Is it time to dump Google?

Last week my gmail account was cancelled without notice. Why? No reason was given.

But it happened the day after the United States regime announced it had blacklisted Huawei from engaging with the United States – arbitrarily and on the basis of vague and groundless accusations. The regime has also been using ham-fisted tactics to try and stop others from working with Huawei, although this will only mean that the USA will have even fewer friends in the world.

Interestingly, a number of US companies – including Google – enthusiastically threw themselves into the fray, indicating that the US regime actively intervenes in, directs and is supported by the major tech companies in the United States. The irony is obvious: they are actively doing what the regime is accusing Huawei of doing. A Danish saying comes to mind: a thief always thinks everyone else is a thief.

However, I do not use Huawei products, although I will make sure to get some from now on. Instead, I use a Xiaomi phone and laptop, which are far better than anything you can get from Apple or Samsung or whatever. I do use Chinese systems on these items, and I do so in China and other parts of the world. (In the current situation, they are the only global products that you can use everywhere.) The only reason that I can come up with for the cancellation of my gmail is that Google is targeting all Chinese products and systems.

Let us be clear, Google is banned in China, not only because it refuses to follow Chinese law for responsible internet management, but also because it willingly hands over its big data to the privatised spy agency in the United States, the NSA. So there is no great loss to China from Google cutting off its limited engagement. But to cut off anyone who as any engagement with China is another step.

Then again, I have never been a fan of Google. I used to have its search engine on my computer, but deleted it. My gmail had only a few addresses and was used for personal matters (I do not use it in China). Google maps is a notoriously bad product and often misleading. And I do not use Facebook, Twitter or the many other useless products US companies use to mine information from their users.

But I do know that many people use Google products, whether its search engines, gmail, maps, phones (they are terrible) or even a whole Google account. It has relied on its pervasiveness in the ‘Western’ world to dominate, manipulate, gather information, and – now – to act as an agent of US capriciousness.

The conclusion for me is clear: it is time to dump Google.

Advertisements

China will not be humiliated again

More than two centuries ago, high quality Chinese goods were in heavy demand. Back then, the goods were porcelain, silk and tea, which the peoples of North America and Western Europe were unable to produce. Gold and especially silver flowed into China, including most of the stuff extracted from mines in Central and South America.

Back then, capricious Western regimes began decrying the ‘trade imbalance’ with China, saying it was the result of ‘unfair’ practices and ‘despotic’ restrictions on ‘legitimate’ Western trade.

From that point on, these same regimes began trying all sorts of tricks to force the Chinese to act ‘fairly’. The British began smuggling opium to China, against which China resisted, especially under Lin Zexu in 1839, who seized and burnt more than 20,000 chests of opium in Guangzhou. The British then initiated the first of the two Opium Wars (1840-1842), providing not only a textbook example of  ‘gunboat diplomacy’, but also the first of a series of unequal treaties. This was the Treaty of Nanjing of 1842, which was not so much a treaty as a unilateral imposition of British imperial demands on the Chinese (including, among other items, the occupation of Hong Kong).

For the Chinese, this was the beginning of a century of humiliation.

Sound familiar?

It should, since the United States is trying the same tactics now. The specifics might be different. Back then it was high quality goods such as porcelain, silk and tea; now it is high-technology, railway expertise, navigation equipment, quantum communication and so on. Back then, the Chinese were accused of using ‘unfair’ practices to develop a ‘trade imbalance’. And back then, a more powerful empire imposed its arbitrary will on the Chinese.

With this kind of history, you can see why China simply will not accept the unilateral and arbitrary demands of the United States in the so-called ‘trade war’. China will not be humiliated again.

Why? One crucial factor is now different: China is strong enough to resist, fight back and insist on its own integrity. Or rather, two factors are different: now the United States is a drug-addled country, tearing itself apart internally and in noticeable decline.

Self-harm by the United States, or, why Chinese news services are the most reliable

The following article is copied from Xinhua News, which I have for some time now found the most reliable, well-resourced and balanced of the many news services I have read over the years. The article is good example. Why? To begin with, it is based on careful research, with contributions from a number of journalists. Further, they see no need to rush in with some ‘scoop’, which usually turns out to be unverified rumour and gossip.

But I also like it since it shows how the Unites States is accelerating the process of its own decline through what can be called self-harm. And this process is based on stunning ignorance and misunderstanding of the rest of the world. Once you do this, you make one mistake after after another – note especially the section called ‘Groundless Accusation’.

