China’s Amazing SOEs

China's amazing SOEs have drawn lots of attention but few Westerners have a complete grasp of the various roles played by SOEs. Their utility is obvious from the point of view of a neutral government shaping national consensus – but not to anyone without experience in governance or to anyone who believes that individual gain and enterprise efficiency are goods in themselves.

A sympathetic treatment of China’s SOEs has yet to be published in English – hardly surprising since the West’s theories and practice of governance are at a low point not seen since before the treaty of Westphalia. And it has – deliberately, for how could it be otherwise – escaped the notice of Western media that the most profitable, most valuable companies on earth are Chinese SOEs.

What possible good could it do to allow such treasures to fall into private hands, the very hands that have proven so incompetent, dishonest and destructive to our own economies: Western financial institutions?

China’s Economy: A Progress Report

China's Economy: A Progress Report

China's value-added industrial output expanded 6.1% year on year in August, the country's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said Sunday. The growth rate was up slightly from 6% in July.

NBS statistician Jiang Yuan attributed the month-on-month increase to improving performance in key industrial sectors and accelerated growth in high-tech industries. In August, high-tech manufacturing grew by 10.5% year on year and the growth rate was up 0.9 percentage points from July.

Despite the growth, industrial output still faces remarkable downward pressure due to flagging demand, Jiang said. Year-on-year growth in the first eight months stood at 6.3%, the same level as the first seven months.

China uses value-added industrial output to measure the final value of industrial production, or the value of gross industrial output minus intermediate input, such as raw materials and labor costs.

The NBS data only tracks the output of large Chinese companies with annual primary business revenues of more than 20 million yuan (US$3.16 million).

The figures also showed that industrial output in China's central regions rose by 8.2% in August year on year, trailed by 7.7% in western areas and and 6.2% in eastern regions. Industrial output in northeastern China dropped 0.4%.

Manufacturing output rose 6.8%, mining output added 4%, while output of the electricity, heating, gas and water sectors increased 1.9%, the bureau said.

China's fixed-asset investment, a major driver of growth, witnessed slightly slower growth, but with improved industrial structure. Retail sales in August saw a higher growth rate than July.

Qu Hongbin, chief China economist at HSBC, said the industrial output data and fixed-asset investment fell below general market expectations.

China will continue its loose monetary policies while improving performance in infrastructure and property will help boost the economy, he said.


Before 1949, more than 90% of the people in China lived in severe poverty, more than 80% were illiterate, the average lifespan was 35, few people owned land, and the risk of death from famine had been an annual threat for more than two thousand years. In fact, most rural Chinese were treated as if they were beasts of burden and not human.
Today, about 13% live in severe poverty and those people mostly live in remote, rugged, difficult to reach areas of China.  The lifespan is now about 73 years andHelen H. Wang writing for (February 2011) reported that China's middle class is already larger than the entire population of the United States and is expected to reach 800 million in fifteen years (2026). In addition, no one has died of famine since 1961.

CHINA'S ECONOMYChina, the world's strongest economy, requested and has just received a checkup from the world Bank.

By doing so China opened its books to an institution that is dominated by the USA and Europe.

The Bank predictably recommended that China follow America's example, but the significance lies in the invitation itself.  That the world's fastest-growing, second-largest economy would subject itself to 'foreign' scrutiny and examination is remarkable. Let's hope that the USA follows China's example.
Another of the Bank's recommendations, that China avoid the "middle income trap" represents a remarkable misreading of China's ambitions.  Deng Xiaoping's stated goal, reiterated by his successors, is a "moderately prosperous country" (小康; pinyin: xiǎokāng: a Confucian term describing a society of modest means) for two reasons:
  1. The planet's resource limits will not afford more than that for an additional 1.3 billion people.
  2. It is un-Chinese, vulgar, and antithetical to the Tao.

When Deng launched the Opening Up reforms, he warned that "some flies get in when you open the windows" and that one of those 'flies' would be inequality.  This, remember, was at a time when China had the best coefficient of equality–as measured by the GINI index–on earth.


Since then, the growth of China's economy accelerated dramatically.  But so has inequality.  (The growth of the United States' economy has slowed during that time and its GINI ranking has fallen steadily, to the point where the 2012 figures will probably be worse than China's, and close to Brazil's).

China is now addressing the problem head-on.  After years of public discussion, the Central Committee just added a new evaluation criterion for local governments:  how much has your province improved its GINI score in the past year?  (Remember that provinces have populations of upwards of 100,000,000 people: larger than most countries on earth).

Provinces, which have also been discussing this for years, are already responding. Chengdu is leading the way with an interesting approach to low-income housing that is is financed partly by increased taxes on high-income housing.  We will see much more innovation as this program gets rolling.

REGIONAL INEQUALITYChina's inland provinces have lagged behind their coastal cousins in economic development since the Opening Up program began, causing annual mass migration and disruption of family life in the inland provinces.

The CCP has been working to ameliorate this situation for years, by constructing infrastructure for the inland provinces that would support development there: railways, subways, highways, airports, pipelines, fiber optic cables, power stations, universities, and even the relocation of entire industries.

Those efforts are now bearing fruit.  While annual growth in the coastal provinces has slowed to 5-6%, inland growth is accelerating, with key provinces growing 15-17%. This has led to labor shortages (and dramatic wage rises) in coastal areas as more and more inlanders stay home and find good-paying jobs nearby.  Isn't it interesting what honest, competent governments can accomplish?
DEMOCRACY: Premier Wen says China needs political reform, warns of another Cultural Revolution without it.
The premier said he knows the people take an interest in not only what he has to say and what his ideas are, but also what results his efforts can bring.
“Even with a single breath, I’m still prepared to dedicate myself fully to advancing China’s reform and opening-up cause,” Wen said.
The premier said China will unswervingly implement the rural villagers’ self-governance system and protect their legitimate rights of direct election.
The practices at many villages showed farmers can succeed in directly electing villagers’ committees, he said.
Wen said if the people can manage a village well, they can do well in managing a township and a county. “We should encourage people to follow the path to experiment boldly and withstand tests in practice,” he added. “I believe China’s democracy will develop in a step-by-step manner according to the national circumstances and the trend is unstoppable by any force.”

