What is happening in Venezuela may have momentous consequences for China. On the eve of a critical Trump-Xi summit, Beijing may need to confront reality differently.
The prestigious Beijing publisher Sanlian Shudian recently reprinted Mao Haijian’s 2019 book on the Opium War, The Collapse of the Celestial Court[1]. According to the book, in the 19th century, the Qing Empire fell because the court collectively failed to recognize the truth about the country’s and the world’s real situation.
The concept is fundamental to the Party’s official rhetoric and philosophy, embodied in Mao Zedong’s phrase “seeking truth from facts,” shishi qiushi. The principle is so crucial that Deng used it to change the name of the Party’s theoretical journal. It was formerly Red Flag and then became Qiushi.
The veiled implication is that today’s Chinese government does not seek the truth. But the problem of truth is epistemological, complex in theory, and infernal in practice.
What is the truth? Who speaks it, and do they do so only for the sake of telling the truth, or for ulterior motives? And what if the rapporteur gets it wrong in good faith? These questions have probably beset politicians and ordinary people since the beginning of humanity. No leader in his right mind wants to be deluded, but the truth is hard to come by.
In ancient times, the Chinese emperor had to discern his interlocutors’ intentions without being discerned. Hence, during official audiences, he wore bead chains in front of his face to see without being seen.
Some in Beijing say leaders don’t want to hear the truth. However, that may not be the problem. The system (tizhi) isn’t geared toward the truth; it rewards people whose reports please their superiors. If superiors dislike the reports, the rapporteur won’t be paid, may lose his job, or even worse. Therefore, there is no reward for speaking one’s honest mind, only for second-guessing what the boss wants to hear.
Truth may lie outside the system, but do those outside really know the truth? In an authoritarian organization, information is partitioned and unavailable to people outside the top echelons. Therefore, those outside the system don’t really know what they are talking about, do they? The atmosphere is just too dark. Then it becomes a loop. Even people with total access to all information can’t trust the news they have been fed.
In modern democracies, it’s just the opposite. There is too much light; all information is available without rankings, and it’s hard to tell the difference between relevant and irrelevant news. Moreover, in authoritarian countries, the autocrat sets the general direction, whereas in democracies, directions may vary across governments. Even the same government can change its mind. So it’s hard for outsiders, coming from China with a very different epistemological grammar, to tell what’s happening in the US. They may have all the news but still fail to understand its meaning.
These are epistemological problems, but they help China and everyone else avoid a war that could be even more destructive than ever.
It’s intelligence
This has straightforward implications for recent events in Venezuela. China stated that it was utterly shocked by the US capture of President Nicolas Maduro. In fact, just a couple of hours before the American military took him away, Maduro had received a Chinese foreign ministry delegation. Maduro and the Chinese appeared unaware of what was already unfolding.
Yes, China was too distant, and its defenses were insufficient for Venezuela. But basic intelligence was obvious: if you keep a massive force standing for months, as the US had been doing, spending millions per day, you need to get results or lose face.
Why didn’t Chinese diplomats see this? If they failed to see it, what else are they miscalculating?
They may have interpreted the American actions from their own viewpoint. It was like their maneuvers around Taiwan, a show of force to keep pressure on the island. However, the US sought something concrete in return from Maduro.
China is in no position to do a “Venezuela” in Taiwan. The US and Japan would not allow it, and Taiwan is not a semi-failed state like Venezuela.
A crucial element is determining how the transition will be implemented. Venezuelans now celebrate liberation, but in a few months, they might protest persistent poverty despite Maduro’s absence. Venezuelans’ happiness rests on American shoulders.
The next 6 to 12 months in Venezuela will be crucial for the USA and the world. If America manages to put Venezuela on the right track, the USA will have vindicated its actions in Iraq twenty years ago, when it failed to rebuild the country. It would awe China’s leadership and the Chinese people. If it doesn’t, accusations of violations of international law and of US plunder of Venezuelan resources could stick better and complicate American life.
If, conversely, the US makes Venezuela a better place, the current accusations will be forgotten, and international law may change.
Now, Chinese protests against American actions are the pot calling the kettle black. They contrast with Beijing’s silence about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Another element, as Victor Shih pointed out (see here), is that the Venezuelan government and SOEs are among the largest borrowers from Chinese banks, with total outstanding debt of ~200 billion dollars. Changes that jeopardize repayment are likely to be significant. Global oil supply could also be different. Tapping Venezuelan resources could cause an oil glut that would strain the already troubled Russian and Iranian economies. It would also put China on the spot, devaluing its large oil stockpiles.
It’s like the first Cold War. At the time, all movements and political shifts were viewed through the lens of the great confrontation between liberal and communist countries, led, respectively, by the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, similar tools may be necessary, while acknowledging profound differences between the first and second Cold Wars.
It seems not accidental that the attack on Venezuela happened just days after the military maneuvers around Taiwan.
It is a chess-like move in the lead-up to the March-April summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. In this chess game, America moved a knight, toppling a piece — Venezuela — that had been under China’s control or assistance. It has changed the framework for the April discussions. It will no longer be so much about tariffs and rare earths as about the great geopolitical game.
Here, the role of the Holy See may be significant. The Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, was the nuncio in Venezuela. One of his deputies, Edgar Peña Parra, is from Venezuela and is the influential Father General of the Jesuits, Arturo Sosa Abascal.
[1] https://www.99csw.com/book/8605/index.htm 天朝崩溃