(As an aside, this groundless accusation against Huawei was originally made in Australia, but there is a clear reason: Australian telephony has always been woeful and overpriced, so much so that people have become used to this situation. So you cannot have telephony and internet services that actually work, are efficient and relatively low-cost. That would be too much of a shock to the system. How will Australia roll out 5G? It will simply rename 3G as ‘5G’ and charge the earth for it.)

Restricting Huawei backfires on U.S. interests, disrupts global telecom industry

by Xinhua writer Gao Wencheng

BEIJING, May 24 (Xinhua) — Millions of Americans in rural areas may be denied access to faster and lower-priced broadband connections because of Washington’s restrictive moves against Huawei, a Chinese company which has offered equipment to U.S. rural telecom operators for years.

The U.S. government last week announced it would “prohibit transactions posing an unacceptable risk” to the country by declaring a national emergency over what it claimed are technological threats, and announced restrictions on the sale and transfer of U.S. technologies to Chinese company Huawei.

The ban would force small and independently-owned telecom operators such as Eastern Oregon Telecom and Union Wireless in Wyoming to spend their limited funds buying more expensive gear from Huawei’s competitors, according to an article in The New York Times by Chen Lifang, Huawei’s group board director.

Though accusing Huawei of being able to use its network equipment to spy on foreign nations for the Chinese government, the U.S. government has not produced any hard evidence to support its accusation. However, innocent victims in the global chains of the telecom industry would bear the consequences.

BACKFIRE ON U.S. INTERESTS

“A ban will not make American networks more secure. Instead, it will hurt ordinary Americans and businesses by denying them access to leading technology, reducing competition and increasing prices,” Chen said in the article.

“The ban will financially harm the thousands of Americans employed by the U.S. companies that do business with Huawei, which buys more than 11 billion U.S. dollars in goods and services from U.S. companies each year,” said Chen. “A total ban on Huawei equipment could eliminate tens of thousands of American jobs.”

The recent U.S. move to add the Chinese telecom company to a trade blacklist has already taken a toll on Wall Street. Shares of Huawei’s major suppliers, including Google, Qualcomm and Broadcom, were pressured.

Washington’s plan has also drawn resistance from domestic telecom carriers, especially those in rural areas, where the optical cable infrastructure is weak and the cost-effective Huawei equipment is considered as a better option.

James Kail, chief of LHTC Broadband, a digital service provider in rural Pennsylvania, told Xinhua that the ban could have an adverse effect on their business since they have a significant investment at stake as well as potential funding that could be jeopardized.

“About a quarter of small rural U.S. broadband providers use Huawei equipment, which is … at lower prices and better customer service,” Roger Entner, founder and lead analyst at U.S. telecom research firm Recon Analytics, told Xinhua via email.

Banning Huawei in the United States has the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a conundrum, Entner tweeted. “Is the FCC going to accept slower broadband build-out?”

GROUNDLESS ACCUSATION

According to some German media, after years of review, Britain, Germany and the European Union failed to find any backdoor in Huawei products.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said in response that “the conclusions of Europe’s scrutiny have proven Huawei innocent, and showed the U.S. suppression against other countries’ enterprises with state power is unjustified.”

“We’d like to see the U.S. comment on the findings,” Lu said at a press briefing, adding that since the coming into light of the U.S. secret surveillance program Prism, the United States has remained silent over evidence alleging its illegal practices of cyber attacks and thefts.

Likewise, the 2019 annual report compiled by the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Center Oversight Board, staffed by representatives from Huawei and Britain’s government including the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and telecommunications sector, detailed concerns about Huawei’s software engineering capabilities, but stated that the “NCSC does not believe that the defects identified are a result of Chinese state interference.”

Such conclusions came as a result of putting Huawei under a microscope.

“I don’t think any of the other vendors have been on such level of scrutiny to find out whether or not security risks exist in their software,” Stephane Teral, technology fellow and advisor for Mobile Infrastructure and Carrier Economics at the consultancy IHS Markit Technology, told Xinhua.

The United States has also been unsuccessfully trying to rally other countries to abandon Huawei products, citing security threats.

“Our perspective is not to block Huawei or any company,” French President Emmanuel Macron told the VivaTech conference in Paris.

