The Economist UK - 07.09.2019

The EconomistSeptember 7th 2019 China 53

2

“P

lease don’ttake it as a propaganda

movie,” urges an employee from the

Chinese entertainment company behind

“Common Destiny”, the world’s first film

featuring China’s Belt and Road Initiative

(bri), a global infrastructure-building

scheme. That is a tall order. State media

openly admit that the film, which had a na-

tionwide première on August 30th amid

much hype, received “major backing” from

the government. It bears only a superficial

resemblance to a drama pic.

The Chinese term forbriis rarely men-

tioned in the film. But it is all about the

goodwill that China supposedly manifests

through the project. The plot revolves

around half a dozen unrelated people from

all corners of the world, each benefiting in

some way from the scheme. A schoolgirl in

Kenya rides a new railway built by China (a

guard is pictured at its terminus in the Ken-

yan capital, Nairobi). An unemployed

woman in Jordan is hired by a Chinese

internet firm—involved in the bri’s “digi-

tal Silk Road”—after local companies turn

her down. The only aspect of the film that is

overtly political is its title, which is short-

hand for the much ballyhooed goal of Pres-

ident Xi Jinping’s foreign policy: “A com-

munity of common destiny for mankind”.

At the film’s opening Martin Campbell, a

New Zealander best known for directing

the James Bond movies “GoldenEye” and

“Casino Royale”, said “Common Destiny”

would “deeply touch” audiences.

Those audiences, however, appear in-

different, not stirred. In its first five days

“Common Destiny” earned just 1m yuan

($140,000) at the box office. In contrast,

“Wolf Warrior 2”, a jingoistic action thriller

also related to China’s overseas influence-

building, grossed 5.7bn yuan in 2017—a

Chinese box-office record. One of the state

firms behind that film is also an investor in

“Common Destiny”.

Indeed, a sizeable minority of online

commenters on “Common Destiny” appear

sceptical about the briitself. “We are a de-

veloping country, yet we frequently give

money away to others,” laments one on

Mtime, a movie review and ticketing plat-

form (never mind that briinvolves few

free handouts). Recent research by a Chi-

nese academic, who asks not to be identi-

fied, is revealing. It found that only a third

of comments on the bripublished online

in China were “enthusiastic” about the pro-

ject. Two-thirds were “neutral”.

Some people may not like China, as an

emerging great power and the world’s sec-

ond-largest economy, being so closely

identified with the developing world. In re-

cent years the bri’s detractors in China

have taken to mocking the project online

by calling it da sa bi(“big spill of money”).

This is a play on da sha bi, which literally

means “big stupid cunt”. Censors have tried

to keep up, but posts referring to the bri as

da sa bican still be found.

The academic says he is convinced that

public enthusiasm for the briwill grow,

especially if the government increases

publicity about the economic benefits that

China itself will reap. But “as a big country,

we have a duty to help less developed coun-

tries,” he notes. He reckons that more than

90% of Chinese people will be receptive to

this line of thought if it is delivered in the

right way. Perhaps a pacier sequel to “Com-

mon Destiny” would help. 7

BEIJING

The flop of a belt-and-road film

The Belt and Road Initiative

From the party,

with love

Waiting for the next one

Protesters threw dozens of petrol

bombs and lit bonfires in the streets. The

police responded with water cannon (a re-

cent addition to their armoury) with blue

dye to stain protesters at the scene and help

with identification later. They also fired

live rounds in warning. On the following

day protesters gathered at the airport, dis-

rupting flights and ground-transport links.

They later vandalised train stations else-

where in Hong Kong.

The scale of the unrest fuelled mount-

ing speculation that the government might

apply the martial-law-like Emergency Reg-

ulations Ordinance which was introduced

by the British 75 years before their with-

drawal from the territory in 1997. It was last

used in 1967 to crush riots by Communist

Party supporters. Under it, the government

could impose censorship, seize property

and arrest people far more freely. Party-

controlled newspapers in Hong Kong have

been braying for the law’s deployment.

But using the ordinance may not help

the government as much as the party’s

cheerleaders expect. Restricting liberties

could strengthen support for the demon-

strators. Business confidence could plum-

met should the authorities start confiscat-

ing assets. Some firms are already deeply

worried about being caught in the cross-

fire. Hong Kong’s flagship airline, Cathay

Pacific, is one. The participation of some of

its staff in the protests has infuriated Chi-

nese officials. In mid-August the company

dumped its chief executive as Chinese

pressure on the firm grew. On September

4th its chairman, John Slosar, also said he

would resign. (Cathay says he is retiring.)

Ronny Tong, a member of Mrs Lam’s

cabinet, says he personally has reserva-

tions about invoking the ordinance. He is

concerned, for example, that if it were used

to ban masks at protests (the pro-party

press is eager for this to be done), the police

might not be able to enforce the new rule

strictly. If the police were struggling, in

turn, he is worried that might prompt the

mainland authorities to intervene as al-

lowed for in the basic law.

In a recent off-record speech to busi-

nessmen, published by Reuters on Septem-

ber 3rd, Mrs Lam said officials in Beijing

were not planning to send in the army.

“They know that the price would be too

huge to pay,” she said. But she admitted

that she had few options. “Political room

for manoeuvring is very, very, very limit-

ed,” she said, given the need to “serve two

masters”: the central government and the

people of Hong Kong. She admitted that

she had caused “unforgivable” havoc in the

territory and said that if she had a choice,

she would quit. Later, pressed by reporters,

she denied having asked the central gov-

ernment for permission to do so and insist-

ed she had not even thought about it. She

must surely be tempted. 7