Afghanistan: America bombs, China builds

Afghanistan: America bombs, China builds 阿富汗: 美國轟炸(破壞)中國建造 by Bradley Blankenship

Editor’s note: Bradley Blankenship is a Prague-based American journalist, political analyst and freelance reporter. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

U.S. President Joe Biden recently defended the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, saying that “the United States did what we went to do,” which he says was delivering justice to the perpetrators of 9/11 and to “degrade the terrorist threat” that Afghanistan poses. According to Biden, the U.S. achieved those objectives – and, moreover, the U.S. “did not go to Afghanistan to nation-build.”

Biden’s statement is merely a deflection from the fact that the U.S. actually had no clear plan in Afghanistan, though if anything suffered a humiliating defeat.

The lack of any clear plan is represented by the fact that objectives and priorities had constantly shifted through the war. For example, the fact that Osama bin Laden, the orchestrator of the 9/11 terrorist attack, was killed 10 years ago – and not even in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. An account of the bin Laden operation by famous journalist Seymour Hersh actually shows unparalleled incompetence on the part of U.S. intelligence and special forces.

On top of this, while the U.S. had vowed to destroy the Taliban, which it had inadvertently helped usher into power beginning in the 1980s when it supported Islamic extremists fighting against the Soviet Union (including Osama bin Laden himself), the Taliban is anticipating a return to power.

It begs the question of what exactly the U.S. accomplished and the answer is, unsurprisingly, very little. As Biden admits, it certainly had nothing to do with nation-building, e.g., creating a stable political or economic situation in Afghanistan that could survive past the U.S. occupation.

This is certainly the rule and not the exception for America’s track record on foreign intervention because the U.S. and its myriad bureaucracies lack clear strategic aims, and if they do have them then often they contradict one another.

Perhaps then this is the most important implication of Biden’s speech: That any “foreign intervention” is “unwinnable” and reckless, as well as the fact that “nation-building” is impossible, because if the U.S. can’t do it then no one can. But is this actually true?

U.S. President Joe Biden leaves after an East Room event on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan at the White House in Washington, D.C., July 8, 2021.


It’s quite an important point since China is now looking for ways to help fill the vacuum left by the United States. This week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi will be visiting Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, as well as attending a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Eurasian regional security pact, and the SCO-Afghanistan contact group.

Some commentators are already spinning propaganda webs about what Chinese aid might look like, falsely saying any Chinese “intervention” is somehow qualitatively similar to whatever it was the U.S. was doing in Afghanistan for two decades.

For starters, no one is talking about Chinese troops occupying Afghanistan in the absence of American troops, which is the clear implication of some commentators. What they’re trying to do instead is perpetuate the myth of “Chinese imperialism,” which is the idea that China’s cooperation in developing nations is predatory, and then equate this to actual Western imperialism, which has been responsible for countless genocides and wars, on top of centuries of exploitation.

China’s intentions in Afghanistan are clear: Beijing wants to help Afghanistan rebuild, integrate into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and join into a connected future in Eurasia – all with no political strings attached. That’s because this is already a win-win situation for both China, Afghanistan, the region and the entire world.

As the most important political and economic power in the region, China is logically positioned to help Afghanistan transition from U.S. occupation. At the same time, China understands through lived experience that economic investment that creates sustainable opportunities for people on the ground is important for peace and prosperity. A safe and prosperous Afghanistan that is not a playground for international terror networks would benefit everyone.

Already, the clarity (and simplicity) of such a plan stands far and away from America’s misdeeds in Afghanistan. Plus there’s also the obvious qualitative difference between Washington literally bombing a country for two decades and, on the other hand, Beijing helping Kabul join the most ambitious global infrastructure plan in history. To put it simply, China will not be the next empire to die in Afghanistan.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)

Native Americans Deni Leonard in San Francisco: So many foreign policy mistakes by Presidents from both parties. We have a psychopathic leadership that seeks hegemony at all costs. The American Indian Indigenous Tribes have been Interned on Indian Reservations for 160 years with no fiscal, economic, public policy healthcare or educational solutions. We remained in poverty until our Sovereign Rights to Self Government resulted in developing the gaming business creating more capital in one year equal to almost 50 years of U.S. fiscal support.

