda provided opportunities for Chinese enterprises for more economic cooperation (for instance, via low interest loans provided to Chinese enterprises in developing countries). For Xu Qiyuan, associate research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Sun Jingying, postdoctoral fellow at Beijing University, even if “it is clear that China is still a developing country”, its role has evolved from that of recipient country to one of donor country, and China has become an important partner of international development agencies.[22] China’s role in the development of south-south cooperation has been increasing tremendously. The time has come, say these authors, for China to build a “new global partnership for development” (建新型全球发展伙伴关系 jian xinxing quanqiu fazhan huoban guanxi), arguing that this new approach should put aside political issues but focus partnerships on pragmatic interests.[23]

Chinese criticism of the UN development agenda

Chinese scholars point to the imperfections of the development framework that the United Nations has promoted since its foundation in 1945. Some Chinese scholars, such as Xu and Sun, recognise that the UN’s development framework managed to gradually mobilise the international community, that it has achieved some level of agreement on key concepts relating to development (such as environmental issues, climate change, or sustainable development goals), and that it has contributed to the formulation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, several problems remain in the view of these authors. Among other issues, they note that the MDGs have had mixed results, such as uneven progress geographically, and areas of development lagging behind, such as universal access to primary education, maternal healthcare, and environmental sustainability.

In addition, they believe that the development framework has sometimes focused too much on political issues – for instance, the controversial conditions attached to aid, which relate to governance, transparency, and human rights. In their view these issues should be separated from a country’s development goals. In particular, Xu and Sun argue that donor countries often link environmental aspects of sustainable development to political aspects that oppose the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, a phrase which is important to developing countries. Developed countries (“traditional aid countries”) indeed usually put emphasis on a “universal” principle of environmental responsibility, resulting in environmental sustainability goals being placed at the forefront of priorities.[24] In addition, for Cui, the “shock therapy” of the World Bank has had significant downsides, by forcing countries to adopt austerity policies and to engage in market liberalisation over short periods of time, instead of progressively changing policies based on long-term research and experimentation.[25]

China’s development agenda and the UN

In the view of Xu, Sun, and Cui, China has implemented a successful economic development model and it has performed well in its progress towards the MDGs, all of which (in their view) relate to Deng Xiaoping’s  development paradigm “crossing the river by feeling the stones” (摸着石头过河  mozhe shitou guohe), which provided a smoother alternative to the shock therapy of the World Bank.[26] However, the author/authors believes that there is a role for China to play in redefining a more balanced global partnership for development, that would better reflect the rise of south-south cooperation and the growing role of emerging economies.[27]

Xu, Sun, and Cao Jiahan (assistant research fellow at the Research Institute of Comparative Politics and Public Policy) recognise that the new role that China could play at the global level should take into account organisations which already exist, such as the development agencies of traditional aid countries or the UN agencies in charge of implementing the 2030 Development Agenda. For them, connecting Chinese development initiatives to the agenda of these organisations could indeed help increase trust in these initiatives. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in particular, has recently raised some concerns in the international community, in Western countries in particular. For Cao, connecting the BRI agenda to the United Nations’ 2030 Development Agenda could be a way to “increase trust and dispel doubts” (增信释疑 zengxin shiyi) and to exert greater international influence, as the BRI represents “an attempt by China to explore a new model of international cooperation for development and global governance”. [28]

Chinese scholars insist on the similarities that exist between the two agendas. The BRI indeed aims to bring economic development to a number of countries where the gross national product per capita is less than half the world average. They believe this will create a new impetus in world economic growth and lay the foundations of regional peace and stability. Cui draws a link between the BRI’s focus on developing infrastructure and global partnerships, two priorities that are also included in the 2030 Development Agenda.

While China could continue to export its “poverty reduction model with Chinese characteristics” through such initiatives, thus further enhancing the country’s soft power, both Cao and Cui, in particular, acknowledge that the country will face challenges if it does so. For the BRI, challenges include security challenges as well as a clash of different views: central Asia is often considered the “backyard” of Russia, which might not look favourably on such initiatives, and the United States is looking at alternative connectivity models, which could compete with BRI. Other challenges might emerge if China takes further part in international development initiatives, such as labour issues and environmental concerns. Cao notes, however, that because “ecological civilisation” was listed as one of the five goals in China’s development plan at the 18th National Congress in 2012, Beijing pushed Chinese enterprises to take the safeguard of the environment more seriously. Cui believes non-state actors should be given a more important role in China’s development agenda, noting that China, which often relies on government-to-government partnerships in the framework of south-south cooperation, should involve a wider diversity of players, such as civil society or private stakeholders. Cao reinforces the view that non-state actors from civil society organisations and the private sector should play a more active role in China’s new type of global partnership for development. So far, mostly government departments such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Commerce have dominated China’s development agenda.

