Foreign news

Why China’s ‘Moderately Prosperous Society’ does require poverty eradication?

Published

6 years ago

November 9, 2020

I’m Robert Lawrence Kuhn and here’s what I’m watching: China’s advent of the moderately prosperous society, xiǎokāng shèhuì, and the central achievement of eradicating all extreme poverty by the end of this year, 2020.

Those foreigners who may question President Xi Jinping’s motives and goals may be surprised to learn that he considers poverty alleviation to be his most important task. It’s his signature program. He is staking his political capital on its success.

To appreciate Xi’s driving motivation, one must understand the context of this special year, 2020, which has been long tapped to usher in the “moderately prosperous society” — the first of the two centenary goals that compose what Xi calls “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” as “the Chinese dream”. (The first centenary goal, the “moderately prosperous society”, reflects the fact that the CPC’s 100th anniversary is in 2021.)

The original formulation of the “moderately prosperous society” defined it in quantitative terms: to “achieve GDP and per capita income of urban and rural residents by 2020 as double that of 2010”.

Fair enough, but Xi enhanced this definition by asserting that China could not claim to be a “moderately prosperous society”, no matter how high its GDP and income per capita became if even one Chinese citizen remained in absolute or extreme poverty. Xi said, “We cannot announce the complete construction of a ‘moderately prosperous society’ on the one hand, if the living standards of tens of millions of people, on the other hand, are below the poverty line.” It was a powerful prescription that set national policy — made more challenging, of course, by the pandemic.

Whether because of geographic isolation in remote mountain villages, or because they didn’t have sufficient education or jobs, or because they were old or infirm, no matter how much China’s economy would grow, no matter how large China’s GDP and income per capita would become, these intractably poor would remain intractably poor.

I did not appreciate all that is required for precision poverty alleviation until I started visiting poor regions, especially those remote mountain villages. I met poor villagers and heard their stories: those who had come out of poverty through microbusinesses; those who had been relocated to suburban areas; and those who, ill or infirm, needed social support — and those who, though still in extreme poverty, still refused to move from their ancestral lands.

And for those foreigners who marvel at how China contained COVID-19, the common root of China winning the war to contain the coronavirus, and China winning the war to eradicate extreme poverty, is the CPC’s governance structure and organizational capacity. This does not mean that there are no trade-offs.

Thus, to comprehend China’s poverty alleviation program is to comprehend how China’s Party-led governance system actually works. This is especially important at this time of heightened awareness of China’s increasing role in international affairs and the increasing sensitivities to it. I’m keeping Watch. I’m Robert Lawrence Kuhn.

Share on Facebook

Foreign news

Court of Arbitration Declares Indus Waters Treaty Fully Operational Rejects India’s ‘Abeyance’

Published

1 month ago

August 31, 2026

The Gleamer

Cyril Ogar

The Court of Arbitration has unanimously reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully in force, ruling that India cannot unilaterally place the 1960 agreement in “abeyance” or suspend its obligations under the treaty.

The decision represents a significant legal development in the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan over the management and use of the Indus river system.

The Court’s finding addresses a fundamental issue at the heart of the dispute: whether either party can unilaterally suspend the treaty outside the legal framework agreed by both countries.

In its unanimous determination, the Court made clear that the IWT continues to bind both India and Pakistan and that its obligations cannot be set aside through a unilateral political declaration.

The ruling means India remains subject to the treaty provisions governing the use of the Western Rivers, including requirements relating to the design and operation of hydroelectric projects, as well as the dispute-resolution mechanisms established under the agreement.

The Court has also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities while the broader dispute remains under consideration.

The measures are aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the arbitration process and preventing developments that could prejudice the outcome of the proceedings.

For Pakistan, the decision represents significant legal validation of its longstanding position that the IWT is a binding international agreement and contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.

Pakistan has consistently maintained that disagreements over the treaty should be addressed through the institutional mechanisms established by the agreement, rather than through unilateral action.

The IWT provides a structured framework for resolving disputes through mechanisms including the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes.

The latest ruling therefore reinforces the principle that treaty obligations cannot simply be disregarded because of deteriorating political relations between signatories.

The significance of the decision extends beyond the India-Pakistan dispute. It underscores the broader international-law principle that agreements governing shared rivers and other transboundary resources must be respected and disputes resolved through established legal and institutional channels.

The Indus river system supports agriculture, livelihoods, food security and communities across the region, making the stability of the treaty particularly important.

The ruling also highlights the distinction between seeking to amend an international agreement through mutually agreed procedures and attempting to alter its obligations unilaterally.

The IWT has endured wars, prolonged diplomatic tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement. Its continued operation demonstrates the importance of rules-based mechanisms in managing shared resources when relations between neighbouring states become strained.

For Pakistan, the outcome provides an opportunity to frame the decision not merely as a bilateral legal victory, but as an affirmation of international law, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute resolution.

The central message from the ruling is clear: the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force, its obligations continue to bind both parties, and disputes concerning shared waters must be addressed through the legal mechanisms agreed by India and Pakistan.

Share on Facebook