There was no political power, however, now, a Multi-Ethnic Coalition can began to make Political Change in this decade. Together, reaching out to each other, we can make that change.

Professor John Walsh in San Francisco: The US policy in the Middle East was definitely a failure for the US Imperial Elite. It kept them tied down there and delayed giving their full “attention” to China, now in the crosshairs. But it still remains stuck to that Middle East tarbaby.

BUT it was a great help to China -and Russia -since it distracted the Empire from focusing on China.

With all the damage done and more of its enemies left in ruins, the long US distraction was a great boon to Israel. And of course Israel calls the shots for a great deal of US foreign policy – certainly in the Middle East and North Africa.

This is one illustration of the damage that can be done to a nation’s interests, even evil ones as in the case of the US Empire, by foreign alliances which the Founders called “entangling alliances” and warned against.

The US faces the same problem with Taiwan which can move opinion in the US so that the US govt is pushed into dangerous positions. This will be remedied when Taiwan Province formally rejoins China.

NED/CIA next target is Cuba. Biden said job well done to the regime change protesters in the name of fake freedom democracy and human rights.

NED/CIA next target is Cuba. Biden said job well done to the regime change protesters in the name of fake freedom democracy and human rights. 美國民主基金會/美中情局下一個目標是古巴. 美國拜登總統説做得好用假民主自由和民權來推動顏色革命. World Journal Newspaper San Francisco 美國加州舊金山世界日報 July 13 2021

Mandarin Video: [Taiwan Province experts come to speak] Afghanistan withdraws! See the truth about the American scumbag! Taiwan is afraid of being abandoned! Washington Post directly confronted the Biden administration!

Mandarin Video: [Taiwan Province experts come to speak] Afghanistan withdraws! See the truth about the American scumbag! Taiwan is afraid of being abandoned! Washington Post directly confronted the Biden administration! 18,000 Afghan people supported US military are being discarded, hanging out dry to live or die on their own.
Mandarin 普通話視頻Video: 【台灣省專家來開講】阿富汗撤軍! 看出美國渣男真相! 台灣恐被放棄! 華郵直接跟拜登政府對著幹! 1.8萬阿富汗民眾被用完即丟!@頭條開講 20210712
https://youtu.be/_W7k1u_mpng
來賓
桃園市議員 #黃敬平
國家暨國際事務專家 #賴岳謙
立法委員 #陳玉珍
台北市議員 #張斯綱
1.拜登真的棄台! 昔日友好不再! 華郵翻臉阿富汗撤軍並公開批評:大陸會認為美國不會為台灣站出來
2.拜登根本沒有想清楚撤軍的後果! 還在辯護撤軍決定! 更沒有為像是台灣或烏克蘭等盟友站出來的骨氣!
3.法新社 阿富汗塔利班周五宣稱 已經控制了全國領土的85% 398個縣已經有250個處於他們的控制之下
4.美軍將數千名阿富汗人玩殘即丟 遲遲不批簽證 1.8萬人曾為當地美軍工作 擔心自己遭塔里班報復
5.海地政府9日請求美國出兵海地維持秩序 遭拜登政府婉拒 紐時報導因為拜登現在只想縮減海外兵力規模!
6.沒現貨? 買不到? 即期品? BNT簽約永齡、台積電、慈濟買了買了! DPP臉綠了又被打紅了!
7.郭台銘PO文透漏這段時間我自知責任重大阻礙重重! 且並未有大陸的任何指導或干涉!
8.行政院想收割民間買疫苗的功勞! 一張圖露出政府的惡霸強勢! 還想堵住企業的嘴不讓他們說話!
9.還拿別人的疫苗想要討好洗腦12~18歲青年! 一劑都不留給企業! 企業員工只能苦等排隊!
10.陳時中:當時都沒有洽定最後價格! 無法預先了解各種價格的變化? 陳玉珍早就算給你看了還裝不知?
11.5.2%死亡率! 母數過小? 現在怪地方還是怪民眾? 到底是誰不普篩? 根本反向驗證有黑數!