In sum, China needs to overcome a range of challenges if it wants to further develop and participate further in global development. In order to overcome such challenges, Beijing will need to develop and strengthen different cooperation platforms. These could range from “platforms with Chinese characteristics” such as the BRI Fund, or platforms connected to the United Nations process, such as the platforms of the WTO, or the G77 promoting south-south cooperation.[29]



Kata Isenring-Szabó

As a founding member of the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2006 and party to more than 20 international human rights conventions and protocols, China regards its UNHRC membership as a sign of greater involvement in international affairs. There is no doubt that China’s perspective on the subject of human rights differs from the Western perspective and is often contested. This is reflected both in the country’s activity at the UN and in Chinese scholars’ own writings.

Having been re-elected to the UNHRC for the third time by the UN General Assembly (UNGA), China increasingly uses the intergovernmental body to strengthen its own agenda-setting power as well as that of developing countries. Chinese scholars Liu Huawen and Sun Meng welcome the institutional reforms the UN has introduced over time and the mainstreaming of human rights. However, they are both convinced that the deeply rooted political and ideological differences between UNHRC members will burden the future development of the institution.

Intensifying participation throughout history

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, endowed with reason and conscience, and should be treated in the spirit of brotherhood.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Liu Huawen, secretary-general of the Center for Human Rights Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), notes that from its earliest days Chinese scholars have been contributing to international human rights legislation. For example, the word “conscience” in the above quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came from Chinese representative Zhang Pengchun, who based his proposal on Confucian values.

China maintained its proactive stance over the years and obtained member status at the Human Rights Commission at the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984. Since then, China has continually delegated human rights experts to the Human Rights Commission.[30]

China welcomed the establishment of the Human Rights Council in 2006, as it came after a period of time in which its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights, had “lost its credibility” among developing nations, as Liu puts it, “as it only discussed human rights issues in developing countries and never in western European or northern American countries”. Although the resolution which established the UNHRC passed with an overwhelming majority, the fact that the United States and Israel voted against it, and that Venezuela, Iran, and Belarus abstained, was a sign that political differences did not disappear with the creation of the new institution.[31]

Constructing a “community of common destiny”

Despite existing political and ideological differences between members, China constantly looks for ways to contribute to the reform of the international system of human rights management. By doing so, the country is “breaking the Western monopoly of discourse in human rights issues” and “promotes a more just and fair international human rights system” – so says Ma Zhaoxu, permanent representative of China to the United Nations in Geneva in an interview with the People’s Daily.[32]

Adopting resolution 35/21 in June 2017 was a milestone on this path: for the first time in the history of the UNHRC the resolution was initiated by China. Moreover, as Ma Zhaoxu points out, the resolution (named “Contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights”), “truly reflects General Secretary Xi Jinping’s policy of Constructing a community of human destiny and at the same time, it contributes to the reform of the global governance system.” With the help of resolution 35/21, China put forward a series of initiatives that focus on poverty reduction, reflecting the interests and aspirations of many developing countries, says Ma.[33]

Welcoming NGOs?

Sun Meng, associate professor at the Institute for Human Rights, China University of Political Science and Law, writes that non-governmental organisations have an important bridging role in countries and territories where the UN cannot supervise due to lack of access. “By coordinating the interests of all parties, NGOs can further the supervisory role of UN human rights mechanisms and thus gradually promote the development of human rights”.[34]

Liu argues that NGOs have an important role in promoting transparency and democracy in the practice of international organisations and international law. The reality, however, is that the voice of NGOs has become “amplified”, in Liu’s view, mostly due to the development of communications technology, modern transport, and the widespread use of the internet. This has greatly promoted the exposure of human rights issues. Liu welcomes the fact that NGOs actively promote and popularise UN human rights treaties, promote the implementation of human rights conventions, and directly participate in UN human rights work and activities. In his view, the activities of the NGO in the international arena empower the United Nations human rights mechanisms and create a “tremendous boost to the international human rights movement”. The author believes that this development can cover the shortcomings of international human rights law implementation. Nevertheless, he notes that while maintaining a positive attitude towards the rise and participation of non-governmental organisations, China should also be cautious about the complexity of their role.

Liu points out that the activities of NGOs in their home countries and abroad are intertwined and thus pose a jurisdictional problem. The CASS expert argues that, on the one hand, the unprecedented degree of international attention and participation in human rights issues has played a positive role in the development of the UN and its expansion. On the other hand, due to the uneven development of the world, not every stakeholder has the same chance to participate.