Those efforts are now bearing fruit.  While annual growth in the coastal provinces has slowed to 5-6%, inland growth is accelerating, with key provinces growing 15-17%. This has led to labor shortages (and dramatic wage rises) in coastal areas as more and more inlanders stay home and find good-paying jobs nearby.  Isn't it interesting what honest, competent governments can accomplish?

Wen said if the people can manage a village well, they can do well in managing a township and a county. “We should encourage people to follow the path to experiment boldly and withstand tests in practice,” he added. “I believe China’s democracy will develop in a step-by-step manner according to the national circumstances and the trend is unstoppable by any force.”–Xinhua

For an excellent discussion of the "China model", Chinese governance, and democracy in China, watch this interview with Eric Li at the Aspen Institute.

Stats: China vs. USA

Ever wonder about stats: China vs. USA?

What if the PRC are telling the truth about everything? After all, the overwhelming majority of Chinese think they are. And the Chinese are smarter than us and far more politically sophisticated. They've been through Imperial rule, Republicanism, Warlordism, Foreign Occupation, Communism and Capitalism – within living memory!

If the official Chinese information is correct, so much the better for the Chinese. But if we refuse to take the PRC's figures seriously – and fail to act accordingly – and they turn out to be correct, we're screwed.

By the time we wake up to reality we'll be almost irrelevant on the world stage.

I live in Thailand, a long-time US 'friend' and ally. In the past 12 months they've kicked us out of an air force base we've had since Vietnam. And told us they'd only permit the USAF to make humanitarian flights if a Thai AF plane monitored them. Thais regard our criticism of their politics as offensive and have publicly said so. They've also signed massive defense and infrastructure agreements with China, with more in the pipeline. 

If the PRC is telling the truth, that's going to be repeated in one country after another as nations compete for China's largesse. At the moment, we're still in denial and we're dead in the water. We don't realize (or refuse to believe) that they've overtaken us in K-12 education. They've set their policy sights on repeating this with their university system – right when we're de-funding our great universities! 










 Source: American Chamber of Commerce, Yukon Huang

Neither debt nor any other component of a national economy works the same in China as in the West. It's important to understand that their economy is a completely new invention and doesn't have some of the constraints that ours does.

Here, in quotes, are some common misconceptions about China's Stats:

1. 'poverty is far more widespread in China than in the U.S with a much lower GDP per capita'. According to the CIA, 15.1% of Americans and 13.4% of Chinese live below the poverty line. Pew used IMF data to analyze the levels of deprivation across various countries, including the US and found that U.S. is an outlier: We are by far the richest country in Pew’s study but nearly 25% of our population – over 78 million people — live in what’s called a “food insecure” household. In Canada, the second richest country Pew looked at, only nine percent of people had difficulty; in China, it was eight percent.

2. 'from the drop in 2008 it's in fact gone up from the last ten years and is the highest ever'. In recent years, U.S. economic growth is not translating into higher median family incomes. Real GDP per capita has increased since 2009 while the real median income per household has not, indicating either a trend of greater income inequality or of smaller households. Labor's share of GDP has declined from 1970 to 2013, measured on total compensation as well as salaries & wages. This implies that the share attributed to capital is increasing. U.S. real wages for ordinary (i.e., production and nonsupervisory) workers remain BELOW their 1970s peak.  Median US family net worth in 2010, $77,300, is lower than it was in 1989, when it was $79,600. And it might well even be lower than in 1983, when, according to a different methodology, it was $88,000. And it’s lower today, in 2015.

3. 'The CCP courts enjoy a conviction rate of 99.9% and an execution rate which is a state secret but estimates go as low as 2400 and exceed 10,000.  China goes to great lengths to keep people OUT of the criminal justice system. Police usually speak to potential lawbreakers several times, warning them and attempting to dissuade them. Prosecutions are regarded as failures regardless of the outcomes, since police and society have failed to dissuade evildoers or to provide more constructive outlets for them, so only about 400,000 criminal cases are brought to trial every year.  

Annual Murders per 100,000 population

China: 1 

USA:   5

Annual Incarceration per 100,000 population

China:  172

USA:    716

Annual Recidivism rate % of prisoners

China:  8%.

USA:  76%;

Which system is more humane and less socially costly? Stats: China vs. USA are very revealing



China America Cyberespionage

1. Remember how China's been trying to get the USA to sign an Internet Code of Conduct for years? They sought to identify the rights and responsibilities of states in the information space by calling on them

  • to comply with the Charter of the UN by highlighting the respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity;
  • not to use ICT for hostile activities and aggression and not to proliferate information weapons or related technologies;
  • to cooperate in combating criminal and terrorist activities that use ICT;
  • to promote the establishment of a democratic and multilateral internet management system; and
  • to promote the ‘important role of the United Nations in formulating international norms'.

2. Remember how the USA rejected China's proposal? Britain and the United States strongly rejected calls from China and Russia for greater Internet controls on Tuesday at a major conference on the future of cyberspace, although Western states too faced accusations of double standards.

3. Remember when we learned the USA was planting bugs in exported hardware and software? Snowden: The NSA planted backdoors in Cisco products: NSA eavesdrops on 20 billion communications a day — and planted bugs in Cisco equipment headed overseas.

4. Remember how China responded? US Espionage Blowback: China Drops Apple, Cisco From State Purchase Lists

5. Remember what that did to US tech companies' profits? China tensions ‘hurting US tech groups’: The fall-off in demand coincided with a global backlash over revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about US surveillance. The disclosures, which included a photograph of US agents appearing to open a box of Cisco equipment while it was being shipped to a customer, fed fears about the existence of “back doors” and other vulnerabilities in US IT equipment and led to renewed efforts in China to promote local IT champions. On Wednesday, Cisco reported that orders for its internet routers, switches and other equipment in China fell by 20 per cent

6. Remember how Obama tried to turn the tables and threatened China with 'retaliation' for any cyber-espionage, real or imagined? White House readies cyber sanctions against China …