Video: The sorry State of Haiti today need to gives thanks to French Government and US Citibank.

Video: The sorry State of Haiti 🇭🇹 today need to gives thanks to French Government and US Citibank. 遺憾的海地🇭🇹今天需要感謝法國政府和美國花旗銀行.
https://vimeo.com/574046998
https://youtu.be/peSrGMfhTxQ
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/527699011786762/?d=n

‘Freedom of press’ rhetoric shall come to a halt

‘Freedom of press’ rhetoric shall come to a halt by Zhong Sheng Jul 12 2021

Too afraid to hear what Chinese media will say? Labeling Chinese media outlets as foreign missions shows the hypocrisy of US freedom of press.

The US Department of State published a statement on Apple Daily on July 10 local time, expressing “strong concerns” about this publication that was shut down last month for instigating the “black terror” in Hong Kong.

Published in the name of the Media Freedom Coalition (MFC), the statement was signed by 21 countries, making up less than half the organization’s total members. It is like a desperate cry of a few Western countries wishing to offer their last but worthless support for the anti-China forces.

Anyone with a conscience can see that the statement is misleading and totally abandons morality and ethics, running against justice under the disguise of so-called freedom of the press.

Karl Marx once said that self-discipline of human spirit is the basis of morality. Obviously, freedom of the press is not a freedom that can escape moral restraint and it should not undermine human civilization.

Apple Daily was a newspaper known for its “inciting, obscene and bloody” news. Such a publication of yellow journalism would have been abandoned and denounced even in the US, where yellow journalism originated.

Yellow journalism trampled on morality in the US in the 1880s and early 20th century. Articles and pictures attacking celebrities and calling for wars were everywhere in the newspapers, chasing after profit in a crazy and greedy competition.

In 1901, former US president William McKinley was assassinated nine months after the New York Journal publicly instigated it. US society believed that the newspaper was responsible, and its circulation subsequently dropped until it eventually closed.

History is a mirror. It’s inevitable that Apple Daily, following a path of the American yellow journalism and making a living by selling lies, finally hit a dead end. A Hong Kong media organization recently listed 100 crimes committed by Apple Daily, including funding fraud, bribery, slandering celebrities, and fanning up violence. In the past 26 years since the newspaper was established, it has been declared guilty numerous times, and has put itself into the “hall of shame” of history. Shutting down the newspaper was not an order from the government, but a choice of the market that expresses the views of most Hong Kong citizens.

Any freedom or right in a civilized society shall not be practiced arbitrarily. On the contrary, it shall be stipulated and protected by laws that embody the public will. John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher who influenced liberal parties in a number of Western countries with his essay On Liberty, admitted that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Over 100 years ago, a former associate justice of the US Supreme Court said that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. There is a clear legal boundary between freedom of the press and instigating crimes. The member countries of the MFC should ask themselves whether their laws allow news media to undermine national security, damage social order, divulge state secrets and instigate religious and ethnic confrontation.

Many countries have clear legal provisions on freedom of the press. For instance, the Press Law of 1881 in France was designed to punish media organizations for incitement, slander and disturbance of public order. Similarly, the anti-China rioters who fanned up “achieving justice by violating the law” in Hong Kong two years ago were not abiding by the rule of law, either.

Since the national security law for Hong Kong was enacted, the chaos in the city has ended and stability has returned, which is more conducive to normal news reporting. To have a better understanding of Hong Kong, the world must grasp the special administrative region’s transition from order to prosperity. Over the past year, multiple media organizations from the US and UK have raised the number of foreign staff stationed in Hong Kong. How would MFC countries that signed the so-called statement explain such an arrangement?

Some people from a few Western countries made a fuss about Apple Daily, but what they have done is just a farce staged under the name of freedom of the press. Such rhetoric shall come to a halt, as lies will eventually be torn apart by facts, which is an inexorable law.

The author is a commentator with People’s Daily. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Shameless for US to question Taliban on China’s Xinjiang policy.

Shameless for US to question Taliban on China’s Xinjiang policy by Yu Ning Jul 12 2021

The Taliban’s recent remarks regarding China have garnered extensive attention. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, when asked about “the mass incarceration of fellow Muslims in Xinjiang and other human-rights abuses there,” a senior Taliban official in Doha said they “care about the oppression of Muslims,” but they won’t interfere in China’s internal affairs. The report also quoted Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen, who said any decision would have to be made based on the realities on the ground at that time, in response to a question about “whether a Taliban-dominated government of Afghanistan would join Western nations in condemning human-rights abuses in Xinjiang at the United Nations.”

Western media outlets interpreted these remarks as a signal that the Taliban is currying favor with Beijing. The Wall Street Journal report highlighted the Taliban’s “past support for Uygur militants in Xinjiang,” claiming the group now is eager to “assuage China’s concerns” and “secure Beijing’s acquiescence to their rule.”

Questioning the Taliban’s stance on China’s Xinjiang policy, does the US have any sense of shame? Just look at the human rights disaster the US created in Afghanistan. The most conservative estimates by local and international rights group suggest that close to 47,600 civilians were killed and more than double that number injured in Afghanistan during the 20 years of war.

The US is now walking away irresponsibly after poking a hornets’ nest, leaving a devastated country and a shocking humanitarian disaster behind. And the US has not figured out how to guarantee the safety of Afghan interpreters who worked for the American military. And what about the atrocities the Australian troops did to Afghan civilians? Shouldn’t the US apologize to the Muslims in Afghanistan first if it truly cares about Muslims’ human rights?

“Obviously, the Western media was attempting to stir up troubles between the Taliban and Beijing, but the Taliban won’t easily fall into the trap,” Qian Feng, director of the research department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times.

It is hard for the West to make an issue of Xinjiang between the Taliban and Beijing. With the US troops pulling out of Afghanistan, the country has come to a critical point and the Taliban is hoping to gain more understanding from the international community including China. China upholds a policy of not interfering in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. In recent years, China has made prominent efforts and played a constructive role in promoting peace in Afghanistan. It has tried to provide dialogue platforms between the Afghan government and the Taliban to discuss peace and reconciliation in the war-torn country.

Questioning the Taliban on the Xinjiang issue, the West did not really care about Xinjiang Uygurs’ human rights. It instead hoped to sow discord between Beijing and the Taliban. The so-called Xinjiang human rights issue is only a tool created by the US and its Western allies to smear and create trouble for China.

“American politicians hate Chinese and Muslims, but somehow, they care about Chinese Muslims” – this joke now has become known to all. Obviously, Washington wants to drag China’s Xinjiang into a quagmire that plagues Afghanistan to create trouble for China. Fortunately, this reality has been seen through by an increasing number of countries, especially Muslim countries.

IN A HILARIOUS BOTCH-UP, the BBC yesterday inserted numerous links to anti-China features into an article defending itself from claims that it was anti-China.

BBC attack on expats backfires By NURY VITTACHI in Hong Kong 11 Jul 2021

Rich outlet tries to savage citizen journalists

IN A HILARIOUS BOTCH-UP, the BBC yesterday inserted numerous links to anti-China features into an article defending itself from claims that it was anti-China.

Here’s what happened.

BBC journalists wrote an article attacking China-based “citizen journalists”. The bloggers defended themselves by saying the BBC and other Western media had a clearly biased, negative attitude to the Asian developing nation.