“Developed countries have the advantages of capital, language and international exchange capabilities. Their non-governmental organisations are obviously more active than those in developing countries, leading to imbalances in the representation of non-governmental organisations in the United Nations.”[35]

Liu also criticises NGOs that ignore international law during their actions and confuse domestic and international human rights activism.

Liu also mentions that during the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (which started in 2012), there has been a new development in the form of NGOs from China participating. [36]

According to United Nations regulations, NGOs can organise “side events” during deliberations to introduce and discuss the human rights situation in the countries concerned.

During this time, representatives of Chinese NGOs such as the All-China Women’s Federation, the China Society for Human Rights Studies, and the China International Exchange Association appeared among others at the Palace of Nations in Geneva and organised three side events around the themes of “Promotion of Women’s Rights in China”, “Human Rights in China: An Integrated Approach”, and “China’s Non-Governmental Organisations and Human Rights”. Speakers included NGO employees, Chinese human rights experts, and foreign China-watchers. Liu also attended the side event and witnessed personally how Chinese NGOs briefed the international community on specific issues and development paths in the field of human rights in China. Considering that the participation of NGOs in the field of human rights in Western countries is self-evident, Liu regards the work of Chinese NGOs as increasingly significant – especially their activities abroad and their cooperation with the UN.[37]

Constructive criticism

Liu suggests that the UN needs to “consolidate its achievements in the field of human rights”. Even though the current human rights approach of the UN is encouraging, there is the danger of over-politicisation and radicalisation. Despite the fact that the basic legal principles required by the UN Human Rights Council are non-political, non-confrontational and non-selective, ideological disagreements and influence-seeking between member states will continue to exist for a long time to come and will require the UN and its member states to deal with them properly.[38]

Sun rejoices that the formerly fragmented nature of the UN human rights mechanisms has clearly changed for the better since the end of the 20th century, especially after mainstreaming human rights became imperative in the UN and overall oversight of UN human rights mechanisms was significantly strengthened. At the same time, she also argues that human rights mechanisms are plagued by problems of politicisation, lack of resources, and institutional design flaws.[39]

Specifically, Sun finds that there is a huge gap between available resources and required functions, meaning there is a lack of both human rights experts and administrators as well as financial resources. She finds the lack of funding especially worrying as it “shows the lack of political will on the part of the member states”. She warns: “if the financial issue cannot be solved effectively, it endangers the survival of the entire UN human rights mechanism”. Moreover, Sun also identifies overlapping functions and the lack of follow-up operations as a problem. The above-mentioned shortcomings have made the UN human rights mechanism, which was already critically resource-hungry, even more overwhelming and have imposed a heavy workload on the member states.[40]

Sun recalls that the UN has successfully coped with similar problems in the past by integrating its human rights mechanisms with other UN agencies and external agencies as well as non-governmental organisations, ​​mainstreaming human rights, and strengthening international human rights supervision through multilateral cooperation. Indeed, measures like this enable the UN to “create a sound international image of human rights.”[41]


The Chinese have long been obsessed with strategic culture, power balances and geopolitical shifts. Academic institutions, think-tanks, journals and web-based debates are growing in number and quality, giving China’s foreign policy breadth and depth.

China Analysis introduces European audiences to these debates inside China’s expert and think-tank world and helps the European policy community understand how China’s leadership thinks about domestic and foreign policy issues.

While freedom of expression and information remain restricted in China’s media, these published sources and debates provide an important way of understanding emerging trends within China. Each issue of China Analysis focuses on a specific theme and draws mainly on Chinese mainland sources. However, it also monitors content in Chinese-language publications from Hong Kong and Taiwan, which occasionally include news and analysis that is not published in the mainland and reflects the diversity of Chinese thinking.


Is China Undermining Human Rights at the United Nations?

Under President Xi Jinping, China is pressing the United Nations’ human rights body to favor national sovereignty and development over calling out domestic rights abuses.

Experts are warning that China is quietly working to weaken the United Nations’ commitment to human rights. If it succeeds, they say, the international human rights system could become even less capable of protecting victims and holding governments accountable.

China is one of forty-seven countries meeting in Geneva for the second of three UN Human Rights Council sessions this year. Created in its current form in 2006, the council is the United Nations’ only forum for human rights dialogue among governments. Reporting to the UN General Assembly, it launches fact-finding missions, establishes commissions to investigate specific situations, and issues resolutions that call on states to take action against rights violations, though its decisions, unlike the Security Council’s, are not legally binding. The Human Rights Council also gives individuals and organizations the opportunity to call attention to human rights issues.

