“Democracy” is not the Vatican’s criterion for relating to peoples; neither should it be Trump’s
By Aurelio Porfiri
The recent American elections have once again brought businessman Donald J. Trump to the forefront, as he garners significant support around him. Naturally, one of the key topics of the electoral campaign was China — and how to relate to this nation, which in recent decades has experienced enormous growth.
Many see China as an opportunity, while just as many others view it as a threat. Perhaps China is both.
Either way, the conversation about it certainly cannot be sidelined. I believe the first mistake to avoid in this conversation, particularly prevalent in the United States, is interpreting China through the lens of one’s own identity and worldview. While it is true that decisions are guided by the values underpinning one’s existence, we cannot assume we can understand others as if they were simply “other versions of ourselves.” China is a great civilization, much older than the United States, and attempting to apply one’s own worldview to such an ancient and culturally unique people is a grave initial error.
Geopolitical analyst Dario Fabbri, in his book Geopolitica Umana (Human Geopolitics), describes one of the purposes of his work as follows: “It rejects the recognition of the West as the ultimate end of history, a stage that every community supposedly dreams of reaching. Other peoples do not intend to live like us. Not because a specific regime prevents them from embracing our values or because they have yet to understand their superiority, but to preserve their own cultural uniqueness. This is a reversal of the racism, more or less naïve, found in every judgment of others based on the level of democracy or respect for human rights (of Franco-American origin). It is impossible to judge other peoples by how democratic they are, as such a framework is unique to the Western world. This book is inspired by the uncompromising need to adopt the perspective of others.”
Believing that we are the good ones and others are bad simply because they do not want to be like us is a severe misunderstanding of who others truly are. Thinking of ourselves as a singular model to be imitated closes us off to actually understanding others. Only a religion, such as Catholicism, has the right to evangelize all peoples; a political system or ideology does not have the same right.
That being said, I believe that during his first term Donald Trump understood something important: that with China, you must deal power to power, strength against strength. The Chinese respect this approach far more than they respect those who try to be condescending, only to condemn themselves to being outmaneuvered by the clever tactics shaped by the millennia of philosophy that define the Middle Kingdom.
Some see parallels between this approach and that of the Vatican in recent years. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said in June 2024: “Certainly, the Pope is willing to go to China; in fact, he desires to go to China. However, it seems that, so far, the conditions for this desire of the Pope to be fulfilled are not in place.”
This suggests that, despite an agreement in place between the two since 2018 (an agreement deemed less than ideal even by some cardinals close to the current Pontiff), progress has been extremely slow. The Vatican’s current policy appears to be: better a bad agreement than none at all. But others argue: under the present circumstances, better no agreement than a bad one.
Many pin their hopes on Donald Trump, believing that his approach could lead to a candid and honest relationship with China. Of course, there is always the risk that China could respond with a deterioration in relations, but given the current situation, it is a risk worth taking.
Facebook Comments