Yanwen’s blog

On November 28, we visited the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, a monument commissioned in 1806 by Emperor Napoleon to commemorate his stunning victory at the Battle of Austerlitz, a triumph often considered the pinnacle of his military success.

The Battle of Austerlitz, fought on 12/2/1805, is widely regarded as one of Napoleon's greatest achievements. He decisively defeated the combined forces of the Russian and Austrian Empires, ending the War of the Third Coalition. This victory forced Austria to sign the Treaty of Pressburg, ceding significant territory to France and its allies and withdrawing from the coalition.

However, Napoleon's success provoked fear across Europe, and a year later, a new alliance—the Fourth Coalition—was formed. Comprising Prussia, Russia, Britain, and other states, this coalition marked the beginning of a relentless series of conflicts. Napoleon's imposition of the Continental System, aimed at economically weakening Britain, further fueled resentment and led to prolonged wars, including the Peninsular War (1808–1814) in Spain and Portugal, and the disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812.

Some might draw parallels between Napoleon’s pursuit of European dominance in the early 19th century and China’s modern global ambitions through initiatives like the Belt and Road. Both seek influence on a grand scale, but their methods are fundamentally different. Napoleon wielded military might, resulting in enormous casualties, while modern China employs economic, technological, and diplomatic tools to expand its influence.

This distinction highlights a critical difference in outcomes. Military conquest often breeds enmity and short-lived gains, as seen with Napoleon, whose relentless wars hastened his downfall. In contrast, peaceful expansion, while not without challenges, tends to build partnerships and longer-lasting influence.

In 1806, Napoleon stood at the height of his power, his ambitions boundless and his authority as seemingly invincible and enduring as the Arc de Triomphe. Yet his reliance on force and the enemies it created ensured that alliances against him would strengthen and his empire would unravel and collapse even before the completion of the Arc which was completed in 1836. Less than a decade after his triumph at Austerlitz, his reign rushed to an end—a cautionary tale of empire overreaching and the fleeting nature of power built on conquest.

Yesterday, I wrote about Angela Merkel's concerns regarding Elon Musk's involvement in Trump's administration. Now, Merkel’s newly released memoir, Freedom: Memoirs 1954–2021, has taken center stage, drawing widespread attention and sparking debates, much like the Chinese saying “一石激起千层浪” (yī shí jī qǐ qiān céng làng), meaning "a single stone can stir up a thousand waves." The book has caused ripples far beyond the literary world, provoking discussions about her legacy and the challenges of modern leadership.

The memoir chronicles Merkel’s remarkable journey from life in the surveillance-heavy East Germany to becoming Germany’s first female chancellor and one of the most influential leaders in recent history. It highlights her resilience, pragmatic decision-making, and steady leadership during crises like the eurozone debt turmoil and Trump’s erratic presidency. 

Merkel’s cautious and deliberate approach, shaped by her early experiences in a repressive regime, helped her navigate the complexities of governance on a globalized stage. In the same cautious non-nonsense style, Merkel's memoir is a carefully fact-checked narrative that reveals her thought processes in times of crisis, rather than pages of small talks, dramas and vengeance.

Merkel reflects on pivotal moments in her career, such as her bold critique of Helmut Kohl's financial scandals and her delicate handling of relations with Russia under Vladimir Putin. While her tenure was marked by controversial decisions—such as welcoming over a million refugees in 2015 and phasing out nuclear energy—her actions often reflected a careful balance between moral imperatives and geopolitical realities. The memoir also defends her stance against NATO expansion, emphasizing the historical, realistic and strategic reasons behind her cautious approach. She knew back then that it’s a dangerous move to challenge Russia by NATO expansion.

Merkel's insights resonate deeply as Donald Trump prepares to reenter the White House. Her reflections on leaders drawn to authoritarian tendencies, contrasted with her unwavering commitment to democratic principles, offer a vital lens through which to view the current political landscape. As global challenges are mounting, Freedom serves as a timely reminder of the need for restraint, pragmatism, responsibility, and the enduring value of democratic ideals.

Right after news broke about Elon Musk’s appointment to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency under Donald Trump’s administration, there were many positive reactions, including from my family in Beijing. However, on November 22, I came across an article in The Guardian titled Angela Merkel Expresses ‘Huge Concern’ at Elon Musk’s US Government Role: Former German Chancellor Says Politics Should Govern the Social Balance Between Powerful and Ordinary Citizens.

In the article, Merkel frames Musk’s new role as a significant challenge to democracy, particularly under the Trump administration. She highlights the risks of unchecked corporate power and its potential to erode the balance between governments and citizens. Here are the key takeaways from her perspective.

Concerns About Musk’s Role in Governance

Merkel criticizes Musk’s vast corporate influence, pointing to his ownership of 60% of all satellites in orbit as a troubling concentration of power. She warns that such dominance could undermine politics’ “final authority” to regulate societal interests, which she sees as critical for addressing crises like the 2007-08 financial meltdown.

Trump’s Transactional Leadership

Merkel describes Trump as overly transactional in his approach to governance, shaped by his background as a real estate developer. She notes his fascination with authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin and expresses unease about his alliance with powerful business figures like Musk.

Democracy and Corporate Power

Merkel emphasizes that a cornerstone of democracy is its ability to check corporate influence. She sees Musk’s entanglement in public governance—despite his companies benefiting from substantial public funding—as a dangerous precedent. For Merkel, this blurring of lines between private enterprise and public authority risks weakening democratic institutions.