The Department of Information and Communications Technology of the Philippines said that there was no incident of a national security breach from the local telecommunication network using Huawei equipment.

Major Malaysian mobile operators like Maxis, Celcom and U Mobile also said their cooperation with Huawei is not affected by the recent U.S. ban.

“ECONOMIC BULLYING”

With the use of state power, Washington’s groundless crackdown on Chinese private company Huawei is typical “economic bullying,” Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.

Such an egocentric approach by the United States will not win the recognition and support of the international community, said Wang.

Blameless companies around the world, including Huawei’s U.S. suppliers, could lose business, face disruptions and incur significant new costs, while China will only redouble its efforts to produce advanced technologies domestically, according to an editorial article published by Bloomberg.

As Huawei is deeply embedded in the global supply chain, “there might be other manufacturers that will be caught up in it,” Foad Fadaghi, an Australian technology analyst and managing director of Telsyte, was quoted by local media as saying.

The U.S. restrictions on Huawei would also hold back the launch of 5G networks and earnings of the tech sectors across the world, Swiss leading investment bank UBS said in its latest research report.

The Huawei ban in the long term “would also make network equipment more expensive because it could reduce the number of suppliers in what is already a small pool,” according to Standard Investment Bank’s note on Kenya’s telecom operator Safaricom.

In response to the U.S. restrictions, Ren Zhengfei, founder and president of Huawei, said Huawei had recently received widespread global support.

Huawei never wants to “walk alone” in the global markets, but has made good preparations for any extreme circumstances, he said.

Ren also appreciated the support of a large number of U.S. components suppliers over the years, and they were also lobbying for the easing of U.S. government-imposed restrictions.

“As long as the U.S. government allows U.S. companies to export the components, Huawei will continue to buy while sticking to its own research and development,” he said.

(Xinhua reporters Zhou Zhou in Washington, Ma Qian, Yang Shilong and Pan Lijun in New York, Wang Zichen in Brussels, Yuan Mengchen in Manila, Lin Hao and Jonathan Edward in Kuala Lumpur, Wang Xiaopeng in Nairobi, Guan Jianwu in Bishkek and Hao Yalin in Sydney also contributed to the story.)

China leads the world in re-afforestation

On one or two occasions, I have written about the greening of Beijing, as well as ‘ecological civilisation‘ as one of the core features of the drive to a xiaokang (moderately well-off) society by 2021. But these are not merely recent developments. Many environmental projects require a long-term approach, stable planning and determined governance – precisely what a communist party in power is able to provide.

Here is another fact that is not so well known internationally: China leads the world in re-afforestation. This has been an ongoing project for several decades, as the following graphic from the People’s Daily shows:

China’s Peaceful Rejuvenation

This China Daily article by Zhang Weiwei, dean of the China Institute at Fudan University, makes at least one good point: China’s economic development was not undertaken through plundering or colonising another country, or through exporting problems. I would add that it also did not require massive international debts to do so. In this respect at least, China’s socialist construction is analogous to the Soviet Union, which also had to find an endogenous path. The contrast with the Soviet Union, whose ‘socialist offensive’ of the 1930s effectively turned it into an economic powerhouse, is that it was often deeply disruptive and occasionally violent. China’s longer path – over the 40 years of Reform and Opening Up – has been overwhelmingly peaceful and stable.

China’s development is in sharp contrast to that of Western powers which has been based on wars of aggression and the plundered resources

The sharp contrast between China and Western countries in their rise shows that what China has achieved in the past 70 years really did not come easy. China’s per capita resources are so limited that the cost of its industrialization has been very high.

What’s more, China has had to properly handle relations with both Western powers and developing countries on the one hand, and address various domestic social contradictions and destabilizing factors on the other.

It is China’s unremitting goal to seek development and harmony within the country and to pursue cooperation and peace with the international community. This has already become the will of the country and has been translated into national development plans and guidelines and implemented in practice.

Guided by the goal of peaceful development, China’s various measures of reform and opening-up have promoted its development and progress across the board. The Communist Party of China’s observation of the ever fiercer competition and numerous challenges in the world, as well as its sober assessment of the times, are reflected in its governance wisdom and enabled the country to get a clear understanding of the current world, and closely follow the major trends and seize the momentum of the times.

