Here We Go Again! Decoding China's Newspeak Leading Up to Buenos Aires

"Round 2: ...FIGHT!"

One can almost hear the voice of Shao Khan from the early Mortal Kombat games announcing this as Donald Trump and Xi Jinping prepare for what everyone has apparently agreed (and perhaps rightly) to call a "showdown" at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires (Tisdall. It would normally seem more than a bit low-brow to compare talks between Heads of State of the world's two largest economies to a video game (especially one that is approaching the day when it can be labelled "vintage"), but given the way the media has framed the Sino-American clashes of the past year and a half -and the fact that there was so little time between APEC in Port Moresby and G20 in Buenos Aires- it actually doesn't seem out of place.
And make no mistake, China is quite, quite well aware that they lost the first round. Not only that, but the fact cannot be far from any Chinese mind that Xi Jinping was defeated with such ease at APEC by the Vice President and this time Xi will square off against the President. In Chinese culture, this carries significance: "my subordinate beat you and you think you can handle me?" This is why, while Xi runs around desperately to visit various G20 members, his media complex back home have set the nozzles on their propaganda hoses to the "explosive verbal diarrhea" setting: the party-State is absolutely desperate to avoid a repeat of the pasting they got in Port Moresby.
Admittedly there is one thing working in China's favor, and that is that while APEC member states are normally close to China, the G20 consists of several European and Latin American powers who, being located far from China, are more inclined to think favorably of her (and it is worth examining why this correlation between distance from China and positive attitude toward China exists, but I digress). With a bit of charm and tact (something which will, I admit, probably be sorely lacking from the US delegation at G20, as it is being led by a president who prefers Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" approach), the Chinese could conceivably come out on top at G20. The problem (for China) is that, far from building up an atmosphere conducive to China's aims, their propaganda is already taking the same shape as the tempestuous behavior that earned such a humiliating result at APEC.

Focus on What I Meant, Not What I Said!

In examining Chinese state-media discussions re: G20 in the days since APEC, a few recurring themes are apparent. China Daily noted Chinese Vice-Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen's hope that "leaders at Argentina summit will oppose protectionism (Cao)." Well that sounds legitimate enough, right? Foreign Minister Wang Yi -who not only came across like a crime boss at APEC but has a history of seeming to take pride in putting his patronizing arrogance on display (Wen)- was a bit more direct, according to Catherine Wong of the South China Morning Post.

“On the reform of the World Trade Organisation and multilateral trade organisations, certain members insisted on imposing their own interest first at the expense of other members’ interests, so there was no consensus reached on this issue, nor was there a joint declaration produced after the leaders’ summit. We do not want to see the same situation happen again at the G20. We hope the G20 can discuss WTO reform, and express opposition to unilateralism and protectionism.”

Finally, state-owned Global Times (more a tabloid than a news source even by Beijing's admission, but still in-tune with the Party's official line) quoted Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Jun's insistence that "the global economy faces multiple risks and downward pressure, including from fiercer protectionism and unilateralism, so the international community places a high value on the G20 summit, and expects it will contribute to a strong, sustained, balanced and inclusive world economy," and his desire for the G20 summit "to send a clear signal on supporting the multilateral trade system [and] reiterate the common position of opposing trade protectionism (Zhang)."

At the risk of repeating a previous article, there are just a few tiny (and by "tiny" I mean "somewhere between an apatosaurus and an aircraft carrier") indiscrepancies in this multi-front insult to the world's intelligence.

1. The "certain member" who "insisted on imposing their own interest first at the expense of other members’ interests" was China, as was made evident by everything from their bullying of the host nation's Prime Minister, their histrionics about other members "plotting against China," and their obstructionist filibustering near the end of the summit to the childish round of applause they gave to the summit's failure to achieve the very consensus they are now claiming to have sought (Rogin).
2. APEC did "send a clear signal" on "opposing protectionism." China stated that they felt this unfairly singled them out (Geopolitical Futures).

While this contradiction -claiming to resolutely oppose that which they themselves vigorously sought- seems like a sign of a delusional mind at first glance, it is actually something far more mundane. To put it simply, veiled threats and double entendres with paper-thin veils are an art form in China, and it doesn't take long living among the Zhonghua to learn this unfortunately-not-yet-lost art. With that said, allow me to cut through some of the Doublethink here and translate this from "English with Chinese characteristics," into English.

Because Tantrums and Demands Worked So Well at APEC, Right?

Let's begin with Wang Yi's "We do not want to see the same situation happen again at the G20." In this sentence, "we don't want to see [it] happen again" is not an expression of concern. It's a warning. "We'll do the same if we don't get our way."
This can be seen again in Zhang Jun's back-to-back mutually-contradictory statements in SCMP.