Experts are increasingly worried about Beijing’s approach to the council. During the current session, which runs until July 12, China has already tried to deflect criticism of its arbitrary detention of more than a million Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. The province’s vice governor, for example, defended the so-called reeducation camps in a speech to the council. Human rights advocates have criticized UN officials, including Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, for their silence on Xinjiang, and for giving China a platform to spread what they call propaganda.

What are China’s goals?

Before President Xi Jinping came to power in 2013, China tried to minimize scrutiny of its human rights record. But now, experts say, China is working to undermine the United Nations’ human rights mechanisms more broadly.

Chinese President Xi Jinping stands behind a wooden podium with the United Nations logo in gold. A Chinese flag is behind him.

Chinese President Xi Jinping gives a speech at the UN headquarters in January 2017. Denis Balibouse/Reuters

It has done so, argues the Brookings Institution’s Ted Piccone, by downplaying individual rights and emphasizing state-led development, national sovereignty, and nonintervention at the council. China’s first-ever resolution, in 2017, for example, highlighted development while neglecting individual rights.

China has also pressured other members, especially those economically dependent on its Belt and Road Initiative. During its universal periodic review—a process in which the Human Rights Council examines countries’ human rights records every five years—last year, China warned countries to submit positive reviews and threatened consequences for any that criticized Beijing, according to Human Rights Watch.

Additionally, the watchdog says, China has blocked critical nongovernmental organizations and activists from attending UN forums while letting representatives of government-sponsored groups participate in them and speak widely.

What’s at stake?

The Human Rights Council, like its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, has long been criticized for including countries with dire records on human rights as members. The United States joined it in 2009, and in 2018 the Trump administration withdrew from it.

China has unparalleled power—money, alliances, and accompanying influence—to undercut international human rights institutions.

 Yu-Jie ChenNew York University School of Law

But experts fear that China’s actions in the council could result in an even weaker human rights system—one that prioritizes the interests of states above those of individuals. Victims of abusive governments from Myanmar to Syria could end up with even less hope for accountability, writes analyst Sophie Richardson.

Beijing has been making advances. “China has unparalleled power—money, alliances, and accompanying influence—to undercut international human rights institutions,” says Yu-Jie Chen, an expert at New York University. “It’s also aware it has this power, which is why we have seen it become much more aggressive.”

China already regularly wins the support of like-minded members of the council, including Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Brookings’ Piccone predicts that the list will grow as Beijing invests in—and pressures—more vulnerable countries that rely on its economic support. And with the United States gone, there are fewer voices to push back.


How China Is Remaking the UN In Its Own Image

China’s attempts to make the UN a tool for achieving its hegemonic ambition could end up destroying the body from within.

By Tung Cheng-Chia and Alan H. Yang
April 09, 2020
How China Is Remaking the UN In Its Own Image
Photo Credit: Pixabay

China’s greater leadership role in the United States has triggered the suspicion that it might take advantage to transform the organizations in ways that fit its interests. The suspicion about China’s expanding role in the UN has solid foundations, as Beijing has been assimilating its grand geopolitical agenda, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), into the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), silencing the critics of its human rights record, providing monetary incentives to secure the support of other member states, and bringing more of its nationals into the UN.

China’s Growing Influence in the UN System

Since 2007, the position of under-secretary-general for the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has been held by Chinese career diplomats, giving the Chinese government opportunities to reshape the UN’s development programs in accordance to its interests. According to the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), China has been promoting its BRI under the guise of SDGs. Liu Zhenmin, the incumbent head of DESA, openly claimed that the BRI serves the objectives of the SDGs at a high-level symposium. DESA also endorsed the China-funded program, “Jointly Building Belt and Road towards SDGs,” approving the BRI’s effect on achieving the Goals. Moreover, UN Secretary General António Guterres, assured that the UN system stands ready with Beijing to achieve the SDGs at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum.

Another concern regarding China’s growing influence in the UN is that Beijing has been pressuring the latter to limit human rights groups’ participation in key events. For instance, Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress, was hindered from attending the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues by the former and incumbent head of DESA. Even as an ever-increasing number of news reports reveals the humanitarian crisis in Xinjiang, including physical torture and cultural genocide, China continues to downplay the violent nature of its policy while arguing that its so-called deradicalization and re-education measures render Xinjiang a safer place. Moreover, China has taken further steps to impede the work of the UN Human Rights Council by appealing to other authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Russia to rally in support of China’s oppressive rule.

Besides appealing to member states with authoritarian predispositions, China provides economic incentives in exchange for the leadership in the UN. Prior to the election of the ninth director-general of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2019, China slashed $78 million in debt owed by the Cameroonian government whose nominated candidate coincidentally withdrew his bid afterward. Meanwhile, China failed to control and contain an outbreak of the African Swine Fever, threatening global food security by causing international transmission across Asia and Europe with millions of pigs buried alive. Nevertheless, Qu Dongyu, the Chinese candidate, was later elected as the first Chinese national to hold the post — regardless of the electoral controversy and food security crisis originating from his home country.

Qu’s success is only the tip of the iceberg. With its leadership in four of the 15 UN specialized agencies and numerous subsidiary offices led by Chinese senior officials, Chinese leadership in the UN has been safeguarding China’s national interests, disregarding what best serves the collective interest. The most well-known case is the repeated refusal of Taiwan’s attendance at the WHO and ICAO annual conferences, leaving the country’s leaders in the fields of medical science and aviation shut out from international cooperation. China’s blockade against Taiwan not only neglects the rights of Taiwanese people but also incurs losses that should have been avoidable if Taiwan could share its best practices with the world without barriers.

China’s latest bid in the UN was to nominate Wang Binying as its candidate for the director-general election of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). China’s ambition backfired as its constant violation of property rights and its opportunistic behavior in the UN provoked considerable alarm about its control over the organization behind international property rights regulations. The growing concern prompted the United States to take action, and led to the victory of Daren Tang, the Singaporean candidate backed by the U.S. But as five other UN agencies are scheduled for a change in leadership, more efforts will be required to tame China’s ambition.

When the member states voted in favor of the People’s Republic of China’s membership in the UN in 1971, one of the prevalent arguments was that a country with a population of more than 1 billion should not be left out. The sooner China was included into the international community, the earlier it would learn to play along with international norms, the argument went. Unfortunately, China’s current measures indicate otherwise. International norms are the ones being played.

A Disabled UN and the Rise of Distributional Conflicts

Although China’s collaborative behavior in the UN appears to be a role model for emerging states, it is, in fact, harming the essence of international cooperation. For international cooperation to be sustainable, international organizations need to be not only beneficial to the stakeholders but also trustworthy. Stakeholders, especially major powers, must be willing to yield short-term gains for the purpose of increasing the incentives of long-term cooperation. For instance, the United States and Japan have been top contributors to UN development projects, even though, as developed countries, they would not directly benefit from these projects.

The cornerstones of building a trustworthy partnership are professionalism and impartiality. In its 75 years of history, the UN’s mandate has, for the most part, been respected by its members owing to its operations and projects being carried out by a group of international civil servants sworn to uphold administrative neutrality, and whose judgments are founded on professional practice and the collective good of the international community (as opposed to parochial national interests).

On the contrary, China’s attempts to make the UN a tool for achieving its hegemonic ambition would erode the institution’s trustworthiness from within and render international cooperation parochial. As a consequence, China’s approach to international cooperation would defeat the UN’s purpose to settle distributional conflicts since, very soon, other stakeholders would realize that cooperation is a cloak for advancing China’s national interests.

Impartiality, justice, and universalism are the core values of the UN system. The discriminating and exclusionary political precondition that China holds has already hindered the UN from fulfilling the mission of SDGs to promote the wellbeing of all. As China’s propaganda machine starts to shift attention from the central government’s failure to contain the pandemic by questioning other countries’ role in international transmission,  the UN system should continue to uphold its core values and resist becoming China’s proxy in a deliberately provoked blame game.

Tung Cheng-Chia is an Assistant Research Fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation.

Dr. Alan H. Yang is Executive Director at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation.


After 30 years of researching truth, I have learned that the true source behind the agenda is ancient and the bloodlines that are their tools have been working this plan for thousands of years.  THEY RULE ALL GOVERNMENTS, and they play with our Earth, just like a Game of Risk.  That being the case, there is a reason why for many years China was cut off from the rest of the world, and why suddenly they are the World leaders.   China was the first establishment of their NWO.  By cutting them off from the world they were able to implement all their most evil experiments and agendas.  A people cutoff are defenseless.  Now that they are ready to enforce their insane policies WORLDWIDE, China is reaping the reward of their years of service.  IF you want to know what your future looks like… study China…past and present.  Why do you think the elite and all the IVY leaguers are learning Chinese and have been for years???


Social Darwinism / Elitism

The elite believe they are a more advanced form of human. In order to justify their belief, they grafted Darwin’s theories of biological evolution onto social organization to create Social Darwinism. Over the centuries they have referred to the public variously as cattle, sheep and “its” (as Plato did in The Republic) and Social Darwinism is merely the modern expression of this attitude and their elitist belief system. Under this belief system, only those that have proven their worth over many generations of dominance and control are worthy of entrance into high elite circles.