7. Remember how China responded to Obama's threat? China Flexes Tech Muscles Before a State Visit. September 8, HONG KONG — As President Xi Jinping of China prepares for his first state visit to the United States this month, Washington has warned that it could hit Chinese companies with sanctions over digital attacks for trade secrets. Beijing is now pushing back in an unorthodox way: by organizing a technology forum to demonstrate its own sway over the American tech industry. The meeting, which is set to take place Sept. 23 in Seattle, is planned to feature China’s Internet czar, Lu Wei, the overseer of China’s restrictions on foreign technology companies. A number of Chinese tech executives, including Robin Li of Baidu and Jack Ma of Alibaba, along with executives from top American tech companies including Apple, Facebook, IBM, Google and Uber, have been invited, according to people familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the meeting. Some invitees, including Apple’s chief, Timothy D. Cook, plan to attend, according to one person. The forum is being co-hosted by Microsoft, said another person with knowledge of the matter. The meeting is rankling the Obama administration by veering off the script agreed to for Mr. Xi’s carefully stage-managed visit, two American officials said. There are also concerns the meeting could undercut President Obama’s stern line on China by portraying its leadership as constructively engaging American companies about doing business in China, even as the administration suggests American companies are hurt by anticompetitive Chinese practices For many American tech companies, the invitation is hard to turn down because of the vast opportunities of China’s tech market. Google and Facebook are among those blocked by China’s web filters from doing business in the country, which is the world’s biggest Internet market. While the tech companies have not taken positions opposing American sanctions and some are conflicted about how to approach China, their appearance at the meeting would signal how much leverage China wields. “The meeting is mostly to discuss the industry cooperation of the two countries, and big companies from China and the U.S., like Google, will all be there,” Mr. Zuo said.
At stake is how the global Internet will be managed. While the United States supports an Internet in which companies are allowed to operate worldwide and users are given free online expression, China has said countries should be allowed to force web companies to follow local laws, including censoring content, monitoring users and hosting data about Chinese users within China. By dangling the carrot of market access to American companies that follow its rules, Chinese officials like Mr. Lu want to influence global Internet governance and have its model more widely adopted. Uniting most companies, however, is a fear that sanctions imposed by the Obama administration could lead to a Chinese response that would hit bottom lines and growth prospects alike. Administration officials have made clear they are considering imposing economic sanctions against China for breaches by using an executive order under which President Obama has the authority to freeze financial and property assets of foreign companies that engage in commercial digital theft. The order, signed in April, is not specific to China but is meant for use against Chinese entities, among others.

During a 2006 visit, the Chinese president at the time, Hu Jintao, met with Mr. Gates in Seattle. In an exchange during the trip, Mr. Hu said he used Microsoft Windows every day, and Mr. Gates offered personal tech support if he ran into problems. In the nine years since, things have changed. Beijing is developing its own operating system and has placed government procurement bans on Microsoft’s Windows 8. Other companies, like Qualcomm, have faced antitrust investigations in China. Several American business groups also lashed out this year at a Chinese law they said would prevent tech companies based in the United States from selling hardware and software to China’s banking industry.

8. Remember how Obama responded four days later? China And U.S. Reach Agreement On Cyber Security. NYT. 9/12/2015 5:21 PM ET. China and the United States have reached an agreement on combating cyber crimes, the official Xinhua News Agency reported on Saturday. The agreement was reached during a visit by President Xi Jinping's special envoy Meng Jianzhu, a member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and head of the Commission for Political and Legal Affairs of the CPC Central Committee. During the visit from Wednesday to Saturday, Meng exchanged in-depth views on tackling outstanding issues of law enforcement and security, including cyber crimes, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Meng reportedly said China and the United States are both countries with highly-developed Internet technology. Against the backdrop of frequent incidents and ever-increasing security threats in cyberspace, it is especially important for the two to enhance mutual trust and cooperation in the sphere of cyber security.

9. Remember how China asked U.S. tech firms to pledge commitment to its policies? China is asking some U.S. technology firms to directly pledge their commitment to contentious policies that could require them to turn user data and intellectual property over to the government, The New York Times reported. Citing unidentified sources, the report said Beijing had distributed a document to some U.S. firms earlier this summer asking them to promise they would not harm China’s national security and would store Chinese user data within the country.

The NYT report, which comes just ahead of President Xi Jinping's first state visit to the United States, did not identify which companies had been asked to make the pledge. The document also asked the companies that their products be "secure and controllable", a phrase that industry groups said could be used to force companies to build so-called back doors that would allow third-party access to systems, it said. Officials at the Cyberspace Administration of China did not respond to a faxed request seeking comment.

Sources told Reuters last month that China had resumed work on a set of banking cyber security regulations it suspended earlier this year. The previous regulations – containing provisions that required Chinese banks to buy more domestic IT equipment and Western tech vendors to disclose secret source code if they sell to lenders – drew strong protests from foreign business lobbies, the U.S. and European governments. China regulators suspended the plan in April, saying they would consider feedback from domestic banks. The suspension was seen as a diplomatic victory for the Obama administration, coming shortly after visits to Beijing by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. In July, China's legislature adopted a sweeping national security law that said all key network infrastructure and information systems must be "secure and controllable".

China realized that the US's leading tech CEOs call the shots, not the Administration. Pretty simple. If Bill Gates calls the President and tells him that all the CEOs support China's Code of Conduct, then it's game over.

China America Cyberespionage: is the war of words over? Will the USA back down and sign China's Code of Conduct?

Systemic Honesty and Corruption in China

Systemic Honesty and Corruption in China

China’s wealthiest classes have secured their recent fortunes through various means, both legal and illegal: These include (1) the privatization of public enterprises; (2) the savage exploitation of cheap labor after destroying workers rights , protections and social welfare legislation; (3) large-scale, long-term corruption of government officials; (4) the often violent state-sponsored land-grabs from towns, villages and farmers and the land transfer to private investors; (5) real estate speculation; (6) changes in state regulatory policies leading to oligopolistic control of markets; (7) large-scale tax evasion, money laundering and offshore transfers of profits and (8) state policies dictating low wage and salaries and repressing workers collective action. Unz Review.

Gallup poll, issued on September 19th, was headlined “75% in U.S. See Widespread Government Corruption.” 75% answered “Yes” to: “Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this country?”

Rich Chinese 'various means' of acquiring wealth sound remarkably like rich Americans' means  during our boom periods. Our less fortunate citizens saw most of the wealth so generated diverted to a few – then as now. China's distribution of the benefits during its current, ongoing boom has, by contrast, been far more even-handed. Let us count the ways:

(1) 'the privatization of public enterprises'. Some were privatized and got a golden handshake. Some were just liquidated. The valuable SOEs were retained, among them the four most valuable companies in the world. They're service companies – banks – strategic assets that China deploys to provide a steady, predictable stream of affordable loans to businesses and low-income home buyers. There are hundreds more SOEs like them: retained so they can be controlled. For example, the consumer price of energy – a strategic input if there ever was one – is controlled so that it supports national agenda rather than works against it.

