The book of Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences I. A. Malevich, who worked for a number of years in China and Kazakhstan, could not but arouse the interest of international specialists. One can only welcome the author's desire to "introduce the reader to the new, modern China and the methods that are used in this country in building the state of the XXI century" (p. 3). However, one gets the impression that the relevance of the problem is the only advantage of this work. Reviewing a book is very difficult: it is replete with a huge number of errors, almost every paragraph of it requires refutation or clarification, many of the author's postulates are so illogical that it is simply impossible to object to him. Therefore, due to the limited possibilities of the review, we will point out only the most obvious and gross mistakes made by I. A. Malevich in covering the Chinese past and present.

The first thing you notice is the complete arbitrariness in the spelling of Chinese names and geographical names. Thus, Mao Zedong is referred to by the author as Mao Zedong (p. 35), Zhou Enlai as Jo Enlai (p. 57), Jiang Zemin as Jiang Zemin (p. 35) and Qian Zemin (p. 131), Wu Bangguo as Wu Bangguo (p. 84), etc. The current Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, Zhu Rongji, was particularly unlucky: I. A. Malevich calls him Zu Rongi (p.39), although when he was an economic adviser to the Embassy of the Republic of Belarus in the People's Republic of China, he should have worked primarily with Zhu Rongji's department. It is also surprising that, having worked as Charge d'affaires of the Republic of Belarus in the Republic of Kazakhstan, I. A. Malevich calls the President of this country Kim Dae-jung Kim Dae-jung (p. 104). The situation is no better in the book with writing geographical names. Thus, the city of Tianjin is mentioned by the author as Tianjin (p. 4) and Tianjin (p. 100); the famous Shenzhen (p. 84, 112), the provinces of Guangdong (p. 101), Hebei and Shanxi (p. 117) are repeatedly incorrectly named; even the unknown provinces of Dalian (p. 101), Qionhai (p. 133), Shanghai Pudong District (p. 98). After that, the author's statements like: "a small country in the Asia - Pacific region is Hong Kong" (p. 92), "deep China, known to us as the 'special regions' of China " (p. 148), etc.

I. A. Malevich demonstrates complete ignorance of the history of international relations in the Far East and the actual history of China in modern and modern times. The author translates the Chinese self - designation of the state of Zhongguo - the Middle State-as "The Central Kingdom of the World", claiming that this is how the word "China" is translated (p.181). In the history of the country, the author found the Ming and Quing dynasties (p.23-24), Chow (p. 72) and Manhu (p. 164), as well as the "Mandarin era" (p. 30). He writes that in 1911, after the collapse of the Manhu dynasty, "The Republic of China was proclaimed an independent Asian state in Taiwan" (p.164). Any aspiring international student knows that for 50 years-from the defeat of the Qing Empire in the Sino - Japanese War of 1894-1895 to the end of World War II - Taiwan was under Japanese rule. The entire section of the book devoted to Taiwan (pp. 162-171) is made in the same spirit of gross errors.

Ignoring the historical truth, the author assesses the return of the former English and Portuguese colonies of Hong Kong and Macao under the jurisdiction of the PRC as" a 'peaceful' geopolitical expansion of territories by China, tacitly approved by America and the world community " (pp. 75, 148-149, 160-161). He repeatedly accuses the PRC of some insidious plans. In his opinion, Beijing is striving for " complete polarization(?) its geopolitical expansion

page 208

in the region and around the world" (p. 173), and "Mao's expansionism is successfully transformed into Chinese fundamentalism" (p.174).

The book also presents China's most complex problem related to Tibet in a distorted way, with many conjectures and simplifications. It is enough to give one example: "The Dalai Lama," says I. A. Malevich, " told reporters that he was a simple monk(?) of his Himalayan homeland and is still waiting for signals from space" (p. 160). There are many similar incidents.

The author also shows deep ignorance in the history of relations between Russia and China, the USSR and the PRC. The reader will be interested to know that Russia is "deeply grateful to China for not making serious territorial claims to Siberia and the Far East, which once(?) were part of the Chinese Empire" (p. 74); that "the entire former history of China's formation and development with the help of the peoples of Russia and the CIS is now safely forgotten in China" (p. 74); that during the beginning of the reforms, China received huge technological and military assistance from the USSR (p. 109); that it "indirectly did not It allows the West to provide real assistance to Russia and the European CIS countries" (p. 74).