China exports no revolution or ideology, engages in no arms race or value-oriented diplomacy, and does not intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries. China does not identify a circle of friends based on ideology and far transcends the cold-war zero-sum game mentality of countries being either friends or foes. Instead, it is committed to a path of win-win cooperation and a partner network of global reach is taking shape.

China’s participation in the World Trade Organization, the world’s largest multilateral trading system, has enormously enhanced win-win cooperation between China and the world, facilitated the allocation and flow of production factors in the world, helped China become the world’s biggest trader in goods and made it possible for China and other countries to benefit from the dividend of China’s peaceful development through fair trade.

China is both a contributor and a beneficiary of economic globalization. The essence of Western-propelled globalization over these years is the globalization of neoliberalism. It is both economic and political, and includes liberalization, privatization, marketization and democratization. Economic globalization is a major trend of history which China must seize and follow. Of course, it is a double-edged sword, if properly handled globalization will improve the wellbeing of the Chinese people, but if mismanaged it will lead to disaster or even obstruct China’s development. Therefore, China has taken the approach of drawing on its advantages and avoiding any pitfalls that may be created by its opening-up.

China has set a clear definition for globalization: It’s economic, not political. Instead of abandoning socialism, China uses the strengths of socialism with Chinese characteristics to harness the globalization of neoliberalism that is driven by Western countries. This has made China stand out on the international stage and made the Chinese beneficiaries of economic globalization.

A key reason why China can maintain its peaceful development is that it has relied on endogenous development. As a super-sized country, China faces population, environmental and social development pressure. But to resolve these difficulties, China has relied on domestic economic, social and political reforms to constantly emancipate and develop productivity. This forms a sharp contrast to some Western countries which exported their own crises to other countries. In some sense, the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics means finding Chinese solutions to various difficulties in the process of industrialization, urbanization and agricultural modernization and creating a new set of approaches.

History shows that China’s peaceful development is a journey in which it has to confront and overcome challenges of all kinds. China’s current efforts involve transitioning from exports and investment-driven growth to industrial upgrading and innovation and consumption-driven growth. This road of endogenous development is wider and brighter, China is likely to become the world’s largest consumer market. Endogenous growth and development can help us maintain patience and resolve, handle international trade frictions in a reasonable manner and push forward the Belt and Road Initiative and new-type of globalization.

The Chinese love and cherish peace, and there is a profound historical and cultural tradition in this nation for peaceful development. For the best part of the past 2,000 years, China was the world’s largest economy with a far more sophisticated economy than Western countries at the same time. The fleet of Zheng He’s overseas expeditions in China’s Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) was 100 times larger than that with which Christopher Columbus “discovered” the American continent. But what China engaged in was only international exchanges and trade. There was neither expansion nor colonization. China has held the wisdom from ancient times that a warlike country, not matter how strong as it is, contains the seeds of its own destruction.

President Xi Jinping has stressed that the 5,000-year-old Chinese civilization has always upheld peace; and that the pursuit of peace and harmony is deeply rooted in the spiritual world of this nation and runs in the blood of its people. The Chinese nation has always advocated precious harmony, peace for the whole world and good neighborly and friendly relations. The history of Western invasions and national humiliation have given the country an acute and deep understanding of the value of peace. Therefore, the People’s Republic of China, from day one, has made solemn pledges that China will never seek hegemony even when one day it is strong. The success of China’s peaceful development is also rooted in the traditional wisdom of its civilization which valued harmony and stability. The success embodies the combination of our cultural genes and modern spirit. Our cultural legacy has been brought into life by reform and opening-up, and has become a major source of wisdom for China.

The resilience of a socialist market economy

In the article copied below are some useful insights into the current ‘trade war’ that the USA has launched against China (among many other countries). I am not sure the article – by John Ross – fully understands the socialist market economy of China, but the reality is that this economy is far more integrated, resilient and advanced than the chaotic and hollowed-out capitalist market economy of the USA – which Ross does analyse quite well. One thing is increasingly clear: the US advisors who are calling the shots are both annoyed and alarmed that they are hurting and now slipping behind.

Global Times, 13 May 2019:

Current US administration actions on trade make it important to carry out a calm objective comparison of the economic situation of China and the US. This is particularly necessary because the US administration engages in inaccurate boasting while China tends to present its economic situation in a calm, even modest, way. But, in very serious matters, there is no virtue in exaggeration — there is only virtue in realism.