(2)' the savage exploitation of cheap labor after destroying workers rights, protections and social welfare legislation'. China has some of the toughest labor regulations in the world and some of the highest required contribution rates to social insurance programs. As a result, the “labor wedge” – the percentage of the total cost of an employee that comes from things other than wages – in China is around 45%, as high as in a number of European countries (this is according to an estimate by John Giles in a World Bank paper). Our own workers are more savagely exploited than theirs. Chinese workers get 400% more compulsory vacation time than US workers, for example.

(3) large-scale, long-term corruption of government officials; Again, no. Compared to corruption in the USA,  Chinese government official corruption is minor. There are corrupt people in all governments and some, like Congo's and Ukraine’s, steal 90% of the country’s income, leaving little for their people. Chinese Government officials, on the other hand, steal very little and leave  enough so that ordinary Chinese can afford

  • un-mortgaged  home ownership for 90% of ordinary people.
  • their wages doubling every 10 years.
  • to build 21st. century infrastructure.
  • to balance the budget,
  • to keep national debt modest,
  • to accumulate trillions in foreign earnings,
  • a low crime,
  • empty prisons and
  • safe streets.
  • lower food insecurity than US workers

Those are products of systemic honesty, not corruption.

(4) the often violent state-sponsored land-grabs from towns, villages and farmers and the land transfer to private investors; What percentage do you think were violent? What percentage of former land-owners say they're better off?  I suspect that China land reform was 99% equitable. I suspect that ours were and are less equitable.

(5) real estate speculation. China's private real estate market is 15 years old. Speculation comes with privatization. It's a feature, not a bug, because that's how wealth is created and the PRC wanted to create wealth for everyone.

(6) changes in state regulatory policies leading to oligopolistic control of markets; Sometimes oligopolies deliver the most benefits for the most people. Some markets – like finance and energy – need to be very tightly controlled lest they wreck the entire economy, or fail to exhibit sufficient enthusiasm for the current Plan. A tightly supervised and regulated oligopoly is just the ticket.

(7) large-scale tax evasion, money laundering and offshore transfers of profits? That's part of the 'reform and opening up': some of the 'mosquitos and flies' that Deng said would get in when China opened its windows and doors. Now, the cheats are being reined in and, though they seem large-scale to us they're barely a rounding error in China's vast, fast-moving economy. They didn't even move the needle.

(8) state policies dictating low wage and salaries and repressing workers collective action.  China's (real, inflation-adjusted) wages and salaries have been doubling every 10 years since 1975. Techies in Shanghai make the same as their counterparts in Atlanta, Georgia. Workers' collective action gets repressed less frequently and less violently than in the USA largely, I suspect, because they've got a better deal than workers in the USA.

When this year's scores for the Edelman Trust Barometer, along with the Pew Charitable Trust's China Government Approval survey are released I'm guessing they'll report that 95% of Chinese trust and support their government. That's what Harvard's smaller survey found last year, too. Why is trust so high? Mainly because the CCP delivers what it promises (think of 5-year plans as campaign promises) and because the government takes such a small share of GDP. The Chinese Government’s share of GDP is 1/4 of the US’s or the UK’s.


Tiananmen Was a Color Revolution

Tiananmen Was a Color Revolution

Western media unanimously reported a student massacre in Tiananmen Square almost daily for 30 years.

There was no such massacre.

They knew that there was no such massacre since their own trade rag, Columbia's Journalism Review, told them so.

Yet they continued to report it.

Do you find that remarkable? Worthy of pause and reflection?

40% of us trust our Western media – which  gave us the Tonkin Gulf and WMD, among many gifts.

80% of Chinese trust their media.

The Chinese are better educated, better traveled and smarter than us. They've had to put up with their media for 70 years and they STILL trust it.

Apparently, Chinese media tell the truth twice as often as ours.


Perhaps we should give it twice the weight when we consider the two versions of reality? 


Let's not be parochial.

Viciousness of some student leaders. Said Chai Ling, one such “leader”: “Actually our wish is to see blood; that is to frustrate our government to the extreme that they will eventually butcher their citizens. I believe that only through a river of blood in the Square, will the nation then open their eyes and unite, but how could we tell our fellow students our intention?”

Massacre? What Massacre?

25 Years Later: What really happened at Tiananmen Square?

by Kim Petersen / June 9th, 2014

The truth is that no government will allow a protest to go on endlessly to the extent that it begins to destabilise the country and economy.

— Wei Ling Chua, Tiananmen Square “Massacre”?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, 100.

Last Sunday, I was with an American gentleman in downtown Chengdu, Sichuan, and during our conversation he mentioned that his Chinese wife had never heard of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I proposed that it is because it never happened, that it is a western media campaign of disinformation, and why should the Chinese media permit the dissemination of lies. In fact, hearing about any massacre at Tiananmen Square will surprise the vast majority of Chinese people, including those who live near Beijing and who participated in the demonstrations.

What really happened at Tiananmen Square? Australian-based writer Wei Ling Chua challenges the western mass media and western government narrative in his well researched and analyzed book, Tiananmen Square “Massacre”?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence (Amazon, 2014). Reading it is sure to give pause to anyone who swallowed the western mass media disinformation. Chua reveals the western mass media disinformation and compellingly offers a narrative that aligns with the facts.

  • Tiananmen Square protests were not about democracy; they were protests of poor economic conditions.
  • There was no massacre at Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989.
  • The protestors were not unarmed.
  • It was the violent protesters that caused the mayhem and not the soldiers.
  • Western journalists provided accounts replete with words, but incriminating photographic and video evidence is lacking;
    E.g., Chua relates how the BBC manufactured the perception of a “Massacre” in 1989 through the power of words – without any footage of a dead person.
  • Viciousness of some student leaders. Said Chai Ling, one such “leader”: “Actually our wish is to see blood; that is to frustrate our government to the extreme that they will eventually butcher their citizens. I believe that only through a river of blood in the Square, will the nation then open their eyes and unite, but how could we tell our fellow students our intention?” (84)
  • “[F]orces in America, Taiwan and Hong Kong (Hong Kong was still under the British control at the time) actively instigat[ed] the situation.” (89)
  • There was CIA involvement in Tiananmen Square. (89-90)




Chua begins his book by putting China into a historical and cultural perspective, such as being “…the first human civilisation to overcome tribalism and become a united people in 221 BC; while most European countries could only achieve that in the last 150 to 500 years.” (i) He notes the unity despite that the “so-called ‘Han Chinese’ is actually a mixture of a dozen or more ethnic groups with their own distinctive languages, traditions and cultures, and yet happily regard themselves as ‘Han’.” (i)

He challenges the media portrayal of a brutal Chinese regime: “there are good reasons why the Communist Government in China has consistently led the world in citizen satisfaction in a number of opinion surveys, including the annual American-based PEW survey, while countries under Western democracies are persistently receiving very low ratings in citizen satisfaction in the same survey. (ii-iii)

Three years back on the outskirts of Wujiang, a Canadian woman complained to me about Chinese dictatorship. I asked her if a nugatory vote under delimiting circumstances every few years in Canada constituted a democracy. Nowadays, I might buttress the lack of “democracy” in Canada by pointing to a majority government in place despite having received less than 50% of the votes, and having achieved this electoral success abetted by a robocall scandalthat diverted unfriendly voters to the wrong voting centers. Chua writes, “The surprise is that the Communist Party of China (CCP or CPC) has successfully practised such a higher form of democracy and is in the process of perfecting the political process through the internal design of the party system and public administration.” (iii)

weichua_DVFrom 15 April to 4 June, 1989 protests took place in the venerable Tiananmen Square which fronts the Forbidden City of the Ming Dynasty. Wikipedia, in another example of the bias and lack of fastidiousness plaguing the web encyclopedia, disinforms of “a pro-democracy movement which ended on 4 June 1989 with the declaration of martial law in Beijing by the government and the shooting of several hundred or possibly thousands of civilians by soldiers.” Chua argues the protests were similar to the Occupy protests in America against classism, based on the unequal wealth allocations between the 99%-ers and the 1%-ers. (2) 

As he does throughout the book, Chua uses mass media sources to undermine the mass media’s own disinformation. For instance, he quotes Financial Postwriter James Kynge who cites Ma Jian, a Chinese writer present at the demonstrations:

The truth is that the students in the square had only the haziest understanding of western-style democracy. To the extent that the protests were directed at abuses of an existing system by an emerging elite, they were motivated more by outrage at the betrayal of socialist ideals than by aspirations for a new system. (10)

Chua contends that China’s economic success has demonstrated that it selected the right path “of a strong and competent political leadership, adherence to the principle of socialism with a mix economy which includes some elements of free market and the continuing State control of strategic industries and resources.” (3)

WikiLeaks released cables that there was no blood-spilling inside Tiananmen Square. A leaked US government document affirmed the Chinese contention that no one was killed at Tiananmen Square in 1989. (12)

BBC journalist, James Miles wrote a confession 20 years later: “There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre.” (13)

Writes Chua, “years before the above 2011 WikiLeaks-leaked US government document that confirmed the Chinese side of the story, there was ongoing emerging evidence that contradicted the reports in the Western media. Such evidence included declassified Western government documents, confessions made by individual protesters and journalists, eye witness accounts and the work of some historians.” (14-15)

On 4 June 2009, Richard Roth, a CBS News correspondent in Beijing in 1989, wrote an article titled “There Was No ‘Tiananmen Square Massacre.'” (15)

While many media types have backed down from the story of a Tiananmen Square massacre, they instead point to a massacre outside the square. When someone propounds one story and then recants and offers another version, what is the verisimilitude of the second version?

Chua does not cover up that killings occurred outside Tiananmen Square, but he asks who was being killed and by who. Chua debunks the media depiction of unarmed student protestors and staunchly insists that the PRC army was extremely restrained and acted in self-defense. Chua cites Washington Post’s first Beijing bureau chief Jay Mathews from the Columbia Journalism Review(September/October 1998) titled “The Myth of Tiananmen And the Price of a Passive Press”: 

some of the soldiers were forced into firing for self-defence or to protect the lives of their fellow soldiers. According to the declassified US government’s Document 15: Cable, From: US Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Washington DC, SITREP No. 33: June 4 Afternoon and … (June 4, 1989) (22)

As an example of the pacifism of the PRC army, Chua writes of “the iconic stand-alone tankman who managed to stop the entire column of tanks without being beaten up or killed by authorities.” (39) However, who the tankman is and what happened to him are matters of conjecture to this day.

Chua examines corporate media photos and video evidence and analyzes for evidence of what transpired and reaches the conclusion opposite that of the corporate media and US government. Analyzing a selection of photos in The Atlantic, Chua contends, “virtually all the videos and photo images of the People’s Liberation soldiers produced by the Western media show them either unarmed, or demonstrating a very high level of restraint, discipline, patience and a non-violent attitude towards protesters.” (46)

Chua concludes, “The Atlantic shows that it was the protesters who acted violently against the law enforcers – the People’s Liberation Army instead of the other way round.” (46) Chua’s conclusion might be valid, but I wonder how he deduces this. It seems a chicken and egg situation. It does, however, cast the western media assessment into ridicule.

Five photos according to Chua show “that it was the so-called ‘peaceful’ and ‘unarmed’ protesters being violent against the soldiers instead of the other way round.” (50) I wonder how one can be so sure from a snapshot. Of course one can deduce that someone is striking a person in a photo, but whether that person is striking in anger, self-defense, vengeance, or whatever reason is difficult to state with conviction, and the possibility of an alternative explanation must be acknowledged.

Chua finds that the declaration of martial law was legitimate. Maybe so, but Chua also seems to acknowledge that the protestors had a legitimate beef: economic difficulties. In general, I share a conviction with Mark Twain who said: “I am said to be a revolutionist in my sympathies, by birth, by breeding and by principle. I am always on the side of the revolutionists, because there never was a revolution unless there were some oppressive and intolerable conditions against which to revolute.”1 I do, however, realize that revolutions can be instigated and steered by malevolent forces, such as the spate of color revolutions seen in the 21st century. 

