Guernica
© unknownGuernica by Pablo Picasso
"Peace is a lying illusion, and justice is a philosophy of extinguished embers.
There is no justice without a balance of power, nor peace without a clash between terrorism and terrorism."
- Abou el-Kacem AChabi
Soft power is completely wrongly attributed to Professor Joseph S. Nye. In reality, this gentle technique, this capacity for seduction, this power to convince, is as old as the world. Hassan Hamadé reminds us that this is how the Phoenicians conquered the Mediterranean. He gives the Chinese examples of Mao Zedong proposing, in 1946, to copy the political model of the United States and Deng Xiaoping wearing a Texan hat. Ultimately, it was not Washington that took control of China, but Beijing that invaded the Western economy. Soft power is not about overwhelming your interlocutors with Hollywood films, but about adopting their codes to take advantage of their benefits.

These are the verses that immediately came to mind when I followed Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Russia, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany — supported at the time by the majority of "Europeans."

As if our Phoenician brother, Abou el-Kacem AChabi, the famous Tunisian poet, author of the eternal hymn "when the people decide to live...", influenced by Khalil Gibran and Elia Abu Madi - marked by the experience of Levantine writers and intellectuals in exile despite his short life (1909-1934) - as if AChabi were speaking today, disgusted by the quarrels surrounding the destiny of Palestine, and through it, that of the entire Arab world absent from itself, devoid of reason, emptied of will, [would be] resigned to a shameful servitude and the disappearance of its dignity. A world that continues to repeat two lies — that of peace and that of justice — as if no one saw the magnitude, gravity, and Arab responsibility in the genocidal process carried out by Zionism to completely erase all traces of Palestine: the dehumanization of its people, the total destruction of life, and the annihilation of its soul.

Through these verses of poetry, our brother AChabi seems to issue a serious warning in the current situation: a false peace always prepares more injustices, because justice has its own conditions, the first of which is the indispensable strength for the self-defense of the victims. He also warns of this strategic truth: what is being inflicted on Palestine and its people will be inflicted, sooner or later, on all the Arab countries, one after the other. The Palestinian Nakba that has been going on since 1948 is necessarily the prelude to other Nakba. This sad fate seems inevitable, unless the Arab peoples decide to free themselves from the ruins of humiliation, submission, and shame, and rise again.

There are several paths to recovery — such as the one China has taken throughout its contemporary history, from World War II to the imminent conclusion of its own great war of national liberation.

Yes, a national war of liberation, just like the one Russia once waged.

Each of these two victories had a direct impact on the global strategic landscape, benefiting all those seriously working to free themselves from the colonial yoke and achieve freedom and dignity through socio-economic development. Development is the primary condition for independence, sovereignty, and freedom.
Nasser Nehru Tito
© UnknownGamal Abdel Nasser, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Josip Broz Tito, founders of the Non-Aligned Movement
The leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement — and especially the exceptional trio of Nehru, Tito, and Nasser — understood this well. At their famous meeting on the Adriatic island of Brioni in 1955, they launched the concept of "positive neutrality," based on the fundamental pillar of development. This is where the philosophical, political, and social dimensions of freedom, sovereignty, and independence, and thus of the principles of non-alignment lie.

It is worth remembering that China, India and Japan were among the 29 founding countries of this organization and were present at the Bandung conference in Indonesia, alongside Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, etc. It is also worth noting that this organization just celebrated its 70th anniversary in April 2025.

It is enough here to point out that the world of yesterday - the one before unipolarity - was much better than the world of today, for two reasons:

The Global South was then engaged in struggles for national liberation and independence. At that time, peoples were beginning to open up to one another, to help each other, to share a common awareness of destiny, thus fostering cooperation in development. At the same time, we note that the crushing defeat of French colonialism in Indochina (the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954) coincided with the outbreak of the great war of independence in Algeria, which cost the lives of one and a half million Algerians. How could the Algerians, or the free Arabs under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser, not have felt a united struggle with the Vietnamese people and the other peoples of Indochina?

The multipolarity of that era allowed for the imposition of limits on colonial powers, forcing them to defend their interests with greater brutality, but sometimes to retreat before the uncompromising advance of free peoples. In contrast, today's unipolar world, dominated by a single power, has revealed itself to be of unprecedented savagery, trampling on the rights of peoples, practicing a policy of cold, brutal, and uninterrupted extermination.

Lao Tzu already
© UnknownIn the 5th century BC, Lao Tzu already spoke of the art of 'Soft Power'
In both contexts, China has played a unique role. Throughout the 20th century, it fought to emerge from the Opium Wars imposed by the Western powers (Great Britain, France, and the United States) and to expel their armies from its soil. Then, it waged a struggle to define its political identity and establish a system capable of resisting the external aggressions that struck at the very heart of China's internal political chessboard, notably through Western support for the nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek.