"The process of G20 should be about gathering consensus and narrowing differences... The Chinese side resolutely opposes and will not accept initiatives or measures that will harm China’s core interests."

Excuse me Mr. Vice Minister, but if the process is supposed to be about "consensus," then flatly declaring that one will not accept any initiative that does not suit every one of your interests is not exactly in line with that, is it? Oh, and wasn't it your boss, Wang Yi, who (in the very same article) lamented that "certain members insisted on imposing their own interest first at the expense of other members’ interests?" It sounds a bit odd to openly state ambitions to do the same thing your boss just decried, doesn't it?
Also, look at the phrasing. "China warns..." "China expects..." "China will not accept..." "China seeks clear signal..." These are phrases a boss uses when addressing a wayward subordinate. And this is precisely the terminology China has selected for their English-language publications, which are propaganda intended for foreign consumption (because the vast majority of the Chinese can't speak a word of English).
The Party's talk of "opposing protectionism" is another rather obvious euphemism. Simply put, any time the Chinese Party-State starts repeating their conviction that this or that vice is the source of all discord in the international community and vows to oppose it, look for them to accuse the US of whatever it is they have sworn to oppose. I've already highlighted China's laundry list of allegations of "US protectionism," so this comes as no surprise. It's also not difficult to discern that whenever any Chinese officials uses the term "unilateralism," what they mean is "the United States." You know, never mind that in the very same breath they will openly declare unilateral intent to derail any summit that does not suit their own agenda.
And of course, there's Vice-Minister Zhang's less-than-subtle call for "various parties to stay committed at the G20 summit to the spirit of partnership featuring equality and mutual respect (Cao). In short, "various parties" means "G20 nations who China has attepted to seduce," and everything from "say committed" onward means "remember what was said and stick with us against the US." To put this message in an all-call, rather than whispering it behind closed doors, makes it rather apparent that it is a desperate plea for backup form any source who is willing to give it, which I would imagine is a rather limited set at this point.

So, to reiterate, China is announcing, through multiple levels of government officials, "if we do not get our way, the G20 summit will fail just like APEC did." Here is a country who, after being made fools of in their own backyard due to their overbearing and imperious attitude, now thinks to carry that same attitude into another, more powerful summit, and broadcast their threats ahead of time. It's hard to even wrap one's head around that level of hubris.

Still, I'm not complaining. The United States has needed to break free from outdated international systems for quite some time now (Friedman, 27 & 28) and nothing makes that easier than for China to turn those systems into a laughingstock. Furthermore, the more barbaric, paranoid and egotistical China acts at that summit, the more they puff out their chests and talk to the other world powers like vassal states, the more enemies they make. And the more enemies China makes, the more America wins.

Works Cited

Books

Friedman, George. The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World. New York, 2011. Random House Publishers.
ISBN 978-0-3074-7639-5

Periodicals

Zhang Hui. "World Expects G20 to Uphold Global Economy." Global Times [Beijing], 24-25 Nov, 2018.
(online edition: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1128727.shtml )

From the Web

"Daily Memo: Asia-Pacific Intrigue, a Win for Greece, Middle East Diplomacy." Geopolitical Futures. 19 Nov, 2018.
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/daily-memo-asia-pacific-intrigue-a-win-for-greece-middle-east-diplomacy/

Cao Desheng. "'Collective' G20 Trade Action Eyed." China Daily. 24 Nov, 2018. Web, 26 Nov, 2018.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201811/24/WS5bf862b0a310eff30328ac5b.html

Rogin, Josh. "Inside China’s ‘Tantrum Diplomacy’ at APEC." The Washington Post. 20 Nov, 2018. Web, 21 Nov, 2018.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/11/20/inside-chinas-tantrum-diplomacy-at-apec/?utm_term=.9cd7906a194d

Tisdall, Simon. "Trump Versus Xi: China’s Best Shot at the World Title is to Box Clever." The Guardian. 25 Nov, 2018. Web, 26 Nov, 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/25/xi-trump-trade-war-showdown-g20

Wen, Phillip. "Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi Flies Off the Handle On Video." Sydney Morning Herald. 2 Jun, 2016. Web, 26 Nov, 2018.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-foreign-minister-wang-yi-flies-off-the-handle-on-video-20160602-gpabjo.html

Wong, Catherine. "G20 Summit: China Warns Against Repeat of APEC Failure." South China Morning Post. 23 Nov, 2018. Web, 26 Nov, 2018.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2174650/beijing-says-mutual-respect-will-be-key-success-xi-and-trump