Did the protestors have any other avenue to express their grievances? Chua points out that Chinese authorities were open to dialogue with the protestors — as early as April 1989. (94) The protestors refused and continued to occupy Tiananmen Square. It seems clear that after a few months of one group monopolizing public space to express dissent with economic conditions – not for democracy – that someone or something had to give.

There have been patches of honesty in corporate media. A Japan Times article wrote of the disinformation: “This effort is impressive, especially considering the overwhelming evidence that there was no Tiananmen Square massacre.” (57-58)

Chua decries the double standard in western reporting, citing the sympathetic tone struck by an Independent headline to a soldier’s massacre of Afghanis: “Soldier accused of massacre pushed to limit by Afghan war.”

“Soldiers killed, tanks lit afire belie the western media claim of unarmed protestors. Pointedly some among the protestors had weapons, as was clear from images in western media.” Chua asks, “Aren’t all the images produced by the Western media silent evidence of reversed roles: protester mayhem and soldier restraint?” (67)

Other accounts pin blame on student sources for disinformation. Robert Marquand wrote for the Christian Science Monitor:

No ‘rivers of blood’ flowed on the square. No rows of students were mowed down by a sudden rush of troops, as reported in European, Hong Kong, and the US publications in the days, months and years that followed… (68)

However, Marquand contends that there was a massacre outside Tiananmen Square.

Nine years later, Jay Mathews, the Washington Post’s first Beijing Bureau chief, wrote a defense of his initial erroneous reporting:

It is hard to find a journalist who has not contributed to the misimpression. Rereading my own stories published after Tiananmen, I found several references to the ‘Tiananmen massacre.’ At the time, I considered this space-saving shorthand. I assumed the reader would know that I meant the massacre that occurred in Beijing after the Tiananmen demonstrations. But my fuzziness helped keep the falsehood alive. (71)

Chua is sympathetic to Chinese government censorship: “Given the amount of relentless agenda-based disinformation against the Chinese government, it is not hard to understand why China needs to counter such disinformation with censorship to protect its own society from undue influence by the ill-intended and well-funded Western propaganda machine.” (76)

While I prefer to err on the side of freedom of expression; I do not fence-sit when it comes to the insidiousness of disinformation. I shared the unanimous declaration of participants at the Halifax International Symposium on Media and Disinformation that disinformation should constitute a crime against humanity.2

Then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping gave a statement that Chua avers “is an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground, and the attitude of the Chinese government and soldiers towards the protesters”:

In the course of quelling this rebellion, many of our comrades were injured or even sacrificed their lives. Their weapons were also taken from them. Why was this? It also was because bad people mingled with the good, which made it difficult to take the drastic measures we should take.

Handling this matter amounted to a very severe political test for our army, and what happened shows that our PLA passed muster. If we had used tanks to roll across [bodies?], it would have created a confusion of fact and fiction across the country. (78)

According to Chua, “The Chinese media and government are in fact far more honest and accurate with their description of events, and it is therefore important for us to read and listen to the Chinese side of the story instead of relying exclusively on the Western media.” (92) That seems an eminently sensible, circumspect, and open-minded position to take – and since Chua is bilingual, he is in good standing to understand and analyze the language surrounding the event at Tiananmen Square.

Just how malevolent were Chinese government intentions to the students? Chua recounts how the Chinese government sent 80 public buses to the Square so hunger strikers would not get wet on a rainy day and that workers were sent to clean the Square for the sake of the protesters’ hygiene. (98)

The students and protestors were not in solidarity on tactics. Chua asks, “in 1989, many protesters who disagreed with the radical element amongst the students left the Square, but the efforts of the radical few with foreign backing had fuelled the situation, leading to the eventual crackdown. So, who should be accountable for the inevitable? Foreign-backed radicalism or the Communist Party?” (106)

He makes a comparison, noting that Chinese authorities “began to arrest and prosecute those who were involved in looting, burning, beating and killing soldiers, which is the natural course of action to be taken by any government including the British government in the aftermath of the 2011 England unrest.” (106-107) 

Writer Gregory Clark noted the behaviour of western journalists in his “Pack Journalism can be Lethal”:

Instead of checking facts, the media prefer to follow what others are saying. And what others are saying is often inspired by establishment hardliners seeking to impose their agendas with the help of bogus news agencies, subsidized research outfits and hired scribblers. Beijing is a frequent victim. One example is the pack journalistic myth of a Tiananmen Square massacre of students in 1989. All one needs to do to get the true story is insert “Tiananmen” into Google and read the reports at the time from none other than the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. You will discover that the so-called massacre was in fact a mini civil war as irate Beijing citizens sought to stop initially unarmed soldiers sent to remove students who had been demonstrating freely in the square for weeks. When the soldiers finally reached the square there was no massacre. There were in fact almost no students. (108)

The author looks deeper for what underlies the protests at Tiananmen Square in the heady days of 1989: “What happened in Beijing during the Tiananmen Square incident was mainly a problem driven by the first stage of economic reform where the cost of living was driven up by resource scarcity.”

Why was China wracked by economic difficulties? History has relevance. Chua points to the middle 19th century when China, the world’s wealthiest nation with a self-sufficient economy, was attacked by Britain in the First Opium War. China “was bullied, exploited, invaded and semi-colonised by dozens of imperial powers at the time with 22 unequal treaties.” (115)

The background of China’s poverty — the 343 unequal treaties imposed upon China before 1949, and the period of trade and technological restrictions imposed by the West against communist China – were somehow totally ignored as a factor for poverty in China. It is exactly like criticising Cuba, Iran and North Korea’s human rights records using the issue of poverty without any reference to the history of Western lootings and economic sanctions.

China is still under siege by western imperialistic ambitions.3 For the West, China is a source for corporate exploitation. Chua relates, “Apple is an iconic US corporation that only allowed their Chinese factory to earn $4 per iPhone, while retailing them for $260 each.” (120) However, the Chinese are not stupid, by allowing western corporations to initially exploit the Chinese market, China gains access to the technology and can later develop Chinese versions with much cheaper pricing. Thus, now I see many Chinese with Huawei mobile phones — stylishly appear similar to iPhones.

Many Western countries are now moving towards an age of mass poverty with a series of problems including severe income inequality, slave wages, the rising cost of living, debt, welfare cuts, unemployment, and homelessness. (122) China is heading progressively toward income redistribution, pensions, education, affordable healthcare, spending on infrastructure projects. There is no neoliberal austerity in China, and no imminent danger of it.

At times Chua could be perceived as a bit of an apologist for China. He writes, “One should not overlook another source of dissatisfaction in 1989; that is, by allowing the unproductive state enterprises to close down and be responsible for their own operating costs, many people were forced out of their comfort zone and into self-reliance. This was a necessary step in unleashing individual creativity and energy that enabled China to experience more than three decades of economic miracles since 1978.” (127) It appears as if Chua is saying that SOEs stifle individual creativity. If this were true, then shouldn’t all SOEs be shut down? But why shut down any SOEs? Why not simply turn SOEs over to the workers instead of closing them down? Would the workers not then be able to assert their creativity unfettered by government?

On page 127 he laments, “Managing a country with a population of more than a billion people is never an easy one.” This comes across as a weak excuse. No one ever said governing was easy at any size.

In defense of sending in troops to end the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, Chua argues,

A crackdown on a radicalised protest movement may sometimes be the most humane thing a government can do to stop a country from sliding into anarchy. It is a necessary step to restore order, enhance political stability so as to continue reform for the common good of the entire society. It is too easy to demonise a good government using images of tanks and soldiers, and listen to the shallow and simplistic statements made by some radicalised protesters, or some parents of protesters who lost their lives during the unrest. (130)

Chua buttresses this by noting — among other things — over 600 million Chinese lifted out of poverty between 1981 and 2004, China’s becoming the world’s engine for economic growth, and poll results that indicate that the Chinese government enjoys over 80% public approval year-after-year in contrast to around 30% or below for Western governments. (131-132)

In a world where western imperialism and warring still reigns, Chua emphasizes, “It is important for one to always bear in mind the fact that China managed to achieve all the above without resorting to slavery, colonialism, wars and the exploitation of others.” (133) I would quibble somewhat. The status of many workers is still so bleak that slave conditions can be argued to exist in China.4 Then again, China was put into the economic doldrums largely by foreign exploitation, and the dire plight of workers has roots in this malevolent history.

Asks Chua, “What do ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ mean to people who cannot even find jobs, put food on the table, send their children to school, and provide a decent place for their family to rest and learn?” (134)

Chua cites a report by Gallup World titled “Chinese Struggling Less Than Americans to Afford Basics” (12 October 2011) that, in fact, Chinese people may already be better off than Americans. (135)

With such results China poses a grave threat to neoliberal capitalism. It would be easy to discount socialism with Chinese characteristics” as Orwellian for “capitalism.” However, China is an example of most boats rising. For instance, one commonly comes across homeless people in capitalist-inspired Hong Kong, but I seldom am confronted by homelessness in China.

Writes Chua, “As a socialist country with a communist ideology, the policy makers in China formulated a housing policy to look after the needs of all people. For the rich who can afford, the government allows the market to dictate the house price. However, for those who need help, the government will find ways to look after them.” (138) Contrariwise, Chua writes that helping the homeless has even been criminalized in the US. (185-187)

Most brilliantly, Chua puts the Tiananmen Square protests in a comparative context with protests in the western world, in particular with the recent Occupy protests.

Chua writes that the West controls protests with weaponry, a compliant media, and “brutal force.”

Police brutality, says Chua, is “a commonly used tactic in the West to upset the life of protesters, drain their energy and time, so as to demoralise them and hinder their ability to balance their work life, family life, and their enthusiasm to protest against their government’s corruption, corporate greed, income inequality, unemployment and rising cost of living.” (198)

The evidence of police brutality is ubiquitous. Evidence, says Chua, is readily accessible on the internet. This I can vouch for; I feel completely safe and at ease in the presence of police in China, something I would not say I feel in Canada.5

Chua asks:

I often wonder: if so-called “dissidents” across the world (including China), did not receive funding from the US government, and had to work like the average person to earn a living like the protesters in the US, would they still be so active inside their own country to promote hatred against their own government on behalf of the US government? (198) (emphasis in book)

Chua confidently declares ‘the 1989 Tiananmen protesters enjoyed a far higher level of freedom, democracy, and human rights then the 2011 Wall Street protesters in the US.” Among the reasons are:

  1. Freedom of protesters

“For almost seven full weeks, including two weeks after martial law was declared protestors were allowed in Tiananmen Square. Whereas, the Occupy Wall Street protesters found themselves victims of police crackdowns and mass arrests early on.”

  1. The rule of law

“In 1989, the Tiananmen protesters were allowed to violate martial law for two weeks, and resist the legal authority of the Chinese government to plead for their co-operations to leave the Square over the entire seven weeks of mayhem. However, during the 2011 Occupy protests, it was the US government that abused its laws to arrest, jail, beat, pepper spray, taser and make hell to the lives of the protesters by the creative use of laws.”

  1. The barricade strategy

“During the 1989 Tiananmen incident, it was the protesters who set up barricades against the authorities; whilst during the 2011 Occupy protests, it was the US government who set up barricades against protesters. A simply walk across a police line would mean being arrested in the name of the law.”

  1. Brutality by authorities

“Despite harassment and hostility from the protesters, there are absolutely no images of any kind that explicitly show the soldiers being violent against protesters. On the contrary, the overwhelming amount of images produced by the Western media actually tell the story of violence against soldiers by the so-called ‘unarmed’ and ‘peaceful’ protesters.”

  1. Media freedom

Chua contends that the China State-controlled media was very open in reporting dissent and the details of Chinese leaders dialogues with student representatives. He contrasts this with the antagonism of the US corporate media towards the Occupy movement. (217)

Chua has pulled together the western media threads, the disinformation, the recantations, and the biases in a campaign to demonize China – a fast-rising challenger to the hegemony of western capitalism. It is a must-read book for people wanting a perspective outside the controlled negative western media portrayal. After reading Tiananmen Square “Massacre”?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, the second book in the The Art of Media Disinformation is Hurting the World and Humanity series by Chua — I immediately knew I had to read the first book in the series.