Factual comparison of the economic situations of China and the US reveals the following: growth under the Trump administration is extremely slow by US historical standards, while China’s economy is growing twice as fast as the US and has greater resilience than the US, and China’s methods of macroeconomic control are much stronger than those of the US. These relative situations are confirmed by both the latest economic data and long-term economic trends.

To accurately analyze US economic dynamics it is necessary to remove false claims made by the US administration. President Trump has repeatedly claimed that “America’s economy is booming like never before,” but when this claim was made to delegates at the UN General Assembly, the Washington Post noted that “people actually laughed.” Such skepticism was justified. Facts show that under President Trump, the US is currently experiencing the slowest economic growth of any presidency since World War II.

Using the method by which the US presents data, peak growth under Trump of 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2018 was significantly lower than the 5.1 percent under Obama, 7.0 percent under George W Bush, or 7.5 percent under Clinton. These peaks were in turn lower than under former US presidents since World War II. Peak growth under Nixon was 11.3 percent.

To make an accurate comparison to China, it should be understood that the way the US presents economic data differs from China and most countries. China states its economic growth as the increase from one quarter compared to the same quarter in the previous year – that is real year-on-year growth. The US presents economic growth as one quarter’s growth compared to the previous quarter presented at an annualized rate – approximately multiplied by four. This greatly exaggerates short-term US growth. The real highest year-on-year growth achieved under President Trump, making an accurate comparison with China, is only 3.2 percent.

China’s economic growth of 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2019 was therefore twice the peak growth under Trump. But this still understates China’s growth lead over the US. US growth is more cyclical than China’s and falls to lower levels – during the last five years US growth fell to 1.3 percent during 2016. In that five-year period US average growth was 2.6 percent, whereas China’s was 6.8 percent — two and a half times as fast as the US. China’s lowest growth was 6.4 percent – almost five times as fast as the lowest US growth.

This determines the economic problem currently facing the US administration. US growth in the last quarter of 3.2 percent was a peak in the current business cycle – unsustainably above average growth. Therefore, US growth is likely to decline during 2019. The IMF projects US growth to fall as low as 2.3 percent for the year compared to China’s projected 6.3 percent. More worryingly for President Trump, as 2020 is a presidential election year, the IMF projects US growth to fall to only 1.9 percent in that year, while China’s growth is projected as above 6 percent.

This forecast of a US economic slowdown explains both current domestic economic demands by the US President and the administration’s position in trade talks. China does not undergo significant cyclical slowdowns because it has a socialist economy.  Tom Orlik, author of a serious Western study of China’s economy, Understanding China’s Economic Indicators, summarized why China had a more resilient economy: “Most economies can pull two levers to bolster growth: fiscal and monetary. China has a third option. The National Development and Reform Commission can accelerate the flow of investment projects.”

The dilemma the US faces amid threats of an economic slowdown, is that it rejects state intervention in the economy and is already running a very large budget deficit. Therefore, the only weapon available to attempt to limit an economic slowdown, which would affect the 2020 presidential election, is to reduce interest rates. Consequently, President Trump has recently launched public attacks on the US Federal Reserve, demanding that it reduce interest rates.

This threat of a US economic slowdown simultaneously explains the aggressive approach taken by the US in trade talks and the sharp falls on the US share market in reaction to this. Foreseeing that China’s economy will continue to grow far faster than that of the US, and that the US will slow, US neo-cons are desperate to attempt to slow China’s economy through tariffs. However, US stock market thinks that the combination of a slowing economy and tariffs would be toxic.

 

China is a great country, with a great culture, rich in history and wisdom: Pope Francis

I realise this is not everyone’s cup of tea, but I have an abiding interest in these fascinating developments. Perhaps the most significant observation is as follows: ‘He [Pope Francis] sees China not only as a great country but also as a great culture, rich in history and wisdom. Today China has come to arouse great attention and interest everywhere, especially among young people. The Holy See hopes that China will not be afraid to enter into dialogue with the wider world and that the world’s nations will give credit to the profound aspirations of the Chinese people’.

Not only does this indicate an official Vatican position, but it also reveals how hollow the ‘China threat’ narrative really is, peddled by a handful of former colonisers (12-15 at most) who know their influence is well and truly on the way out.