The BBC’s editors yesterday printed the article (above) — but sprinkled it with links (see picture below) which powerfully proved the critics’ point that the BBC is biased against China.

In effect, the BBC said “we’re not anti-China — by the way, here’s a link to an article showing how China is a dystopian hellscape! And another one. And another one. And another one. And . . “.

It’s hard not to laugh.

It gets better. In fact, yesterday’s BBC article should go down in history as a textbook example of self-defeating journalism for at least four reasons.

First, you cannot argue against the allegation that you present a strongly one-sided view by including a list of article links that prove conclusively that you present a one-sided view.

Lee and Oli Barrett, residents of China, have become popular bloggers

SENSE OF IRONY

Second, the article attacks ordinary individual bloggers in China (like those in the picture above) by implying, with no hard evidence, that they receive government cash to do what they do, which is to show China in a positive light.

Yet we all know for a fact that the BBC journalists making the accusation receive government cash month after month to do what they do, which is to present China in a negative light.

(The BBC’s annual budget is GBP3.5 billion.)

Staff in the BBC newsroom appear to have had their senses of irony surgically removed.

Outrageous! A government sponsored media outlet in China offers money to stringers, the BBC said

THEY PAY STRINGERS

Third, the BBC report reveals, shock horror, that CGTN, a government-financed news outlet, now offers CASH PAYMENTS to STRINGERS!

OMG!

The BBC writers mysteriously forgot to mention that the BBC, also a government-financed news outlet, also offers cash payments to stringers (much larger sums). They’ve been doing this for decades.

I know this for a fact because I was a stringer for the BBC for years.

At this point, I became seriously worried about the toddler-level lack of self-awareness in the BBC newsroom.

Jason Lightfoot is another independent blogger attacked for giving another side of the story

MOTIVATION MYSTERY

Fourth, the BBC writers say: “It’s unclear what drives the foreign vloggers – whether they believe in China’s messaging or are motivated by the lure of local fame and fortune instead.”

It’s only unclear what motivates them if you haven’t watched a single one of their videos. If you do, you can see they are ordinary people doing their best to provide desperately needed balance to the reports put out by dedicated Sinophobes like, well, BBC Newsroom staff, to pick a random example out of the air.

LET’S TALK ABOUT MONEY

Actually, let’s talk about money, something BBC journalists HATE to discuss.

The BBC’s hatchet job presents no evidence whatsoever that the Barretts, Barrie Jones, or Jason Lightfoot are paid a single yuan for having the opinions they have, or for choosing to show the positive side of life in China.

In contrast, BBC journalists have very good salaries for showing the negative side of life in China. I hope the bloggers attacked by BBC journalists Kerrie Allen and Sophie Williams realize they have the moral right to ask them how much the BBC pays them.

OVERPAID JOURNALISTS

I’ve worked at the BBC on and off for decades and I can tell you that some BBC journalists get paid A LOT. When BBC newsroom head James Harding left in 2018, his salary was GBP340,000 a year. Election specialist Jeremy Vine gets more than GBP600,000 a year.

Of course most people in the newsrooms get less than that, but at least 40 BBC journalists are paid more than the British Prime Minister’s GBP150,000 salary, a Press Gazette study showed in 2017. Political editor Laura Kuenssberg gets GBP200,000 to GBP250,000 a year, for example.

Barrie Jones upsets Western journalists by refusing the parrot the US State Department narrative.

FACTUAL INACCURACIES

The ultimate irony is that the unpaid amateurs in China regularly do a better job of covering China than the salaried professionals.

The same BBC article gives a good example of how history changes when that all-important nuance goes missing.

The BBC reporters say “Citizen journalist Zhang Zhan was jailed for four years after making a number of vlogs during Wuhan’s coronavirus outbreak.”