  1. In Maxwell Geismar, ed., Mark Twain and the Three Rs: Race, Religion, Revolution and Related Matters (Indianapolis: Bobs-Merrill, 1973), p. 159. []
  2. See Kim Petersen, “Disinformation: A Crime against Humanity and a Crime against Peace,” Dissident Voice, 17 February 2005. []
  3. See Kim Petersen, “Chine et dragons sinophones,” in Atlas Alternatif (Le Temps des Cerises: 2006), 303-313. []
  4. See, e.g., Jonathan Watts, “Modern Slavery in China: Status of Chinese WorkerGuardian, UK, 16 June 2007. []
  5. See, e.g., “Vancouver Airport Taser/Tazer Killing of Dziekanski by Cops.” []

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: [email protected]Read other articles by Kim.

In 1985, a social scientist, Gene Sharp, published a study commissioned by NATO, Making Europe Unconquerable. He pointed out that ultimately a government only exists because people agree to obey it: the USSR, for example, could never control Western Europe if people refused to obey Communist governments.

A few years later, in 1989, Sharp was tasked by the CIA with conducting the practical application of his theoretical research in China. The United States wanted to topple Deng Xiaoping in favor of Zhao Ziyang. The intention was to stage a coup with a veneer of legitimacy by organizing street protests, in much the same way as the CIA had given a popular facade to the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh by hiring Tehran demonstrators (Operation Ajax, 1953).

The difference here is that Gene Sharp had to rely on a mix of pro-Zhao and pro-US youth to make the coup look like a revolution. But Deng had Sharp arrested in Tiananmen Square and expelled from the country.

The coup failed, but not before the CIA spurred the youth groups into a vain attack to discredit Deng through the crackdown that followed. The failure of the operation was attributed to the difficulties of mobilizing young activists in the desired direction.

Around the same time as Tiananmen protests in April-June 1989, the Chinese government banned a Chinese NGO of US operator George Soros, the Fund for the Reform and Opening of China, after interrogating its Chinese director in August 1989 and claiming that the Soros China fund had links to the CIA. The Soros Fund according to Chinese reports had been supported by ousted Communist Party chief Zhao Ziyang.

The U.S. Ambassador in China at the time, James Lilley (April 20, 1989 to 1991), was a former CIA operative who worked in Asia and helped insert CIA agents into China. President H. W. Bush served as Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in Beijing (1974 – 1976) , then went to serve as Director of the CIA (1976– 1977). The circumstantial evidence points to an attempted US destabilization of China designed to coincide with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, with Lilley the likely on-the-ground coordinator.

Why did President H. W. Bush replace Winston Lord as ambassador to China (1985-1989) during the early days of the Tiananmen Square incident with a former CIA agent? After all, Lord spoke some Chinese and was a key figure in the restoration of relations between the US and China in 1972. Wasn’t he the best man for the job during a crisis like this?

I returned to my friends and asked, “How do you know the CIA helped the student leaders of the protest?” Was Tiananmen Was a Color Revolution?

“It’s obvious,” was the answer. The reason, my friends explained, was the fact that it is very difficult, almost impossible, for anyone in China to get a visa to visit the United States. Yet most of the leaders of the Tiananmen incident left China quickly and prospered in the West without any obvious difficulty. After these student leaders came to the West, many were successful and became wealthy.

I returned to my investigation to verify these claims. Let’s Welcome Chinese Tourists was one piece I read from the Washington Post, documenting how difficult it was to get a visa to visit the US from China. I read another piece in the Chicago Tribune on the same subject. My wife told me her brother and two sisters were denied visas to the US.

After more virtual sleuthing, I learned that Wang Dan, one of the principal organizers of the Tiananmen incident, went to jail because he stayed in China when most of the student leaders fled. Today, Wang lives in the West and cannot go back. Two others went to Harvard and a third went to Yale. Where did they get the money? It’s expensive to attend these private universities.

How about the other leaders who fled to the West? “Some have reincarnated themselves as Internet entrepreneurs, stockbrokers, or in one case, as a chaplain for the U.S. military in Iraq. Several have been back to China to investigate potential business opportunities.” Source: Time.

When the PLA failed to fill Beijing with the blood of “thousands” of student democracy martyrs, Washington could simply go with fabrication of a fantasy or virtual massacre and, because of its overwhelming control of mainstream media; most of the world could believe the Washington version. Not the fact that Tiananmen Was a Color Revolution.

It sounds just like the coup in Kiev last year: we failed to provoke Russian intervention but went ahead and claimed that Russia intervened. Adds a whole new dimension to the term, 'free press' donnit?

How China Pays off Debt

DEBT_TABLEEver Wonder How China Pays off Debt?
Here's an example: Several years ago the  Chinese Government identified broadband as a major asset and announced on.
China Says Broadband Speeds Of 20 Mbps By 2015 Forbes: 
Then, last year, the Government announced that online micro-businesses would be a national priority.
Now its media are starting to run positive stories like these:
China Debt GDP

China Debt GDP


Creative services provide new career options on China's internet

People offering their time and skills on the internet for a fee is becoming a new way to embark on a new career in China. Whether you need a morning wake-up call, someone to accompany you to a plastic surgery procedure or driving practice, or if you have a stack of garlic that needs peeling, you can find someone on the internet offering their skills or at the very least their time, reports our Chinese-language sister paper Want Daily. An internet user with the handle Zhangxiaohua claims to be able to peel garlic skin very quickly and offers the service at 100 yuan (15.70) a time. One of the most popular services available on Taobao is provided by a model called Chen Xiao, who is available on a per-hour basis to perform tasks like picking up a friend, delivering coffee or buying a train ticket on the customer's behalf. Obscene requests are rejected.An internet user going by the name Nini offers a morning wake-up call and to accompany people going through a heartbreak. More

It coincides with the Government reaching the goal they announced 3 years ago: to have every city with 20Mbps broadband by 2015 – which they have just done.
Watch this tsunami of internet nano-businesses ripple across 1.3 billion inventive people. A nice jolt to the economy and the Gov’t captures some of the increased  income generated by those online businesses by a higher volume of online taxes. That tax revenue pays off the entire national broadband installation cost in 5 years.

That’s why the Chinese Government can issue as much debt as it does: before it issues the bond it always creates an offsetting revenue stream that will service that bond. Here's a snapshot of China's debt compared to the rest of the world:

China How China Pays off Debt the old-fashioned way: it doesn't borrow until it can structure the deal as a win-win. These are non-predatory deals. There are no victims, no losers in deals like this.