The current White House administration has never been known for great love for China. True, one important clarification should be made. President Trump emphasizes that he personally respects Xi Jinping, the leader of the PRC, and claims that he has established “excellent relations” with him. However, Beijing’s trade, economic, financial and military-strategic policies and the expansion of its influence in Eurasia, Africa and South America are seen by Washington as a threat. Import duties are imposed on goods from the Celestial Empire, American companies are encouraging in every way to return their production from Southeast Asia to the United States, and European countries that have chosen the Chinese corporation Huawei as the supplier of equipment for 5G wireless networks are facing sanctions.
Confrontation escalated during the coronavirus pandemic. While Beijing is actively promoting its assistance to other countries in the fight against coronavirus and the rapid recovery of its own economy, the White House calls on the world community to recognize China as the culprit of the pandemic and economic turmoil associated with it.
Donald Trump has already hinted that the trade deal concluded by the two powers literally on the eve of the outbreak of the epidemic could be terminated if Beijing does not “take responsibility” for the global crisis. His supporters in Congress and conservative media even call on the US president to file a lawsuit against the Celestial Empire with the UN International Court of Justice. Meanwhile, several lawsuits against the Chinese Communist Party are already awaiting consideration in the courts of the United States itself: they have been filed on behalf of private individuals, public organizations, and companies in connection with the deaths of American citizens from COVID-19 and losses caused by the pandemic. There are demands to introduce anti-Chinese sanctions (no longer trade restrictions that have economic justification, namely political sanctions), as well as radical measures at all - for example, deprive Beijing of the capital of the 2022 Winter Olympics and hold competitions in Japan and South Korea.
What is China “to blame” for? According to Washington, he improperly informed the international community of the extent and nature of the new pandemic when it was just beginning to spread throughout Hubei. Following this, the World Health Organization and its leader, Tedros Adan Gebreisus, came under distribution. They allegedly held a “pro-Chinese” position and helped Beijing hide the truth about the new virus until it was too late for Europe and the United States. The leadership of the Middle Kingdom was accused of corrupt WHO structures.
But that is not all. In the right-wing conservative media of the United States, a version began to circulate that the focus of the spread of coronavirus was not at all one of the so-called wet markets (where they sell wild animals for food), but a level 4 biosecurity laboratory located a few kilometers from Wuhan most affected by the epidemic. Proponents of this version do not at all claim that the virus was developed as a biological weapon and was intentionally released into the world. Chinese scientists allegedly investigated the pathogens carried by bats. As a result, one of the employees became infected and carried the disease around the city. And it was then that Beijing allegedly made an attempt to hide what is happening from the world community.
At first, most of the media in the United States themselves considered the conspiracy version. But the “conspiracy theorists” quite quickly gained allies from the ranks of the intelligence community of the United States.
The press published the data of military intelligence on the nature of research in the biolaboratory of Wuhan, as well as on holes in its security system. Of course, these leaks (and even intelligence itself) cannot be considered as absolute proof of the "laboratory" origin of coronavirus. There is still no convincing evidence that the Chinese authorities deliberately kept information about COVID-19, thereby endangering the world's population.
But to launch a broad propaganda campaign against Beijing, reinforced concrete arguments are not required. We live in an era when Anglo-Saxon highly likely becomes the "queen of evidence." Worse, today the “free press” of the West is no longer guided by professional standards 20-30 years ago. She does not even try to double-check the messages of "anonymous sources" and build a balanced picture of what is happening. She is engaged in party biased propaganda. The same principles guide network social platforms and streaming hosting.
Therefore, MSNBC and The New York Times insist that only Donald Trump is to blame for the widespread spread of coronavirus, while Fox News and Breitbart point their finger exclusively at China. A similar split is also observed in the British and continental European press. However, in the media reaction to the pandemic and its devastating economic consequences in the once united Europe, an obvious pattern is seen. And the same can be said about the leaders of the countries of the Old World. Trump is scolded easily and naturally - it has already become a European tradition. But with regard to China, only those leaders and “party press organs” who either do not hope for Comrade’s help speak out negatively. Xi in these difficult times, or were offended by the demarches of Beijing, especially since Beijing also does not skimp on them.
It is known that almost all European countries - France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, etc. - Depend on the vital supplies of personal protective equipment (primarily for doctors), medicines and their ingredients from China.
Even a relatively prosperous Germany, with its disciplined medicine and a largely preserved production base, cannot declare complete independence from suppliers from Southeast Asia.
Who is right, who is to blame for the dispute between Beijing and Washington, we will not know in the next 10-20 years. Generally speaking, this is not particularly important. The two sides clashed in a fundamental debate about the image of the great powers in the post-coronavirus era. Comrade Xi believes that the pandemic and the way out of the crisis associated with it are a good reason to confirm the image of China as a modern, high-tech and “well-organized” power capable of world leadership. And Mr. Trump strongly disagrees. Its task is to convince mankind of the unreliability not only of China itself, but also of the harmfulness of its economic model, including international.
It’s not without reason that the main ideologist of trampism, Stephen Bannon, repeated over and over again that the fight against globalism for America is a 90% fight against China and that “One belt is one way”, the “Made in China” program, and also 5G technology distributed by Huawei are major threats to America. And it is not for nothing that the materials of the XIX Congress of the Communist Party of China speak of a "new image of the PRC."
That was long before - at least for many years - before the coronavirus. The two powers set their sights on a long ideological and image confrontation. The pandemic only exacerbated contrasts and accelerated the process of disintegration of what was once called Chimerica - the global interpenetration of the economies of China and the United States.
Globalization has ordered a long life. It was replaced by the competition of big powers. The loudest of them will be the confrontation between the United States and China. Therefore, in the post-coronavirus era of each of the capitals, the image of its national state and its development model in the 21st century will be very important. The United States does not like the propaganda of the “Chinese method” of dealing with misfortunes, while the Celestial Empire does not like its removal from the list of candidates for leadership, not only economic (which is so obvious), but also ideological. Beijing, like Washington once (and earlier the USSR), wants to see its model dominant, at least in half the world.
This is what the debate is about.
Russia needs to build its economic geostrategic policy in such a way that it does not depend on this dispute, but at the same time develop as a great power that no one dares to aggressively draw into other people's disputes.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.