Eugenics / Selective Breeding

The elite throughout history in support of belief in their own superiority over the common person have practiced interbreeding among themselves. They do this to preserve intelligence, love of power and above all the ruthlessness and willingness to kill as required. They still practice this today. Also, along similar lines they believe in and practice of eugenics on the public to control the population and to make them more docile, controlled, stupid and compliant. Having been exposed by Hitler’s atrocities the elite went underground – for example by renaming Eugenics Quarterly to Social Biology in 1969.

Psychopathy Among Elites

This is not a belief but more of a sobering fact that must be considered when evaluating the values and actions of the elite. It has been well established, as shown by Andrew Lobaczewski in his book “Political Ponerology” & cell phone spy, that the elite and those that are most capable of rising to the top of a system based on money are psychopathic. This includes leaders in all centers of power including business and politics. As psychopaths, they have no conscience, lust for power and control and are literally capable of anything.

The Ends Justify the Means

Because the elite truly believe that the ends justifies the means and the fact that they are for the most part psychopathic, they have absolutely no problem lying to the public. This is also known as the ethics of war where the only morally abhorrent act is losing.

Mystery Religions / Occult

As hard as it is to imagine, the elite practice a form of pagan religion based on the mystery school religions of Sumer and Babylon under which they seek to achieve godhood. Equally important is the use of religion to control the masses and to that end, they create exoteric (visible) religions for the masses while embedding in those religions esoteric (hidden) meanings that only those that and enlighted, or illumined as they call it, are able to understand. Consequently, the ancient symbols used thousands of years ago can still be seen in religion, business and the media today.

Collectivism as Social Control

After experimenting for hundreds of years with different forms of social organization, the elite have concluded that collectivism is the best form of social control. For this reason, and according to the United Nations, totalitarian China is considered the model state for the future.


The elite have long viewed a rising population as a threat to their dominance. They realized that eventually a large number of people will inevitably overthrow and remove them from power. They are particularly concerned with the middle class whose intelligence and capacity to organize makes them the biggest threat. Consequently, the elite plan to destroy the middle class and make all the of public equally poor and thus incapable of rebelling. As written on the Georgia Guidestones, they want a global population of just 500 million. This means 6+ billion people must die over the coming century.

Multi-generational Planning

The evolution of society is not something the elite can leave to chance since society could evolve in thousands of different and unpredictable ways. If they were ever to allow this they might lose their control and dominance over us. In order to continue their position as the dominant minority, they plan decades and even centuries in advance.

Revelation of the Method

The elite’s do tell us through their books and publications, movies and news releases what they are doing – this is called Revelation of the Method. If you are too stupid to recognize it for what it is that is your problem from their point of view. It is a form of ritual mocking of the victim.


If you’ve been keeping up with our ongoing coverage of Communist China’s illicit organ harvesting racket, then you probably know that it’s not just Falun Gong worshipers who are being targeted for bodily exploitation. China’s so-called “transplant tourism” industry is also violating the lives of both Muslims and Christians for their body parts, demonstrating the true depths of depravity that far-leftists are capable of when driven by insatiable hatred towards “dissidents.”

Since communism is about as far-left as you can get politically, the horrors taking place in Communist China aren’t necessarily an impossibility in the United States, where especially the younger generations are now being widely indoctrinated into a mindset accepting of “progressivism” – which is really just communism rebranded with a trendier name.

But it’s all the same in practice, as both communism and progressivism are built upon the idea that, in order to create peace and harmony throughout society, everybody must behave and believe the exact same as everybody else. Those who venture out of bounds, so to speak, become targets for herding back into the fold – and if this doesn’t work, these dissidents are then punished in other ways until they eventually conform.

In the U.S., we’re seeing some of the early signs of this communist/progressive takeover on social media, where the leftists in charge are now actively shadowbanning and deplatforming conservatives simply for expressing viewpoints that “progressives” find offensive. In some cases, conservatives are even being fired from their jobs for “intolerance” – the irony of such persecution apparently being lost on their thought-police superiors.

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

Do you really think “progressive” leftists wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to imprison conservatives and Christians for disagreeing with them?

It’s only a matter of time before it all morphs into much worse persecution in the form of imprisonment, for instance, forced “reeducation.” Taken to its logical end, this rush towards “progress” will eventually mean that not just conservatives, but also Christians and other “dissidents” are even forced to give up their vital organs for “the greater good” – which is already what’s happening with forced vaccinations, which supposedly benefit the “herd.”

Just like what’s happening in Communist China, leftists in the U.S. often use rhetoric like “good” and “science-based” to justify engaging in tyranny against others. If you say something they don’t like, it’s “hate speech,” for instance. And if you support individual liberty and freedom from government oppression, then you’re a “Nazi.”