It comes from an interview with Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State. It was published today in the Global Times, but it also has clear connections with earlier statements (here, here and here). The text is as follows:

Editor’s Note: As a sign of positive developments in China-Vatican relations, the recent Easter celebrations were peaceful in China and the presence of the Vatican representation at the Horticultural International Exhibition in Beijing attracted positive attention. Cardinal Pietro Parolin(Parolin), Vatican Secretary of State, granted an exclusive interview to the Global Times (GT) special correspondent Francesco Sisci and staff reporter Zhang Yu. He talked about the latest progress of the provisional agreement between China and the Holy See, his memories of negotiating with Chinese representatives, and his take on China’s sinicization of religions in recent years.

GT: The agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China has been signed. The dialogue is still ongoing. How is it proceeding now? How often do the two sides meet? Can you give us some details about it?

Parolin: Yes, on September 22, 2018 we signed a provisional agreement on the nomination of bishops in China. The two sides are well aware that such an act constitutes the point of arrival of a long journey, but it is above all a starting point. There is confidence that a new phase of greater cooperation can now be opened for the good of the Chinese Catholic community and the harmony of the whole society. The channels of communication are working well. There are elements which demonstrate an increased trust between the two sides. We are inaugurating a method which appears positive and which will still have to be developed over time, but which, for now, gives us hope that we can gradually arrive at concrete results. We have to journey together, because only in this way will we be able to heal the wounds and misunderstandings of the past in order to show the world that even starting from positions that are far apart, we can reach fruitful agreements. I would like to highlight an aspect which is particularly close to the heart of Pope Francis: That is, the true nature of dialogue. In dialogue, neither of the two sides gives up its own identity or what is essential for carrying out its own task. China and the Holy See are not discussing theories about their respective systems nor do they want to reopen questions which by now belong to history. Instead we are looking for practical solutions which concern the lives of real people who desire to practice their faith peacefully and offer a positive contribution to their own country.

GT: There is some opposition to the Vatican’s dialogue with the Chinese government. What is your take on the opposition and what would you say to the opponents within the Church?

Parolin: As generally happens in complex issues and when one faces problems of great importance, also in Sino-Vatican relations, it is usual to compare different positions and likewise propose different solutions, according to the initial points of view and the prevailing concerns. Therefore, there should not be a surprise if there is criticism, which can arise either in the church or in China or from elsewhere, of an opening which can appear unprecedented after such a long period of confrontation. Indeed, it seems to me human and Christian to show understanding, attention and respect for those who express such criticism. Of course, not all problems have been resolved. Many questions still need to be addressed and we are facing them with willingness and determination. I am well aware that no one has it completely worked out (or, indeed, can provide a magic formula!), but I can also say that we are committed to finding enduring solutions, which are acceptable to, and respectful of all concerned. Obviously, criticisms which come from prejudiced positions and which seem to seek to preserve old geopolitical balances are another matter. For Pope Francis – who is well aware of all that has happened even in the recent past – the main interest in the ongoing dialogue is on the pastoral level: he is making a great act of trust and respect for the Chinese people and their culture of millennia, with the well-founded hope of receiving an equally sincere and positive response.  The truly important point is that the dialogue should be able to progressively build a wider consensus by bearing abundant fruits. A first and two-fold fruit, to observe carefully, is what has already taken place: on the one hand, we are beginning to overcome reciprocal condemnations, we know each other better, we listen to each other, we understand the needs of those involved in the dialogue in a better way. On the other hand, the prospect opens up that two ancient, great and sophisticated international entities – like China and the Apostolic See – may become ever more aware of a common responsibility for the grave problems of our time. Global responses have to correspond to global challenges. Catholicism by its nature is a global reality, able to promote in an original way the search for meaning and happiness, to bolster the value of belonging to a specific culture and at the same time experience universal fraternity. As a Chinese bishop recently pointed out, the Catholic communities in China today are asking to be fully integrated into universal communion, bringing to the Church the gift of being Chinese.

GT: Inculturation has always been important for the Catholic Church when it preaches the Gospel. Now China is carrying out “sinicization” of religions. What is your take on inculturation and “sinicization”?