Unfortunately, I. A. Malevich did not manage to create a reliable picture of what is happening in the PRC at the present time. The author has the most vague idea of the state and political structures of the country ("NPC congresses", p. 82), and considers the beginning of reforms to be "the tragedy of 1989 in Tananmen Square" (p. 10, 79), while naming other dates: 1985 (p. 7), 1984 (p. 10), 1987 (p. 78), although the Chinese reforms count down from the decision of the December 1978 plenum of the CPC Central Committee.

Outlining the very essence of the ongoing reforms (as he calls them - "four modernizations"), I. A. Malevich, in particular, writes: "Free economic zones (FEZs) - more than 120(?) a significant number of regional FEZs of provincial significance" (p.124) is nothing more than "our old idea of free Slavic cities - Polotsk, Novgorod, Novogrudok, Kopyl..." (p. 110). I would like to advise the author to first understand the concept of "Magdeburg law" before applying it to, for example, the Shenzhen FEZ.

The author's claim that "all the reforms of 'socialism' with Chinese characteristics ' show several parallels with the history of reformism and Stolypin's reforms in Russia "is also completely wrong (p. 51). Nor can we agree with his conclusion that Deng Xiaoping "successfully assimilated the ideology of communism and was the first(?!) in China to find a different path of development and decided to abandon it" (p. 46). Against the background of such serious distortions of the essence of what is happening in mainland China today, for example, passages about the state of agriculture on the eve of reforms look like a nice trifle: "Everything was dominated by the CCP and the great dragons of Land and Water" (p. 57), or the environmental situation: "For Europeans, life in Beijing becomes like a voluntary connection with patients with AIDS" (p. 101). Statements like "the first model of the first stage of the second modernization" (p.89) are repeatedly used by the author.

One of the most serious shortcomings of the book is the lack of logic in the presentation of the material, a clear author's position. The reader is convinced that by speaking positively about something, I. A. Malevich refutes himself after a few pages. Thus, speaking about the centuries-old oppression of women in Chinese society ("for many years, girls born in China had minimal chances of continuing their lives"), the author states in the paragraph below that "until now, China has a matriarchy with "Chinese characteristics"" (p.31). The controversial statement that "China's further economic development is impossible without American aid and American technology" (p.72) is replaced by a completely opposite, but no less controversial one: "no real confrontation with China is already impossible and today is not even seriously discussed in the world" (p. 151). Arguments on "China's territorial and nuclear expansionism", "the acute problem of ignoring human rights", " large-scale environmental crimes "(p. 73, 76, 150, 170), etc. they alternate on the pages of the reviewed essay with high praise for the wise Chinese leadership, a well-thought-out reform strategy, and positive characteristics of the phenomena of Chinese reality (p. 6, 55, 58, 174, etc.). There are many similar examples of author's self-refutations.

Some of the author's statements are so "aphoristic" that they should be quoted:

"a Chinese in Africa is also a Chinese for whom Mao and Deng are more important than Buddha" (p. 82); " how much does China have

page 209

today, no one knows the exact amount of money, not even statistical reference books. This is a sure sign that there are a lot of them" (p. 84); "not only the Chinese middle class has already been created, but also the upper class of bonzes and juvenile emperors has been born" (p. 150), and how "to defeat them, even extraterrestrials do not know and cannot come up with" (p. 170); " what the higher the skyscrapers, the deeper the crisis" (to prove this "law", the author uses the Confucian "treatise on bubbles", pp. 96-98).

Speaking about his personal participation in negotiations with Chinese diplomats, I. A. Malevich quite seriously assures the reader of "constant mental pressure, both in the form of statements from the field of Chinese mystical symbolism, and from the" self-centered " staff serving the negotiations, who does not take their eyes off you and nothing in any situation." does not speak" (p. 118); the author even "knows many examples of memory loss and involuntary changes in the line of behavior in negotiations" (p. 118). " The Chinese ideology of covert influence on opponents has always been supported, and will continue to be supported, by mythologized promises and political hints about the clever dragon's head, which correctly conducts not very obedient and obedient behavior. Most importantly, a very hungry huge dragon body, " concludes I. A. Malevich after several years of working in the diplomatic field in the PRC (p. 149).

Such absurd statements, coupled with gross errors and distortions of facts, make us evaluate this "popular science publication" as an example of an unprofessional and irresponsible attitude to the case. Having worked as an adviser to the Belarusian Embassy in China, the author did not bother to think about the impact of his "personal impressions of China" on our Chinese colleagues. Publications of this quality damage the international prestige of our state, since diplomats of this rank are not allowed to show ignorance of the host country, its past and present, as demonstrated by I. A. Malevich.

Permanent link to this publication: