Someone Wants Xi Gone

  Recently, the think tank the Atlantic Council published “The Longer Telegram,” a report by an anonymous “former senior government official.”  In it, the author recommended that the United States pressure China to remove Chairman Xi Jinping in favor of a more “moderate” leader sympathetic to US interests while keeping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in charge.  Unsurprisingly, the article was a near sighted policy suggestion that would be at best hard to implement and at worst greatly make the United States’s problems with China worse.  However, a worthwhile question to ask might be “Who gains from doing this?”

        Now, there are ample reasons why people would want to remove Xi from office.  He’s actively engaging in genocide against a minority population, mishandled a viral outbreak that became an international pandemic and covered it up, has overseen a mass crackdown on dissent, manipulated the countries currency, used accumulation of other countries’ debts to manipulate their policies (to preclude naval expansion), etc, etc, etc.  There may be a shorter list of things Chairman Xi hasn’t done.

        However, this is hardly new for China.  Never forget, censorship existed well before Xi became Chairman, massacring political rivals has happened before, and questionable economic practices are usually the norm.  So why would anyone think someone else from the party that continuously produces despots would be any better?

        Well, we could find out the bias of the paper by looking at the background of the author.  However, since it is an “anonymous” source, it is impossible to independently verify who used the info.  Also, as proven during the Trump administration, it is impossible to even prove independent sources are credible.  Therefore, we cannot use the author or their alleged background as evidence of anything.

        Instead, those funding the Atlantic Council may give us an insight into who is supporting the idea.  After all, those who give money to it likely do so because they support the institution.  However, if we do take a look at their donor list, we begin to see a lot of businesses that have financial ties to China.  This may imply that these companies may be supporting this for self-interested purposes.

        Some of the financial firms that have donated to the Atlantic Council include Goldman Sachs & Co., the JP Morgan Chase Foundation, the Mubadala Investment Co., and BP, among others (like Burisma).  Goldman Sachs is trying to buyout its Chinese partner, JP Morgan “is seeking to establish another Chinese joint venture in wealth management,” Reuters reported Mubadala investing $2 billion in China back in 2019 with plans for more, and BP has been expanding its gas Chinese importations.  It seems that companies doing business in China may have a vested interest in the nation’s leadership since it impacts their deals.

        There are also entertainment companies that have been doing work in China.  21st Century Fox (now owned by Disney) and NBCUniversal Telemundo Enterprises (owned by Comcast) are both on the donor list.  Both companies have investments in China so they are another potential interested party.  This is starting to suggest a pattern.

        Some of the more prominent companies though on the donor list are Google and Facebook, two of the largest tech companies in the world.  Both are actually banned in China but have been working with the Chinese government and are trying to get into the nation.  They may see regime change as a way to get themselves legalized internally, especially if they conform to Chinese censorship standards.

        Now this is a long list of companies that have financial ties to China, but the reader may be wondering just what exactly this means and how this connects directly to Xi Jinping.  Well, it is possible that the “Longer Telegram” report is a sign of growing dissatisfaction with Chairman Xi’s leadership and a belief that his removal could actually help these companies.  After all, Western firms are increasingly purchasing Chinese bonds so there is corporate desire to control political action in China.

        Under Xi’s leadership, the Chinese state has been greatly increasing state influence and authority over the countries’ businesses.  In addition, he is purging political rivals which creates a hostile environment within the government.  All of these would make business ventures hard for foreign companies hoping to use government ties to make a profit.  This may lead them to support a political rival for a better business climate.

        It is important to remember though that there is no hero in this conflict.  Yes, Xi Jinping is a genocidal authoritarian responsible for the worst pandemic in decades, but many companies have actively supported his rise to that position.  Nike, Apple, Coca-Cola and others fought to protect slave labor in the Xinjiang province while Disney thanked the agency overseeing that for letting them shoot a film nearby.  So their interests are not humanitarian and whoever replaces Xi will probably be just as bad even if he supports foreign investment.

        Nevertheless, the real question may be if there are any actual plans to implement policies on behalf of the “Longer Telegram” report.  Well, the Atlantic Council also takes money from governments including countries at odds with China like Japan and Korea, countries investing in China like the United Arab Emirates, and factions in the United States government like the United States Department of State, Department of Energy, and the Marine Corps.

        President Joe Biden has actively been focusing on addressing China by hiring multiple Asia experts.  However, Wall Street spent $74 million supporting Joe Biden (more than it did for Trump) and Joe has been hiring folks with ties to Wall Street, including tech companies, so he will have their voices in mind.  So there is a good chance that his policies may reflect the will of Wall Street, especially in favoring American financial interests abroad.

        All this is conjecture though at this time.  There have been no major pushes from the Biden Administration into Asia and there may be other ideas in the works besides removing Xi Jinping.  All the same, it would not be surprising if removing Xi while preserving communism suddenly became an interest of the US.  After all, President Joe Biden was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the US voted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan so he may know something or two about regime change.