It's also worth reading the leaked 2009 US diplomatic cables about Xi published by Wikileaks. They're cited by the BBC story and give a lot of background. The source is from a former close friend of Xi who is currently a professor at a U.S. university.<p><a href="https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BEIJING3128_a.html" rel="nofollow">https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BEIJING3128_a.html</a><p>I found this section quite interesting.<p><pre><code> Familiarity with the West and Taiwan
------------------------------------
25. (C) Based on personal experience, the professor noted, Xi
is very familiar with the West, with a sister in Canada, an
ex-wife in England, a brother in Hong Kong, many friends
overseas, and prior travel to the United States. As far as
the professor can discern, Xi's family and friends have had a
good experience in the West. The professor contrasted Xi's
experience and attitudes toward the West with those of people
sent to the United States by their work units, such as the
nationalist and sometime anti-U.S. Tsinghua University
scholar Yan Xuetong. Xi was the only one of his immediate
family to stay behind in China, the professor noted,
speculating that Xi knew early on that he would "not be
special" outside of China.
26. (C) Xi is favorably disposed toward the United States,
the professor maintained, and would want to maintain good
relations with Washington. The professor said Xi has "no
ambition" to "confront" the United States. During Xi's visit
to Washington, D.C., in 1987, he told the professor that he
had no strong impressions of the United States. Although Xi
was not particularly impressed by the United States, he had
nothing bad to say about it either. Xi took a detached
stance, as if observing from a distance, viewing what he saw
as just a normal part of life, not strange, the professor
said.</code></pre>
This is a fairly devastating passage:<p>"And money talks. When Xi visited Seattle in 2015, America’s technology giants allowed themselves to be summoned<p>The bosses of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, IBM and Amazon all stood alongside Xi in the front row of a group photograph. All have since embarked on multiple partnerships with China despite its commitment to perfecting internet censorship.<p>Also prominent in that photo was Mark Zuckerberg, but despite a charm offensive which included inviting the Chinese Communist leader to suggest a name for his baby, and praising Xi’s book on governance, Facebook is still barred from China. Google’s founders were not even invited to be in Xi’s photo.<p>Xi has ambitious plans for control of the internet and that means leverage over foreign companies.<p>Facebook’s messaging tool Whatsapp is increasingly blocked in China and Apple has now removed from its China App Store the VPNs which once gave Chinese users access to social media tools in the West, including the YouTube channel which gave the gleeful Guo Wengui such a devastating platform to discredit Xi’s rule.<p>To fully control China’s cyberspace, Xi has had to take action against the world’s."
I find the parallels between Xi and Putin fascinating: both had "modest" origins (or modest spells in the case of Xi) and much publicize them. Both were not really accounted for much, simply managing to rise through the ranks without making a wave, and always scrupulously deferring to authority. Both were nominated to the head of their respective party as a compromise or a strawman. That is until they took power, after which they both consolidated their grasp quickly, much to the surprise of everyone.<p>Interesting that the leaders of two of the world's superpowers (and the two formerly communist ones at that) share such a similar journey.