And if you don’t think that these same leftists wouldn’t choose, if given the option, to completely destroy the lives of political “dissidents” who disagree with things like LGBT “drag kids” and unlimited abortions for everyone,” think again – because you’ve got a whole other thing coming to you in the very near future, assuming that radical leftism isn’t stopped dead in its tracks.

“In exactly the same way the communist Chinese government targets political dissidents – Falun Gong members – for arrests, executions and organ harvesting, left-wing authoritarians in America will sooner or later call for the mass execution and organ harvesting of Christians and political dissidents who do not kowtow to the LGBT agenda of child mass murder and taxpayer-funded mutilations (like what has just been made a matter of law in Vermont),” is apparently now happening in Canada warns Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, about what’s coming if things continue in the direction they’re going.

“As has been made abundantly obvious by the mass censorship and de-platforming of conservatives, liberals do not see conservatives or Christians as human beings,” he adds.

For more related news, be sure to check out LiberalMob.com.


Streamed live on Apr 1, 2019

Today on TRUNEWS we discuss how a future authoritarian regime could implement censorship through a AI system similar to China’s Social Credit Score. We also respond to lies and slander being published by the fake news media tenured conspiracy theorists, who prove their hate for Jesus Christ with every anti-Christian publishing. Lastly, Doc Burkhart reports on the protests in Verona, Italy at the World Congress of Families, and speaks with Dr. Stephen Turely. Rick Wiles, Edward Szall, Doc Burkhart, Matt Skow, Kerry Kinsey. Air date 4/1/2019


Something you should bear in mind…

2019  China holds $1.138 trillion in U.S. securities and Japan owns $1.018 trillion. These two countries hold more than a third of all U.S

China’s holdings climbed 13% to $1.18 trillion –  2017

Wall Street Journal
Published on Dec 20, 2017

China has turned the northwestern region of Xinjiang into a vast experiment in domestic surveillance. WSJ investigated what life is like in a place where one’s every move can be monitored with cutting-edge technology.

China’s Web Surveillance Model Expands Abroad

Beijing faces new criticism for being the world’s worst abuser of online freedom and for training other nations on regulating the internet.

By Sintia Radu, Staff Writer Nov. 1, 2018, at 12:01 a.m.
U.S. News & World Report

China Expands Its Web Surveillance Model

Men look at computers in an internet bar in Beijing on December 16, 2015. "Freedom and order" are both necessary in cyberspace, Chinese President Xi Jinping said on December 16, as he opened a government-organised internet conference condemned by campaigners as an attempt to promote China's online controls globally. AFP PHOTO / GREG BAKER / AFP / GREG BAKER (Photo credit should read GREG BAKER/AFP/Getty Images)

Men use computers in an internet bar in Beijing on December 16, 2015. According to a new report by Freedom House, China is ranked as the world’s worst abuser of internet freedom. (GREG BAKER/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

THE PAST YEAR HAS witnessed increasingly severe tests for online privacy and freedom. From the Cambridge Analytica scandal to numerous other data breaches affecting millions of people worldwide, the internet has increasingly become a power playground for numerous individuals, companies and governments trying to corrupt democratic principles and manipulate information to their own advantage.

While democracies around the world are struggling with how to balance online free speech and data privacy, authoritarian governments investing heavily in technology seem to be capitalizing on the West’s concerns.

China is ranked as the world’s worst abuser of internet freedom, according to a new report by Freedom House, a Washington-based think tank conducting research on advocacy and democracy. And now other countries are turning to Beijing to seek guidance on how to conduct online censorship and surveillance, according to the report, which evaluates personal freedom on the internet and digital authoritarianism. A total of 36 countries, including Thailand, the PhilippinesSaudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have undergone training sessions and two- to three-week seminars with Chinese officials on topics such as new media and information management.

“This year, Beijing took steps to propagate its model abroad by conducting large-scale trainings of foreign officials, providing technology to authoritarian governments, and demanding that international companies abide by its content regulations even when operating outside of China,” says the 2018 “Freedom of the Net” report that was released on Thursday.

The countries that have sought training from Chinese officials stretch from Asia to South America, from Africa to the Middle East and into Eastern Europe. They include: Bangladesh, Cambodia, IndiaIndonesiaMyanmarPakistan, the Philippines, SingaporeSri Lanka, Thailand, VietnamBelarus, Georgia, RussiaBrazil, Venezuela, EgyptIranJordanLebanon, Libya, MoroccoSaudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Angola, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

“While it is not always clear what transpires during such seminars, a training for Vietnamese officials in April 2017 was followed in 2018 by the introduction of a cybersecurity law that closely mimics Chinese law characterized by extreme censorship and the heavy use of automated surveillance systems,” say the report’s authors.

