One shouldn’t be even a minor hypocrite; dishonesty about even little things is a bad habit. But what if the hypocrisy is about such things as, domestically, jailing and torturing and killing innocent Uyghurs, Tibetans, and members of Falun Gong; and, internationally, harassing and beating up the citizens of other countries (and refugees from your own country) as much as you can this side of starting a war? Would ending the hypocrisy about all this make it all better, morally or otherwise?
“Unilateralism and protectionism”
We hear that at the annual meeting of the China’s National People’s Congress—one of the regular CCP gabfests convened to burnish loyalties and propaganda—“Premier Li Qiang called for international cooperation in opposition to ‘unilateralism and protectionism.’ ”
Wait a minute, says the Sankei Shimbun editorial board. That’s hypocritical (“China Claiming to Reject Power Politics is Hypocritical Diplomacy,” Japan Forward, March 10, 2025).
“China is responsible for the rising tensions in Asia,” the board says. It is.
We must not be misled by its hypocritical diplomatic posturing that portrays China as the guardian of international order. Li declared that although China had “faced many difficulties” over the past year, it had overcome them under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party with President Xi Jinping at its core.
He said that China had opposed “hegemonism and power politics.” Then, he lauded it for “making important contributions to global peace and development.” Meanwhile, the CCP conducted multiple military exercises off the coast of Taiwan, which he didn’t mention.
Isn’t it China itself that is attempting to unilaterally change the status quo in the East and South China Seas by force?
It is. China’s spokesman are hypocritical. But they tend to be slapdash and brazen in their hypocrisy. The propagandists may deny and affirm the evil conduct of their government in two consecutive sentences. Nobody is fooled by the denials except those who want to be fooled. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine the relevant facts has the means of seeing through the propaganda.
Li stressed that China remains “firmly opposed” to Taiwan independence and foreign interference in what China considers a domestic issue. Moreover, he threatened that the CCP would further strengthen “troop training and combat readiness.” That was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate Taiwan and the international community.
It was. And China’s continuous verbal and military intimidation of the Republic of China is surely an example of “unilateralism” of some sort, the very evil of which Li accuses others.
“Unilateralism” as such, apart from any context, is neither good nor evil. The purpose of such characterizations is not to foster objective evaluation of policies and actions but to distract from the considerations that would properly inform an objective evaluation.
Unilateral how?
Whether it is okay to do something “unilaterally” depends on what one is being “unilateral” about. Suppose that China were attempting to “change the status quo in the East and South China Seas by force” not “unilaterally” but in cooperation with many other countries. The bullying and ratcheting preludes to conquest would not then become okay.
Good is good whether “unilateral” or the result of cooperation. Evil is evil whether it’s just one guy or government perpetrating the evil or a gang of them. But terms like “unilateral,” diverting attention to the irrelevant, may be useful for purposes of hypocrisy and propaganda. It may be easier to wag one’s finger about and blandly contradict oneself about “unilateralism” than about something like “unprovoked harassment of other countries.”