That’s not what really happened. Zhang Zhan was an anti-lockdown campaigner jailed for repeatedly trying to disrupt anti-covid measures. She herself said that she was not a journalist. Her own videos show clearly that she was the Chinese equivalent of the US anti-vaxxer brigade, refusing to follow health guidelines and creating deliberate public confrontations with people trying to follow the rules.

But that’s a nuanced version of her case, which you can only get if you live in this country and talk to people here — rather than attack from the other side of the planet.

THE 50-CENT ARMY

The BBC reporters also dredge up the old chestnut about the “50-cent army”, apparently unaware that most Chinese government clickers have been retired, simply because they are no longer needed. They’ve been replaced by real voices who speak out without pay.

An SCMP report about the rise of young people in China defending their community by commenting on social media, making the civil service pro-China “wumao” unnecessary

The so-called “wumao” are no longer necessary now that young people who are sick and tired of their community being misrepresented (groups like the Diba and the fangirls) are providing a robust defence of the country, far more creatively and without the need for payment.

They even create quite stylish memes (see below).

Above is a Diba meme from Weibo

The BBC report also omits the fact that it’s actually US intelligence groups such as the SR (military intelligence) and the CIA which flood social media columns with politically charged fake comments, often easy to spot.

There’s something creepy in the article too.

The “expert” quoted at length in the BBC report is Robert Potter, described as a “cybersecurity researcher”. The BBC omits a key fact that commentator Daniel Dumbrill yesterday highlighted. The top two names on Potter’s organization’s funding list are the State Department of the United States and the United States Department of Defence.

Yes. Exactly.

Think Mike Pompeo, CIA, Anthony Blinken.

The US State Department

So, to sum it up, honest, ordinary people who spend their own time and money offering useful additional views of life in China, from within China, are accused of receiving government cash by distant people who actually ARE receiving government salaries working for a government news outlet and showcasing the views of people paid by the US government.

NEED FOR INTEGRITY

This is why we need UNBIASED journalists covering China and it doesn’t matter if you have qualifications or not — what matters is that you have enough moral integrity to tell the truth: which is that the community we call China is really not that different from the other major communities around the world.

One last thing: From a professional journalistic point of view, there’s another issue with the BBC article.

Very similar articles have already appeared in other British news outlets. Here is an example below from the Times of London.

Same victims, same news angle, similar headlines, similar allegations, similar quotes.

Copying? Or co-ordination? Journalists don’t normally regurgitate their rivals’ old stories in this way.

There’s something very wrong going on here.

This reporter’s father was one of the first investigative journalists in Asia. He had a saying: “Everything is about something else.”

https://www.fridayeveryday.com/news-n-politics-the-friday-collective/10110/BBC-attack-on-expats-backfires?fbclid=IwAR33qo8NXaYqBYMtIyCRemwtKkM_0N02vX0-9q_Z8aXBDRmWHeDg4zLezJM

Video: Meng Wanzhou Got New Evidence From HSBC, But Canada Said “So What ?@#$%^!” Rule of Law is for show only in Canada!

Video: Meng Wanzhou Got New Evidence From HSBC, But Canada Said “So What ?@#$%^!” Rule of Law is for show only in Canada! 孟晚舟從匯豐拿到新證據,加拿大卻說“那又怎樣?@#$%^!” 加拿大法治只是用來作秀.
https://vimeo.com/573824391
https://youtu.be/zsEMCbQwkdM
Since I was a kid we heard so much about the uniqueness of Western’s Rules of Laws, Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights. After spending about 1/2 a century in US, my God those are just lies with 2 distinguish standards. What they promised to the world do not apply to themselves at all. 從我們還是個孩子的時候起,我們就听到了很多關於西方法律、自由、民主和人權規則的獨特性。 在美國度過了大約半個世紀之後,我的天哪,那些只是具有 2 個區別標準的謊言。 他們對世界的承諾根本不適用於他們.