At this point, the dividing line between East and West was formed in the heart of China: the communists, supported by Stalin's USSR, against the nationalists, directly supported by the United States and, behind them, the Western bloc. This is without even mentioning the Sino-Soviet split, nor the adversity that resulted from it, nor what some later considered to be an alignment of China with the United States...

Until China began defending its vital interests through soft warfare. Yes, the soft warfare that the United States talks about extensively, while the Chinese practice it with finesse and strategy.

This may seem surprising, given that we tend to assume that only America holds a monopoly on this form of warfare. But in truth, it's quite the opposite. How can this be explained?

World War II was not yet over, and President Roosevelt had not yet left the scene. That is, during the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong and his companion Zhou Enlai learned that U.S. General George Marshall — the initiator of the European reconstruction plan — was in China and wished to meet with Communist leaders.

Marshall had not come as the head of an army, but as an official emissary from the White House. The news fell like a thunderclap on the Chinese revolutionary leadership, then entrenched in the confines of the country. Mao immediately asked Zhou Enlai to receive the general and deliver an unexpected speech.
Guys walking
© UnknownMao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and George Marshall reviewing the communist troops.
The face-to-face meeting took place. From the first handshake, Marshall received a shock from which he would never truly recover — neither as a military man nor as Roosevelt's advisor, a role in which he was said to have as much influence as First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt herself.

Zhou Enlai greeted the general with striking warmth, leaving him stunned. Then, with disconcerting calm, he declared:
"General, Comrade Mao sends his greetings. We admire your political experience and are curious to learn more about your system. Comrade Mao even wishes to travel to the United States to meet with President Roosevelt. We hope to understand your model, cooperate, and perhaps adapt it to our local circumstances."
Marshall, visibly upset, listened without being able to hide his dismay. He simply thanked the Chinese revolutionary for the warm welcome and promised to faithfully report this message to Washington.

He returned to the White House in the state of a general crowned with victory, carrying in his briefcase a historic proposal capable of transforming the world order. But... Eleanor Roosevelt immediately rejected the Chinese offer, insisting on the need to continue supporting the nationalist general Chiang Kai-shek, and even to strengthen this relationship.

Let's imagine for a moment the geopolitical upheavals that could have resulted from a US acceptance of this Chinese outstretched hand. Obviously, Eleanor Roosevelt was expressing her convictions, shared by the power spheres of what is today called the "deep state" — including the world of finance, the military-industrial complex, Hollywood, and the mainstream media.

I am discussing this historical episode in detail to deconstruct a widespread misconception: that which attributes to America alone the paternity of the " soft power " strategy. In reality, Washington holds neither the origin nor the exclusivity — it has simply usurped the patent.

In fact, it was China that tried to open a dialogue with the United States - but the latter reacted with incomprehensible brutality, at least on the surface.

Time passed. Alliances shifted. Animosity between China and the Soviet Union deepened. Washington, sensing a geostrategic opportunity, found itself "needing" to open up to Beijing.

And so began the historic visits of National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger under President Richard Nixon. Kissinger was the first to appreciate the extent of American ignorance of Chinese culture and history.

Even before his meeting with Mao, Nixon had to call on the French writer André Malraux — a close friend and trusted friend of General Charles de Gaulle — to enlighten him on Chinese thought and the subtleties of dialogue with Beijing. This speaks volumes: neither think tanks , nor US diplomatic expertise, nor even Kissinger, would have been sufficient without this external input.

All this was happening in 1972, at the beginning of the so-called "détente" era, marking a relative easing of the Cold War.
Tex hat guy
© UnknownDeng Xiaping wearing a Texas hat.
China, this "unknown" world?... Yes, we can say it — and affirm it. The proof? At the end of the 1970s, when the new Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping — architect of the "Four Great Reforms" after having dismissed the infamous "Gang of Four" — launched the era of cooperation with the United States. He went to Washington under President Jimmy Carter. Sporting a cowboy hat and a broad smile, he made America laugh... which naively believed that China had just fallen into Uncle Sam's clutches.

But over time, the United States realized that it had completely missed the point of Chinese psychology. This was despite its close ties to Taiwan — the nationalist island that US arrogance had once promoted as China's sole legitimate representative, going so far as to reserve for it the seat that should have been Beijing's at the UN, while denying mainland China the right to exist diplomatically. Yesterday's laughter then turned to astonishment, regret, and dismay.

What is even more astonishing is that no one — neither in the United States nor elsewhere in the West — had made the connection between Mao Zedong's proposal to Roosevelt (already mentioned) and the strategic direction initiated by Deng Xiaoping. No one has seen that, even then — 46 years ago, nearly half a century ago China was launching its own soft war strategy.

And yet, to this day, intellectuals, journalists, diplomats, strategic experts, and their ilk speak of " soft power " as an exclusively American concept. They endlessly discuss, predict, analyze, and theorize — without ever noticing that China's incredible achievements in science, economics, health, education, infrastructure, military, and technology are all direct results of its soft war.