The Role of Social Media

Merkel highlights the dangers posed by platforms like Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) in amplifying divisive narratives. She cites the rise of far-right movements such as Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as a cautionary example. Political systems, she argues, must counterbalance the influence of such platforms to preserve social cohesion.

“There is now a visible alliance between him with the big companies from Silicon Valley which have enormous power through capital,” Merkel observed.

A Marxist Perspective

From a Marxist lens, this article could be read as a critique of late-stage capitalism, where private capital dominates and undermines democratic institutions. A Marxist might argue that Musk’s growing influence is not an isolated issue but a natural consequence of capitalist structures concentrating wealth and power. Addressing such systemic imbalances, they would contend, requires more than isolated reforms—it demands fundamental change.

Merkel’s critique serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance required between corporate influence and democratic governance. In an era where private capital wields unprecedented power, her concerns underscore the urgent need for political systems to assert their role as guardians of democracy, social equity and stability. The challenge lies not only in regulating such influence but in reaffirming the principles that sustain democracy itself.

On November 23, I came across an intriguing article by Peter Peverelli, published a day earlier: “‘If You Want To Understand China:’ Enemy or Mirror Image?” As the title suggests, the article grapples with the question: Is China an enemy of the West or its mirror image? Using cultural analysis as his lens, Peverelli explores this provocative theme.  

Peverelli delves into how Western discourse perceives China—either as a threat or as a reflection of Western practices—and examines the deep cultural and philosophical differences between the two societies. He argues that many misunderstandings stem from these disparities, concluding that Western criticisms often reflect a lack of awareness of China’s unique context and values.  

Key Questions Posed by the Article

Should the West see China as a threat or an opportunity, a friend or an enemy?

Peverelli suggests that framing China purely as a threat is overly simplistic. Instead, he advocates for recognizing China as a complex society with its own distinct values, history, and aspirations. Mutual understanding and cooperation, he argues, are more constructive than adversarial approaches.

Are we heading toward a third world war?

While Peverelli does not predict an imminent global conflict, he warns that rising tensions—exacerbated by cultural biases and misinterpretations—could lead to dangerous escalations. He underscores the importance of dialogue and cultural awareness as safeguards against such outcomes.

Does China’s rise spell the doom of Western values?

Peverelli refutes the notion that China’s ascendancy undermines Western ideals. Instead, he views it as an opportunity to embrace cultural diversity and engage in meaningful dialogue, fostering a coexistence of different value systems that could enrich global perspectives.

Might communism prevail after all? 

The article acknowledges the distinctiveness of China’s political system but avoids suggesting a global resurgence of communism. Instead, it emphasizes how China’s political model has evolved in response to its historical and cultural context, diverging significantly from Western frameworks.

Are China’s motives sinister? Is it trying to subvert the West?

Peverelli challenges the assumption that China’s intentions are inherently malicious. He argues that many Western criticisms arise from misinterpretations rooted in a Western-centric perspective, advocating for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of Chinese policies and motives.  

A Marxist Perspective

From a Marxist viewpoint, cultural misunderstandings may be seen as secondary to the material and economic forces driving tensions. A Marxist analysis would likely focus on the global economic system, emphasizing how competition for resources, markets, and labor shapes the relationship between China and the West.

Peverelli’s cultural approach highlights important differences, but a Marxist might argue that these are merely reflections of deeper economic struggles—manifestations of a global system marked by hegemony, inequality and exploitation. A Marxist critique would likely shift attention toward the structural forces of global capitalism and the economic dynamics that perpetuate inequality between developed and developing nations.

November 22 marks the 61st anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. As we commemorate this transformative leader, it’s important to reflect on his impact not just on America but also on critical global issues, including peace in the Middle East.

President Kennedy strongly opposed Israel’s development of nuclear weapons. His administration actively worked to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region, taking decisive steps to address Israel’s nuclear ambitions.

Kennedy was well aware of Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona, officially described as a civilian program. However, U.S. intelligence suspected it was part of a covert effort to develop nuclear weapons. To counter this, Kennedy pressured Israeli Prime Ministers David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol to allow U.S. inspections of the Dimona facility to ensure it was not being used for military purposes.

Through numerous letters, Kennedy directly communicated his concerns to Israeli leaders, emphasizing the importance of transparency. In a 1963 letter to Prime Minister Eshkol, he made it clear that continued U.S. military and economic aid was contingent on Israel’s compliance with nuclear inspections. This firm stance demonstrated Kennedy’s commitment to nonproliferation and his belief in accountability.

Kennedy’s efforts in the Middle East were part of a broader global agenda to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, a goal that extended to other nations, including India and Pakistan. 

Tragically, Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963 marked a turning point. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, took a less assertive approach toward Israel’s nuclear program. By the late 1960s, under Prime Minister Golda Meir, Israel reportedly achieved nuclear capability. The U.S. and Israel eventually adopted a policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” where Israel neither confirmed nor denied possessing nuclear weapons.

An ancient Chinese poem goes, “出师未捷身先死，长使英雄泪满襟” (Chū shī wèi jié shēn xiān sǐ, cháng shǐ yīng xióng lèi mǎn jīn), which means, “The general set out to fight but died before achieving victory, often causing heroes’ tears soaking their robes.” This poem conveys a profound sense of loss, highlighting the tragic fate of a heroic figure who dies before witnessing the success of their efforts, leaving behind deep sorrow for their untimely death.