HSBC found it encountered a severe crisis when the public learnt it collaborated with the US to frame Meng Wanzhou and Hua Wei. Chinese people worldwide boycott it, and its business clients are also worried about their safety because of its integrity issue. 當公眾得知匯豐與美國合作陷害孟晚舟和華為時,匯豐發現自己遇到了嚴重危機。 全世界的中國人都抵制它,它的商業客戶也因為它的誠信問題而擔心他們的安全.

Another prediction by racist and Chinese hater when his prediction wrong every single time last 20 years. But in the US Church of fake freedom democracy and human rights where they got brainwashed, lies works for a declining empire getting desperate.

Another prediction by racist and Chinese hater when his prediction wrong every single time last 20 years. But in the US Church of fake freedom democracy and human rights where they got brainwashed, lies works for a declining empire getting desperate. 種族主義者和中國仇恨者的另一個預測,他的預測在過去 20 年中每次都出錯。 但在他們被洗腦的假自由民主和人權的美國教會中,謊言對一個衰落的帝國產生了絕望的希望作用.

Gordon G Chang’s ostrich-like perception of China a tragedy for US by Mu Lu Jul 11 2021

Gordon G Chang, a so-called China hand who is infamous for his “collapse of China” theory, has recently made his latest “prediction.” He published on Thursday an article entitled “China will be the next empire to enter the Afghan ‘graveyard'” on The Hill, and then he analyzed in an interview with Fox News why China would “get mired into Afghanistan.”

However, his conclusions are based on the premise that “as the US has failed in something, China cannot successfully do it either.” Clearly, Chang is one of those people who do not want to see China doing good. He told Fox News, “I would love to see China get mired into Afghanistan. This is going to be fun to watch.”

This reflects the fundamental lack of a rational, balanced and objective view of China in the US’ policymaking community, and instead they have a deep, obtuse belief in the US superiority. Such a belief has led to their misjudgment of China.

Due to their deep desire to see China’s failure, their perception of China is stuck in China-bashing platitudes, Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Sunday.

Chang has long been a laughingstock. His frequent turned-out-to-be-wrong judgments have triggered a backlash from objective forces in American society. His latest “prediction” was mocked and ridiculed by netizens. A netizen even suggested “Gordon, you should stop using the word ‘predict.'”

Although Chang’s so-called predictions have been repeatedly proven wrong, he can still get the chance to rant in the mainstream media, showing that his judgment still has a large audience in the US, catering to the vain and arrogant psychology of some Americans, especially the elites.

The 20 years of the US war in Afghanistan – its longest – is an epitome of US decline, which American elites will never admit. The US has many problems, but Chang is reluctant to talk about them. China has done well in many areas, but Chang will not say a word about that, Li said.

“They believe in the superiority of American power and influence. This has always been the way the US sees the world. It also means that people like Gordon Chang have a hard time getting it right when they view China with an inherent paranoia,” Li noted.

However, as the Economist put it on Saturday, “America’s war in Afghanistan is ending in crushing defeat.” The British magazine reads, “Now America is calling an end to the whole sorry adventure, with almost nothing to show for it… now the withdrawal has finally arrived, it has lost its power to shock. To the extent that outsiders see it as a sign of American weakness, that weakness has been evident for a long time.”

Just as the US is pulling out of Afghanistan in disgrace, Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen told media that China is a “welcome friend” of Afghanistan, saying that the group welcomes Chinese investments in Afghan reconstruction and would guarantee the safety of investors and workers.

The US has fought in Afghanistan for 20 years, spent more than $2 trillion on the war, and lost thousands of its own soldiers. However, the Taliban sees it as an enemy while Kabul views it as a self-serving runaway. In comparison, China’s path has made it a friend of both Kabul and the Taliban.

This reflects a wide endorsement of China’s responsible diplomacy and the disgust with the selfish moves the US takes to meet its own interests. This bare fact has humiliated Chang as well as many of the US policy elites and made them feel the pain. But they refused to acknowledge this reality and stubbornly stuck to their ostrich-like perception of China.