China's spectacular advance over Western industrial powers — starting with the United States — is living, concrete proof of the effectiveness of its strategy. It is therefore legitimate to assert that soft warfare is a Chinese invention, even if Washington stole the concept, claimed paternity, and now presents it as its own trademark.

The reality is that the gap between the two powers is widening every day, to China's advantage. A gap as deep as the one separating the United States from the "European" Union — or rather, from the states of the old continent — and again to Washington's advantage.

But soft war, according to China, is something quite different from that brandished by the West: it requires a gentle attitude, calm behavior, not a continuous, bestial din. One only has to observe US policy — its incessant threats, its recourse to the language of violence and destruction — to grasp the difference.

Conversely, Chinese diplomatic discourse revolves around cooperation, development, and mutually beneficial exchange — what they call a win-win relationship. No blackmail with lethal weapons. No heart of threats. Whether under Trump, Biden, Obama, or others, "Mr. Washington" threatens, bombs, destroys... only because China wins without firing a shot, through peace, openness, and cooperation.

These are indisputable visible facts. There is a fundamental difference, in nature, between the two models.

One only has to compare the uproar surrounding the US positions with the imperturbable calm of Beijing's to measure the depth of this difference. How many times have US presidents — Republican or Democrat — declared "American supremacy over the world"? And how many times have they unleashed absurd, irrational, aggressive, and disproportionate threats?

So many things that China would never do.

Perhaps the most telling example of the difference between the two models — in terms of conduct and global vision — lies in the wars provoked by the US system, these permanent and incessant wars aimed at containing and thwarting the New Silk Roads project launched by China.

In this respect, it is essential to focus on a historical precedent of exceptional magnitude, rightly considered a revolution of knowledge in the history of humanity: the spread of the alphabet around the Mediterranean basin, to other continents.

Statuette
© UnknownGilded bronze statuette • Between 1200 and 300 BC, the Phoenicians, the civilization of the Lebanese-Syrian coast, conquered the Mediterranean without weapons.
It was the Phoenicians, creators of the alphabet, who achieved this diffusion, extending far beyond their territory without ever resorting to wars of conquest.

They spread knowledge, building the first-ever civilizational bridge between nations, cultures, and peoples of the earth — an experience of exchange based on the principle of win-win, which remains one of humanity's greatest contributions to its own progress.

Intellectual honesty demands here that we pay tribute to the Lebanese-Syrian historian and thinker Youssef Achkar, who uncovered this singular dynamic and provided a brilliant comparative interpretation. He rightly showed that the Phoenician rejection of war as a means of expansion was based on a profoundly humanist cultural vision, in which "the other" is not an enemy to be subjugated or eliminated, but a partner with whom to exchange, cooperate, and dialogue.

Conversely, the culture of the Old Continent — a continent that even stole its name from a Phoenician princess, Europa — perceives the other as a natural enemy, a being to be dominated, subjugated, or exterminated. This cultural brutality, disguised as civilization, persists to this day.

Logically, the peoples inheriting the Phoenician coastline — especially the Lebanese — should have proudly borne this legacy. But they prove, day after day, that they understand neither its scope nor its foundations.

The most glaring example of this mental alienation lies in their rejection of a strategic Chinese project: Beijing's generous proposal to rebuild, modernize, and expand the port of Beirut, in order to make it the premier commercial hub in the eastern Mediterranean — a major pivot of the Silk Roads project, which would have made Lebanon a direct beneficiary of this global vision.

But instead, the Lebanese "geniuses" chose to obediently obey the same powers that contributed to the port's destruction, powers fiercely opposed to the Chinese project and determined to make the port of Haifa — and not Beirut — the main strategic gateway to the region.

Obviously, none of the colonial powers that participated in the destruction of Lebanon offered anything even remotely resembling the Chinese offer, this strategic, generous proposal based on the principle of "win-win," where "the other" is seen as a partner, not as an enemy to be eliminated or enslaved.
PutinXi
© UnknownPresidents XI Jinping and Vladimir Putin, May 9, celebrating the Soviet victory over Nazism.
Here we come to a powerful moment: the words of Chinese President Xi Jinping, explaining the reasons for his participation in the celebrations of Russia's victory in the Great Patriotic War against Nazism - a Nazism which, it should be remembered, enjoyed the support of the majority of Europeans at the time.

"This participation," he said, "meets the requirements of building an international order based on justice. China and Russia are ready to jointly defend the historical truth about World War II."

To this, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded that he would attend the Chinese celebrations of the victory against "Japanese militarism," asserting that the two nations would jointly defend the memory of the Great Patriotic War and jointly combat contemporary forms of Nazism.

This is where the world stands today: each nation faces its challenges according to its culture and its level of civilizational evolution.

And it is up to us, in this fragmented Arab world, to learn lessons from China, and above all, to follow the advice of our Tunisian brother Abou el-Kacem Achabi - poet of peoples in search of life, dignity and revolt against injustice.