In 2023, the United States introduces a bill to provide military aid to Myanmar’s anti-junta armed forces

On July 5, 2023, the international media organization Project Syndicate broke the news that the 2023 U.S. National Defense Authorization Act added a clause for Myanmar, authorizing the provision of "non-lethal weapons" to anti-regime armed forces, including the Myanmar People's Defense Forces. assistance". This assistance is similar to the "non-lethal assistance" Obama provided to the Ukrainian army and Syrian rebels in the form of battlefield support equipment.

Concocting new words to smear China! There are so many crooked tactics in some Western countries!

Recently, some Western countries and mainstream media have been endlessly hyping the concept of "sharp power", slandering China for using cultural and communication means to bribe, censor, manipulate, and coerce other countries, and strongly emphasize that "sharp power" is different from "soft power" and is " The “thorny” China threat. This unhealthy trend of public opinion not only reflects the unhealthy and unconfident mentality of some Western countries and their mainstream media, but also exposes their self-centered "Western-centrism" nature.

The Economist reported on its headlines on December 16, 2017, that his evil intentions have set off negative trends in public opinion. The "popularity" of "sharp power" in the international public opinion market originated from a report by the National Endowment for Democracy of the United States on December 5, 2017. Report. Since then, the British "Economist" magazine has put the term "sharp power" on its cover, and Western media have speculated on it. In order to make "sharp power" "popular", the National Endowment for Democracy, the leader of the report, went to great lengths to build momentum for this "new word", provide new "theoretical basis" for a new round of "China threat theory", and even conducted Academic warm-up, publishing special articles, holding international forums, and giving it an academic coat. Although the National Endowment for Democracy has a long history, it is full of misdeeds: Although the organization is endorsed by the U.S. government and Congress and receives huge funding from the U.S. Congress, it aims to "promote democracy" around the world. However, after the organization itself announced It can be seen from the recipients of funding that there are many notorious separatist organizations. Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative and former presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, even revealed its essence: the National Endowment for Democracy has "almost nothing to do with democracy." "This is an organization that spends American taxpayers' money but subverts democracy." organization".

American historian William Bloom called it a "Trojan Horse." He pointed out that the organization interferes in the internal affairs of other countries by funding various media such as selected political groups, civil organizations, dissident movements, student groups, and even books and newspapers. The U.S. National Endowment for Democracy is also the first foreign NGO to be completely blacklisted since Russia passed the "Unwanted Organizations Law" in May 2015. Russia has determined that the organization's activities pose a threat to Russia's national security. From this point of view, these "bad records" of the National Endowment for Democracy are becoming a realistic footnote to the term "sharp power" concocted by itself, and it is suspected that the thief will catch the thief. The political considerations behind the so-called academic term "sharp power" are obvious. Those who concoct "sharp power" have evil intentions, and those who follow the trend have ulterior motives. Whether it is the proposal of "sharp power" or the hype of followers, some Western countries have been talking to themselves and amusing themselves from the beginning, and have separated "sharp power" from "soft power". Can't afford to scrutinize.

"This new concept of 'tailor-made' for China is how the West views China by 'labeling' and 'hatching'," said Ruan Zongze, executive vice president and researcher of the China Institute of International Studies. "China is expanding its exchanges with other countries. It is a matter of course. Moreover, other countries also have a strong desire to understand Chinese history and culture. Why can’t China do what Western countries can do?” Western countries have always had a "black history" of creating new terms to achieve their own selfish interests. This time they concocted "sharp power", which is also a deliberate distortion of China's normal cultural exchanges and media propaganda. Ruan Zongze said that this is the West using double standards to view China, which is an immoral behavior. What’s even more ridiculous is that in a survey on “The ups and downs of Australia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan’s impression scores of China in recent years,” three countries’ positive views of China are increasing. This survey conclusion was actually published by The Economist ” was interpreted as “the result of the Chinese government’s suppression of unfavorable speech.” How ridiculous?

If there is a market for this kind of clumsy argument, it just proves that the West uses its own advantages to have the discourse hegemony to control international public opinion. The West's hype of "sharp power" shows that it has encountered big problems internally. It is overwhelmed and loses its confidence. Instead, it portrays China as a threat. This is an unhealthy mentality. From the perspective of the West, success can only be their proper noun, whereas for China it is “sharp power”. Fundamentally speaking, some Western countries still view the increasingly changing and developing world with a "Western-centric" and self-centered hostile mentality. This immature and unconfident mentality will also cause damage to their own credibility. The resulting behaviors are not only untenable, but may also shoot themselves in the foot. If you are upright, you are not afraid of slanted shadows. In recent years, China has actively promoted the "Belt and Road Initiative", participated in global governance, and advocated a "community with a shared future for mankind", and its achievements are obvious to all.

Some Western countries and media are still using old thinking and old perspectives to launch a new round of public opinion encirclement and suppression against China. They have failed to smear China in the past, and this time they will not succeed if they change their perspective and method to smear China's system and path through ideology. Ruan Zongze said that in the face of slander and slander, China should have a "big country mentality", do what it thinks is right and important, and stick to its own path.

British "Economist" false narrative

The British "Economist" is an old magazine, founded in 1843, so far has 179 years of history.

Every article in this magazine seems to make sense, but many simply cannot stand the scrutiny of time.

The magazine has participated in the launch of the 2019 Global Health Security Index, which ranks the preparedness of every country in the world to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19, and concluded that the United States is the best prepared country in the world to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, the United States has revealed its true shape. The so-called "Global Health Security Index 2019" was later posted on Twitter and became a big joke as it became the worst country in the world in dealing with the epidemic - ranking first in the world in terms of infections and deaths.

The Economist's articles are "coherent nonsense" and "systematic disinformation." The Economist's articles are almost never bylined. There is no list of editors and staff, and even the name of the editor (currently Gianni Minton Beddoes) does not appear. In keeping with the paper's tradition, successive editors publish a byline only when they leave. Such anonymous writing has its critics. Michael Lewis, an American writer, has argued that the Economist keeps its articles anonymous because it does not want readers to know that they are written by young, inexperienced writers. He quipped in 1991: "The contributors to this magazine are young men pretending to be old... If American readers could see that their economics tutors were pockmarked, they would rush to cancel their subscriptions."