Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, spokespeople across the United States Government routinely refer to Xi Jinping as President of China. The only problem is he is not the President. He holds a number of titles in the…
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, spokespeople across the United States Government routinely refer to Xi Jinping as President of China. The only problem is he is not the President. He holds a number of titles in the Communist Party. They include three jobs. First, he is general secretary of the Communist Party; second, he is chairman of the Central Military Commission; and, third, he is state chairman, which is a ceremonial position.
Mr. Chairman, I include two articles in the Record to describe this in more detail.
[From CNN, Sept. 2020]
US Lawmakers Want to Stop Calling Xi Jinping a President. But Will He
Care?
(By Jessie Yeung)
Chinese leader Xi Jinping holds so many titles that he has
earned himself a nickname: the ``Chairman of Everything.''
Since taking office in 2012, he has become head of not only
the state, the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the
armed forces, as is normal for the country's leader--but also
of multiple new party super-committees, prompting speculation
from international commentators that he is less of a
president and more of an autocrat.
Now a new bill in the United States Congress wants to strip
Xi of the title ``President,'' which most Western governments
and English-language news organizations--including CNN--refer
to him by.
The bill, called the ``Name the Enemy Act,'' was introduced
to the House of Representatives on August 7 by Republican
Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. It would prohibit the
federal government from creating or disseminating any
documents that ``refer to the head of state of the People's
Republic of China as anything other than General Secretary of
the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, or
alternatively, as General Secretary,'' according to a draft
of the bill.
``The leadership of the People's Republic of China has gone
unchallenged in its perverse pursuits of human rights abuses
across decades,'' the bill reads. ``Addressing the head of
state of the People's Republic of China as a `President'
grants the incorrect assumption that the people of the state,
via democratic means, have readily legitimized the leader who
rules them.''
Xi's titles have been a topic of controversy and some
confusion. None of his official Chinese titles include the
word ``president,'' or translate to it--but all Chinese
leaders since the 1980s, when the country began to open up
its economy, have had that official English title in China.
Perry isn't the first to call for a change in designation;
for years, critics have argued that this split in Xi's
Chinese and English titles allows him to project an image of
openness and representative leadership to the international
community that is at odds with his authoritarian style and
consolidation of power at home.
``China is not a democracy, and its citizens have no right
to vote, assemble, or speak freely, said the US-China
Economic and Security Review Commission, a US government
panel, in a 2019 report to Congress. ``Giving General
Secretary Xi the unearned title of `President' lends a veneer
of democratic legitimacy to the CCP and Xi's authoritarian
rule.''
A quick history
Xi is known by three main titles in Chinese.
As State Chairman (guojia zhuxi), he is the head of state;
as Chairman of the Central Military Commission (zhongyang
junwei zhuxi), he is the commander-in-chief of the People's
Liberation Army (PLA); and as General Secretary of the CCP
(zong shuji), he is head of China's ruling (and effectively
only) political party.
These titles are used depending on context; the military
title is used when Xi is dealing with PLA matters, for
instance.
In English-language government communiques and state-run
media, however, Xi is referred to as the President--but that
wasn't always the case.
The country's 1954 constitution, which was adopted several
years after the founding of the People's Republic of China,
refers to the
Chinese leader as ``Chairman'' in its original English
translation.
Mao Zedong was the first to hold this position. In 1975, he
pushed through a new constitution that emphasized the
Communist Party's authority over the state's, by eliminating
the State Chairman office entirely and granting sweeping new
powers to the Party Chairman instead.
It wasn't until 1982, under a new leader pushing to open
China to the world, that another constitution was introduced.
It reversed many of Mao's changes by re-establishing the
State Chairman's office, rebranding the Party Chairman as
General Secretary--and introducing the new official English
translation of ``President,'' which has since been used for
each successive leader.
The word ``president'' has Latin roots that mean ``to sit
before,'' which is why it was initially used for heads of
colleges or committee leaders. Its meaning doesn't inherently
have anything to do with elections or democracy; but the
United States was the first country to use the word as a
title for the head of a republic, and other countries
followed suit.
The 1980s were a time of sweeping reform and globalization
in China, as then-leader Deng Xiaoping loosened government
control over the economy and certain personal freedoms.
The newly adopted English title of ``President'' reflected
this spirit of opening up and increased international
diplomacy. It also put distance between the country's new
leadership and Mao's authoritarian regime, during which up to
45 million people starved to death, and inched closer to how
other modern countries referred to their leaders.
