Xi Jinping, President of Peoples’ Republic of China and Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, delivered a few speeches in the recent past; the former at Opening Ceremony of G20 Summit before delegates in the city of Hangzhou, China on September 3, 2016 while the latter before Arab and Muslim Leaders Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 21, 2017.

The following critique of the two speeches is an attempt to size up the rhythm of geo-politics at the international as well as regional levels in the first quarter of 21st Century.

Prima facie, the two speeches seem to be directed toward attainment of peace and maintenance of world order. But at deeper level, both speeches are poles apart as far as semantics, implication and impact are concerned.

Chinese President invites delegates to work in unison for bringing economic welfare and peace. Contrary to this, the US President intends to make world a safer place to live but by eradication of dangers of clandestine force of “Islamic Extremism.” He persuades audience by saying, ‘Drive them (Islamic terrorists) from your places of worship. Drive them out of your countries.’

Unambiguously, Chinese President is in favour of increasing economic growth to reduce poverty. His intention is to provide solution to a serious worldwide problem of economic inequity by minimizing the gap between the untouchable rich and the grab-able paupers. At present, Chinese economic boost is directed towards its 1.3 billion citizens, which is benefitting from “Socialist Moderation.” That is why China instead of following expansionist designs, prefers to pursue its own line of development. The result is that China has today become worlds’ second biggest economy with per capita income GDP of $8000. The purpose of China opening up to the world is attainment of peace, welfare and prevalence of a “more equitable international order.”

As such, the main thrust of Xi Jinping’s speech is to dilate on China’s growth model. Therefore, he goes on appreciating strength of his economy by giving figures of high performance while simultaneously encouraging his audience that they can also achieve high targets and enlist themselves in the category of welfare states.

At this stage in his speech, Xi Jinping further emphasises the need for proclamation of values of true partnership based on long-term loyalty, equal rights to co-exist, mutual learning and mutual benefits, adding that China is the only country where two systems amicably co-exist; one of democratic capitalism for Hong Kong and secondly of socialist moderation for China . Hon Kong and Macau are classic examples for the successful achievement of the policy of economic détente. The implication is if Hong Kong presents a sublime example of co-existence, then there is no reason for two opposite systems being unable to co-exist. Certainly, China is guided by a policy founded on the principles of peace and opening up to the world.

Xi Jinping’s speech made at such important forum as G20 is deeply related to series of speeches (one earlier speech at APEC CEO Summit at Lima, Peru on November 19, 2016 and the other speech known later as ‘One Belt One Road’ delivered in Beijing dated May 14, 2017). In these speeches he has talked, firstly, about the phenomena of liberalism and globalization, which in simple words mean free flow of information and rapid progress in technology —- a hot topic at Washington Consensus introduced for the first time by an international economist John Williamson in the presence of delegates from IMF, World Bank and US Treasury Department among others from different countries in 1989. Secondly, the notion of mutual learning and mutual benefit; thirdly, regular introduction of crucial reforms so that high targets could be achieved; and, lastly, sustainability of progress by innovation.

A detailed study of Xi Jinping’s ideas touched in this speech is also available from his book published some years ago. Thus the Chinese President’s speech could easily serve as an invitation and preamble to his comprehensive work “The Governance of China .”

As for Donald Trump’s speech, the very beginning brings a glaring contradiction when one recalls and compares his remarks about Islam during his 2016 Presidential election campaign that “Islam hates us all” with the statement made here in Riyadh that “Islam was one of the world’s great faiths.” Whether this statement amounts to eating one’s words or not, one point is clear that the US President was trying to mend ways with the Muslims and to find out allies to achieve his predetermined goals, which were to prepare Arab and Muslim states to wage full-fledged war against terrorists recognised by him as “Islamic Extremists” and who are being promoted and sponsored, as he thinks, by Iran.

But astonishingly, there was neither any indication of policy shift nor any funds allocated by Trump to follow his proposed line of action (could be a state secret!). The speech, therefore, appears mere lip-service –—- a bunch of empty words –—- the sole purpose of which was only to encourage and motivate the leaders of the Arab and Muslim States to prepare themselves for combat against terror and Iran. It would have been worthwhile if Trump had given reference to the exemplary role which Pakistan has been playing for the last more than two decades towards eradication of terrorism. Quite opposite to this, he praised India for the reasons best known to him. It clearly shows that India is all the time campaigning against Pakistan whatever the forum may be ——— whether UN, or Shanghai Cooperation or BRICS. Not to acknowledge Pakistan’s victories against terrorism is very painful. There should have been encouragement in place of threatening rhetoric.

Donald Trump’s speech which began with noble message of love and peace ended, however, by blaming Iran as chief exporter of terrorism. It is yet to be seen how successful Trump was in bringing home the argument that the US war is not against Islam: it is against Iran, the arch enemy.

A true pacifist, nonetheless, would think and handle the issue of terrorism differently. He would favour an approach based on finding weaknesses in far-fetched terrorists’ assumptions, fanatic beliefs and both sadistic and masochistic tendencies with enlightening arguments derived logically and rationally from religious texts which the indoctrinated terrorist reads so fondly, but without understanding them. This outlook will make the terrorist think and gain self-knowledge about themselves, their violent behaviour, angry reaction, misdirected energy and act of self-mortification. A terrorist, therefore, must be made to see the other side of the picture. The solution precisely lies in changing the script of indoctrination and fanaticism. Such an effort will be tantamount to breaking the terrorists’ nurseries and defeating violent opposition on its own pitch.

Look at the Pakistani girl, Malala, and what she says to those who shot at her head from point-blank range that she does not want to take revenge from them. Rather she would like to educate them so that they could see themselves what they are doing.

Concluding the discussion leaves us with simple and pertinent questions to ponder seriously to dig out answers: firstly, will this rivalry between Palestinians and Israelites last forever? Secondly, could it be possible for both US and Iran to remain antagonistic towards each other for all times to come? Can’t we see futility of war effort? How good would it be if we learn to avoid war? Yes, certainly still there will be disputes but not on such a large scale as 60 million casualties during World War II.