Parolin: Inculturation is an essential condition for a sound proclamation of the Gospel which, in order to bear fruit, requires, on the one hand, safeguarding its authentic purity and integrity and, on the other, presenting it according to the particular experience of each people and culture. The fruitful experience of Matteo Ricci is an outstanding witness of this: he knew how to make himself authentically Chinese in order to promote the values of human friendship and Christian love. For the future, it will certainly be important to deepen this theme, especially the relationship between “inculturation” and “sinicization,” keeping in mind how the Chinese leadership has been able to reiterate their willingness not to undermine the nature and the doctrine of each religion. These two terms, “inculturation” and “sinicization,” refer to each other without confusion and without opposition: in some ways, they can be complementary and can open avenues for dialogue on the religious and cultural level. Finally, I would say that the principal actors in this commitment are Chinese Catholics, called to live reconciliation in order to be authentically Chinese and fully Catholic.

GT: The Vatican (Holy See) has played a positive role in helping China get recognition for its efforts to crack down on organ trafficking. Are there other areas in which the two sides can work together?

Parolin: As I pointed out before, today many global challenges exist which need to be faced with a spirit of positive cooperation. I am thinking in particular of the great issues of peace, the fight against poverty, environmental and climatic emergencies, migration, the ethics of scientific development and the economic and social progress of peoples. It is of primary importance for the Holy See that in all these areas the dignity of the human person be placed at the center, beginning with the real recognition of his or her fundamental rights, among which is the right to religious freedom, and the common good, which is the good of each and everyone. These are very broad horizons which today more than ever need a shared commitment on the part of everyone: believers and non-believers. The Holy See will continue to do its part within the international community and is open to every initiative which promotes the common good.

GT: It is a complicated time for the whole world and in particular for some countries. What could you say to political leaders personally, as a religious man?

Parolin: Today, more than in the past, political leaders are called to enormous responsibilities. What happens on the local level almost immediately has repercussions on the global level. We are all interconnected, so the words and decisions of a few persons influence the lives and way of thinking of many. As a man of faith and as a priest, I would like to invite those who have direct political responsibilities to keep in mind this power of influence over people, a power which can be vertiginous. I would like to say that even in the most difficult situations and faced with the most complex decisions they should not be afraid to lift their gaze, beyond immediate success, to seek lasting and far-reaching solutions without preconditions which can contribute to building a more humane, more just and more worthy future for everyone. In this regard, I would like to highlight the message of Pope Francis for the celebration of the 52nd World Day of Peace on  January 1, 2019, entitled: “Good politics at the service of peace,” which offers valuable indications to all those who have political responsibilities.

GT: You have dealt with Chinese representatives for many years. What is the most powerful memory of that time? And the most beautiful one?

Parolin: I have clear and fond memories of the time when, as Undersecretary for Relations with States, I had dealings with the Chinese representatives and I thank the Lord for allowing me to have that rich experience.  There was, of course, no shortage of concerns and fears. On not a few occasions, it seemed to me that we would never make progress and that everything would be brought to a halt. The will to move forward prevailed on both sides, however, and with patience and determination we sought to overcome the obstacles along the way. This particular detail has remained clearly impressed on my memory. The most poignant times were those when we spent moments of familiarity and friendship together, allowing us to get to know one other and to appreciate each other more and, in the end, to share the humanity that unites us beyond the differences that exist between us. These are situations that have a profound value in themselves, but which were also useful in creating a more favorable atmosphere during the negotiations. I remember, in particular, a whole day spent in Assisi with the Chinese delegation one Sunday in spring: the fascination of the places of Saint Francis and the climate that was created between us opened my heart to a great hope, which kept me going in all the following years and that still encourages me. We have seen the first fruits of it and, with God’s grace, we will see yet more, for the benefit of the entire Chinese Catholic community, which I embrace fraternally – above all those who have suffered most and continue to suffer – and of the entire population of that country, to which I sincerely extend every good wish.

GT: Your Eminence, do you have a particular message for the Chinese people and its leaders?

Parolin: I would like to send to the leaders, but also to all the people of China, the greetings, best wishes and prayers of Pope Francis. The Holy Father asks Catholics in particular to undertake with courage the path of unity, reconciliation and a renewed proclamation of the Gospel. He sees China not only as a great country but also as a great culture, rich in history and wisdom. Today China has come to arouse great attention and interest everywhere, especially among young people. The Holy See hopes that China will not be afraid to enter into dialogue with the wider world and that the world’s nations will give credit to the profound aspirations of the Chinese people. In this way, with everyone working together, I am sure that we will be able to overcome mistrust and build a more secure and prosperous world. In the words of Pope Francis, we would say that only by being united can we overcome the globalization of indifference, working as creative artisans of peace and resolute promoters of fraternity.