The shift indicated ``kind of an external alignment with
international practices,'' said Janny Leung, a professor of
linguistics at Hong Kong University's School of English, in
contrast to Soviet-era Chinese titles which ``have a strong
Communist historical association.''
Even the state-run paper China Daily said in 2009 that the
new title was introduced because ``the heads of state in the
world's republic countries are all called President in
English.''
Some Western newspapers adopted the term president
immediately, while others continued using ``leader of the
Communist Party.''
But as China prepared to join the World Trade Organization
in the late 1990s, which was taken as a sign that it was
tracking towards a more democratic future, the use of
``Chinese President'' as a title became more widespread.
International pushback
China looks very different today than during Deng's era. It
has cemented its position as a world leader, and its GDP has
jumped from $150 billion in 1978 to $14 trillion last year,
becoming the world's second-largest economy.
The country's leadership and political landscape have also
transformed. Whereas Deng, and other officials of his time,
carefully stepped away from the Mao era, Xi has worked to
increase Communist Party control over nearly all aspects of
society, drawing parallels between his and Mao's governing
style.
In 2016, Xi was named ``the core of the Chinese Communist
Party''--cementing his position above his peers and
demonstrating his grip on power. The title was originally
granted to Mao, then to Deng and Jiang Zemin, Deng's
handpicked successor.
A year later, his name and political ideology, Xi Jinping
Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New
Era, often simply known as ``XI Jinping Thought,'' was
formally written into the Communist Party constitution--an
echo of ``Mao Zedong Thought.'' No other sitting Chinese
leader has had their names enshrined in the party
constitution this way; ``Deng Xiaoping Theory'' was added to
the party constitution after Deng's death.
The most stunning move came in 2018, when the country's
constitution was amended to abolish presidential term
limits--leaving Xi free to serve indefinitely as China's head
of state.
At the time, the CPP justified the change as necessary to
align the presidency with Xi's two other, more powerful,
posts--heads of the party and the military--which have no
term limits.
Xi's tightening grip and crackdown on dissent have prompted
some journalists, policy experts, and others in the West to
urge dropping the English title ``President,'' arguing that
it doesn't accurately represent the nature of his leadership.
Instead, they say, foreign media and governments should adopt
the literal translated version of Xi's Chinese titles, which
better reflect his role.
And in its 2019 report to Congress, the US-China Economic
and Security Review Commission announced it would begin
referring to Xi using ``the title by which he derives his
authority: General Secretary of the Chinese Communist
Party.''
A `war of words'
Perry's bill comes as relations between China and the US
continue to hit new lows. In recent months, the countries
have blamed each other over the spread of Covid-19, and
closed a pair of consulates over a worsening national
security spat. US authorities have taken aim at several
Chinese tech firms and threatened to ban the popular apps
TikTok and WeChat.
This rise in tensions has been reflected in how top US
officials refer to Xi.
In the past two months alone, FBI Director Christopher
Wray, US Attorney General William Barr, National Security
Advisor Robert O'Brien and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
have all referred to Xi by the title of General Secretary in
speeches and statements--a clear departure from the White
House's previous practice of referring to the Chinese leader
as ``President Xi.''
Pompeo has also taken steps to distinguish the CCP from its
citizens in recent criticism, saying in July that the Chinese
people ``are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist
Party''--rhetoric that Xi has bristled at, and that experts
say is designed to further delegitimize the CCP by driving a
wedge between the party and those it supposedly represents.
As the latest push to officially change Xi's title, the
``Name The Enemy Act'' is more of a political statement than
a linguistic adjustment, said Leung, the Hong Kong University
professor.
After all, she said, there are plenty of authoritarian
countries that use terms associated with democracy--for
instance, North Korea's official name is Democratic People's
Republic of Korea. And Russian leader Vladimir Putin is still
referred to as ``President,'' even though opposition figures
and critics have accused the country's elections as being
``fake.''
The move to strip Xi of his title of President is a ``war
of words--a way to diminish the legitimacy of the CCP in this
current US-China tension,'' Leung said.
``If a foreign country then tells China, `No we're not
going to use your official name,' it just causes China to
lose face, regardless of what the term means,'' she added.
``If that's the term they choose and if you are denying or
(refusing) to acknowledge it, I think that itself challenges
the face of the country.''
It's unclear how likely the bill is to pass; though it has
four other Republican cosponsors, there are also only a few
months left in this congressional session. If it isn't signed
into law by the session's end in January, it'll have to be
scrapped and later re-introduced.
The power of such a law, however, rests on one thing: the
assumption that Xi still wants to be called President. Some
experts argue he might, instead, prefer to revive the retired
title of Party Chairman, last held by Mao.
``This year we can see a lot of steps (by Xi) in
preparation for the coming 20th Party Congress (scheduled for
2022), but also we could see such change in the English title
of Chairman,'' said Wu Qiang, a political commentator in
Beijing. ``The title of Chairman means the top, absolute top,
absolute authority. The totalitarian title for the leader of
the Party.''
If Xi brings the title back, it would be his most
significant step in following Mao's legacy, Wu Qiang added--a
sign that ``he wants to turn back to the Maoist era.''
And adopting the term ``Chairman'' could help Xi
consolidate even more power, said Leung--perhaps turning him,
literally, into the Chairman of Everything.
Opinion It's Time to Stop Calling Xi Jinping the `President' of China
(By Katherine Wilhelm)
In Chinese philosophy we find the concept of ``rectifying
names'' (zheng ming). Confucius taught that failing to call
things by their proper names is a failure to recognize
reality, which leads to social and moral disorder.
He was right. One excellent case in point: what to call Xi
Jinping.
This week, as the world's media are following the Chinese
Communist Party's 20th National Congress reporters have been
referring to Xi almost universally as China's ``president.;''
But that's misleading. The congress is likely to give Xi an
unusual third five-year term as the leader of the Communist
Party. We know the title he holds as party leader: general
secretary. And we also know that his immense power as the
paramount leader of China derives from this party position,
not from his concurrent position as head of state. So why on
earth do we persist in calling him ``president'' instead of
``general secretary''?
The position that we have come to call ``president'' in
English is actually styled ``state chairman'' (guojia zhuxi)
in the Chinese constitution. Mao Zedong held the same post
for five years in the 1950s but gave it up because he was
bored by the paperwork. The next ``state chairman'' was Liu
Shaoqi, who died in detention during the Cultural Revolution,
a year after being stripped of all his titles for alleged
disloyalty to Mao.
The position fell into disuse but was revived in the 1982
constitution, with fewer powers. In a reflection of the
party's post-Mao backlash against excessive concentration of
power, the chairmanship was held by a series of respected
veteran members of the party politburo. In 1993, when China
was trying to overcome the brief international chill caused
by the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, then-party General
Secretary Jiang Zemin grabbed the post, and it's been held
concurrently by the party general secretary ever since.
It is generally believed that CCP leaders find the title of
president useful when dealing with foreign countries. They
can meet as peers with other heads of state rather than with
the heads of other countries' ruling parties--who might not
be the same person.
Indeed, the title was so valuable to Xi that in 2018, he
had the constitution amended to remove the two-consecutive-
term limit on
the presidency. Everyone in China immediately understood this
as a signal that Xi intended to remain party general
secretary for more than two terms. The general secretary
position had no such term limit.
The state post holds no charm of its own for an ambitious
politician. Mao, not one to share power, was happy to give it
up--perhaps because its powers are mostly ceremonial. We
never see photos of Xi sitting in a presidential office doing
presidential things. It's not clear that there even is a
presidential office per se, with its own staff. The only time
we hear from Xi as president is when he signs one-sentence
orders proclaiming new laws that have been approved by the
National People's Congress, appoints new ambassadors who have
already been approved by the NPC, or takes similar
ministerial actions. Virtually all of the powers conferred on
the president by the constitution are shared with the NPC or
its standing committee. Only the pomp and circumstance of
international travel as head of state belong to Xi alone.
Foreign offices and media seem to assume that no harm comes
from referring to the CCP general secretary almost
exclusively by his state title. But the practice generates a
lot of unnecessary confusion about how China's political
system works. Ultimate power in China is held by the
Communist Party, with state officials operating solely as its
agents. Indeed, under Xi, the party has boldly stepped out of
the shadows, issuing more and more policy documents jointly
with government bodies or entirely in its own name. When we
insist on using Xi's state title while ignoring his party
title, we participate in a charade that pretends important
decisions in China are made by the apparatus of the state,
instead of by the party.
In China's own media, Xi is almost always identified as the
party general secretary. Let's follow their example and ditch
the word ``president.''