This is the classic "what breaks you only make you stronger" but in a very aggressive way. Throughout history those who were oppressed and then made it to the top would usually end up wanting to seize full control and more oppressive than their oppressors. Xi looks friendly to the people, but there is a Chinese saying: 笑裡藏刀 (xiào lǐ cáng dāo)or "smile in hiding knife.” He is the alpha male of the entire Party.<p>On one hand I like Xi's effort to clean up the corrupted senior officials. It was about time, but now he has the absolute power (military, justice, and executive) under the chair of the Party's control is alarming. I know a lot of Chinese natives (for what it is worth, I was born and raised in HK until I was 12) who refuse to believe in all the bad things happening in China, and refuse to recognize tragedy such as Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. They also become very emotional when it comes to Taiwan's relationship with China. But China isn't the only country in the world censoring and rewriting history. Japan tried to cover up its war crime during WW2. Other Western countries tried too. [1]<p>I hate the fact today we still have governments and citizens who refuse to recognize the wrongdoings in their country's history, and fail to work toward a peaceful resolution once and for all. All the fights for territories and borders, all the ethic group fighting over historical hates and war crimes (e.g. Myanmar vs Rohingya). Time to wake THE FUCK UP...<p>If we let go of our pasts, and our irrational prides, especially those we inherited from generations before us, then this world would finally have peace. Of course, the sad reality is we won't and will never be able to. Money prints off blood, and power is measured by the number of coffins and the fall of oppositions. Make no mistake, we can't compromise human values in exchange for stability. But this is how Xi and every leader in the world thinks of governance. Forgive, and be more compassionate. What is more important than saving lives and make people feel they are humans again, and not a war machine?<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p--9_Bennett.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p--9_Bennett.html</a>
This article mentioned China's debt as a problem, which I've seen before, so I finally looked it up. One article I found said China has added $24 trillion in debt in the last ten years alone, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 300%. With so much money appearing out of thin air to finance this or that program or development or expansion, it's easy to imagine opportunities for corruption. Add to that giant spigot all the smaller ones, as banks participate in the boom indirectly. It's no surprise then that Xi would have to address corruption overtly, given how it must be a daily temptation for party members to steer the wealth this way or that. Considering the scale of China's growth, it's remarkable how smoothly things are going. If there's any fractiousness within party ranks, it doesn't translate into churn we can see that slows things down. <a href="https://seekingalpha.com/article/4091155-update-china-debt?page=2" rel="nofollow">https://seekingalpha.com/article/4091155-update-china-debt?p...</a>
The story was formatted with Shorthand [1]<p>Does anybody know an open source equivalent? Thanks.<p>[1] <a href="https://shorthand.com/" rel="nofollow">https://shorthand.com/</a>
Xi graduated from middle school and his leading style is more like culture-revolution-movement than anything else. he is probably the least capable but most ambitious leader there since Mao, thus the most dangerous, just wait and see.
Another article on New Yorker (published in 2015), "Born Red", is quite interesting as well on this subject.<p><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red</a><p>According to the article, Xi once said,<p><pre><code> "People who have little experience with power,
those who have been far away from it, tend
to regard these things as mysterious and
novel. But I look past the superficial
things: the power and the flowers and
the glory and the applause. I see the
detention houses, the fickleness of
human relationships. I understand politics
on a deeper level."
</code></pre>
I am sympathetic about Xi's early traumatic experience; but I also feel that if he considers that "human relationship" is essentially "fickle", it would be quite scary as well, especially for a decision maker at a country's top level, as he is. I don't know how much trust he has for any one who is not in his family (or even for his family members); but a society with a very low level of mutual trust is a horrible place to live -- not to mention its average interpersonal cooperation cost would be very high, people would even hurt and damage each other's interest just to obtain a bit more sense of security. The harsh censorship there is one such example; as well as that in China more and more people these days are being sent to prison, after some staged trial in a kangaroo court -- simply because they voiced something that the administration does not want to hear.<p>Humanity itself is a quite complex matter. It's true that sometimes, certain people can be quite cruel, ruthless, or even cold-blooded; but this should not be a universal trait for the overall human beings -- or otherwise, it would have been a definition for the concept of "human" many centuries ago. There is a dynamic motley of benignity and malignity in any individual -- and the concept of "benignity" or "malignity" can be relative in certain cases. It's better for us all, if we construct a system that could inspire more benignity (-- or if possible, maximize ) out of us.<p>But today, many dealings by the Chinese government seems to simply view its citizens as objects or even tools, with "fickling" worthiness that does not lie within themselves but is based on the external perspective of the ruling party, to perpetuate their ruling.<p>Perhaps that is why Xi would raise the question to Biden in 2011/2, "why does the U.S. put so much emphasis on human rights." [1]<p>Note:
[1] see <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red</a> for the details about that episode...