In addition, Chinese companies supplied telecommunications hardware, advanced facial-recognition technology, and data-analytics tools to various governments accused of human rights violations.

Freedom on the Net is a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 65 countries, covering 87 percent of the world’s internet users.   Source: Freedom on the Net 2018 Report  Get the data  Created with Datawrapper

This is particularly concerning, say the authors of the report, because China routinely violates individual online freedom through censorship and surveillance systems. In 2018, the country has been singled out for using facial recognition techniques in order to monitor one of its religious minorities in the West, as well implementing a so-called social credit score based on data that the government collects about its citizens and uses to rank them for potential benefits or opportunities.

“The internet can be a real tool for repression and we are seeing this in China,” says Michael Chertoff, chairperson of the board of trustees at Freedom House.

As China expands its military strength and economic and political clout beyond its borders, questions arise over whether the government will one day leverage its international influence for more surveillance.

“Companies like Huawei are now helping to build large parts of the IT infrastructure in Latin America, Asia, and even in the EU,” Chertoff says. “The concern here is that this opens up the potential for exploiting information in these countries by having technological backdoors which can then be used by the Chinese government to collect intelligence.”

Internet Freedom Declines Worldwide

Of the 65 countries that the annual “Freedom of the Net” study examines, internet freedom declined in 26 nations from June 2017 to May 2018.

FOTN is a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 65 countries. Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.    Source: Freedom on the Net 2018 Report  Get the data  Created with Datawrapper

With China in the lead, a series of nations reported problems related to internet access, freedom of expression and privacy issues, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Russia. In 12 of those nations, the declines were related to elections, disinformation, censorship, technical attacks, or arrests of people critical of the governments before elections. Countries such as the Philippines and Kenya have been downgraded from “free” to “partly free” due to content manipulation and cyberattacks.

“The internet, once seen as a liberating technology, is increasingly being used to disrupt democracies as opposed to destabilizing dictatorships,” says Michael Abramowitz, president of Freedom House.

Internet freedom also declined in the United States, after the Federal Communications Commission repealed net neutrality rules that would have prevented internet providers from prioritizing traffic based on type, source and destination.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, 19 nations registered improvements in internet freedom, including Armenia and the Gambia. Armenia is now considered a free country, moving up from the “partly free” category thanks to political changes prompted by mobile applications, media platforms and live-streaming services during the April “Velvet Revolution.”  

Gambia jumped to “partly free” from “not free” after the ousting of dictator Yahya Jammeh in early 2017 that lifted a series of restrictions.

  1. longknife

    longknife Diamond Member

    Sep 21, 2012


    Is it that they are not going to tolerate the imposition of Sharia?

    Hundreds of thousands, and potentially more than one million, people have been caught up in China’s “re-education camps” over the last year.

    The camps, which operate outside the courts, are designed to indoctrinate ethnic minority Uighurs and force them to reject their religious beliefs.

    Bids for constructing or renovating these centers, as well as staff job ads, provide clear evidence of the purpose and scale of these re-education programs.

    Uighurs face constant surveillance in Xinjiang, which experts consider a testing ground for the a wider surveillance state.

    Much more @ China is secretly imprisoning close to 1 million people — but they’ve left 2 big pieces of evidence behind

“The Chinese Communist Party believe that people’s very bodies are in the domain of the state,” Littlejohn said. “Whether it’s forcing women to abort babies or forcibly harvesting organs, the Chinese government believes that it owns people, including their very bodies, their internal organs.”

 ‘Human rights abuses are rampant under China’s Communist Party’ – nothing new then…

Women in their seventh, eighth or even ninth month of pregnancy are being forcibly taken from their homes and strapped to tables where doctors abort their unborn children.

Religious minorities and political dissidents are being imprisoned in labour camps and detention centres, sometimes without reason. Many are tortured for years before they are released. Others are taken to surgical facilities where their organs are harvested while they are still alive.

Investigators: China Still Harvesting Human Organs on Huge Scale

The New York Post recently reported more details about the forced organ harvesting in the Asian country’s prisons. A minority religious group called Falun Gong has been a target of the Chinese government in particular. Many of its followers have been imprisoned and executed, and their organs harvested and sold.

“In America, our founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence about ‘unalienable rights’ — God-given that the government cannot take away,” Littlejohn said. “In China, however, the Chinese Communist Party believes that it has the ability to bestow rights or take them away. In other words, people have no rights unless the Chinese government gives these rights to them.”

China, censorship and the blockchain quandary

The PRC has told its blockchain platforms to censor all ‘illegal information.’ But is that even possible?