Mr. Chairman, calling the state chairman a President helps the Communist Party offer a more presentable face to the world, and it hides the party's iron fist in a velvet glove of ceremonial title.
It sows confusion about Communist China's Government, presenting it akin to democracy instead of an authoritarian police state.
We should stop playing by the rules Beijing's propaganda would have us do as to Xi and give him his actual titles. I urge my colleagues to do so.
I might note, Mr. Chair, that, in fact, many people that I don't particularly agree with, including President Bashar al-Assad and others, have the title, but if China doesn't give itself the title and rather he is the head of the Communist Party, we should continue to call him that and not erroneously make him look like a democratic leader.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from California, who I greatly admire is, in fact, in this case, wrong. She is making a mistake that I hope to correct in this debate.
Xi Jinping is not the President. That is not the title that their government gives him. As I said in my opening remarks and I will clarify, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is a President. That is the title his country gives him. The President of Egypt is a President. There are plenty of Presidents.
We would not call Bibi Netanyahu President when he is the Prime Minister, and, of course, we would call the President of Israel President.
I am only making the clear point that Xi Jinping has three titles, none of which includes, in any reasonable translation, the word ``President.'' He is the head of state. He is the chairman of his party. He is the chairman of, in fact, his military.
As a member of Foreign Affairs, it is an important technical correction. I am in earnest agreeing with my friend, the gentlewoman from California, that we should not arbitrarily refuse to take any title given by their country. China could call him President if they wanted to; they do not.
My amendment only says we need to stop changing his title. When the gentlewoman says that we shouldn't arbitrarily or in a petty way change a title, I agree. The title should be one of those three titles or, of course, he is the head of state and that can be used.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, in closing, I completely agree that the State Department should have reasonable diplomatic ability, but it has become a problem of a misstatement. As I said earlier, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu should not be referred to as President even if the State Department wants to. They have both a President and a Prime Minister, as does France.
It is important that titles reflect what, in fact, their titles are. The head of China has three titles. If they want to give him a fourth, they may, but until they do, I believe it is completely inappropriate to call a rose by any other name than the one that, in fact, the rose possesses.
Mr. Chair, I close by urging passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, my amendment simply recognizes that over the last half-century things have changed.
When I was a young private, Richard Nixon opened up the gate to China. A matter of less than a decade later, Jimmy Carter added them to the Science and Technology Agreement, recognizing that this emerging country needed our help, and that as we spread them and push them away from the Soviet Union, that this was one more way to work together.
I commend what those men, those Presidents, did during their decades, but in the six decades since that time, things have changed. The fact is, China isn't just a competitor; they are, in fact, the world's greatest thief of technology, and cooperation simply leads to greater espionage and theft.
For that reason, it is time to end our agreement that gives them one- way access to our technology. Simply put, we can no longer support the stealing of technology. In the words of Vladimir Lenin: ``The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.'' That has not changed.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, my friend, the gentlewoman from California, knows that the acid rain that falls on California and throughout the United States comes from the knowing and willful burning of coal with no scrubbers in China.
They don't need technology agreements to fix that. The technology exists. They need a will to do it.
If we are going to talk about what we would get in the way of air quality, the answer is, we are not getting air quality because they simply won't make those expenses. That is a sadly hollow reason to continue it.
Additionally, there are subagreements within the STA. Those do not go away. Some of the things that were cited, if they are appropriate, would continue.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, for all of us who serve on the Science Committee, there is no greater investment that we have made around the world than the one we made in CERN. The one in that supercollider; the one that gave us the PET scan, which gave us a lot of other technology that made us understand after the atomic age began what a proton was, how an electron worked, and these particle beams have been huge.
It has been something to which we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars a year asking only that our scientists be able to study with the others.
I was just in CERN. The scientists there, who are of one world as any scientist you would find, both Americans and Europeans and others, they were in shock because many of their colleagues had just returned from China where they found that the entire design for the future particle collider which is going to be built in North Dakota had been stolen in its entirety. Every part of that sensitive information had been taken to China.
When they went there, the most galling thing they could see was the Chinese bragging about having it, that they were going to get it built first and that people would have to come to them years before it would be available in the United States.
We have been in a science cooperation that included the Chinese at every step. It is time to recognize that we have gotten little from them except lies about the origin of COVID. We have, in fact, been lied to by them and theft is systemic. We cannot and should no longer enter into those kinds of agreements.
Mr. Chair, for that reason, I urge passage of this simple but important amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.