Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

In the logic of some Western media, there seems to be only one "correct" way to be open - the version outlined in the West's own playbook. Anything else is automatically deemed wrong.

A recent example: When China embraces open-source development, sharing software and cutting-edge models as part of its effort to contribute to the collective advancement of global technology, The Economist still describes it as "awkward." But what's truly awkward may not be China's open-source efforts, but rather the unease some feel at the idea that China, too, can lead.

The article published on Tuesday acknowledges that China has rapidly risen in the open-source world in recent years, becoming one of the most active contributors globally. It mentions that China is home to the largest group of developers on the world's biggest repository of open-source software, after America and India; Chinese tech giants have become prolific open-source funders and contributors; and data shows that 12 of the 15 leading open-source AI models are Chinese.

Nevertheless, the analysis that follows departs from a purely scientific or technological lens. Instead, it is laced with familiar Western biases about political systems and a Cold War-era mind-set, portraying China as an untrustworthy and incompatible participant in the open-source ecosystem. 

For instance, the article suggests that "backdoors hidden in the code" could allow users to be spied on. More pointedly, it targets China's political system, as laid bare in the subheading: "Its newfound fondness for open-source is awkward for an authoritarian state."

But this reasoning is unsubstantiated - just the same old smear tactics suggesting that Chinese technology equals insecurity and Chinese open-source equals espionage. The "authoritarian" label itself is an ideologically loaded political slur that the Chinese people do not accept. And open-source has never been the exclusive domain of any particular political system. In contrast to China's efforts to promote openness and collaboration in the tech field, what's truly "awkward" is the behavior of certain countries that loudly preach freedom while building walls to shut others out.

If openness is considered valid only when it's led by the West, then it's not open-source - it's monopoly.

The "sour grapes" mentality among certain Western elites is quite obvious. "On the one hand, they are visibly uneasy with China's technological rise; on the other, they comfort themselves with the belief that China's path can't go far - that values like openness and collaboration will ultimately be limited by its own system," Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.

Li said China's progress in open-source and other cutting-edge technologies has created anxieties among some Western elites. They're reluctant to see China's rise presented in a way that might eclipse the West. As a result, certain Western media narratives rely on distorted logic and wishful thinking, clinging to the illusion that China's success is uncertain while the West's dominance remains assured. In reality, this is little more than self-deception - a projection of their own deep-seated anxiety.

For them, there's little room for the idea that non-Western countries could also take the lead in advancing global openness. What they truly fear is not that China cannot open up, but that China might succeed too well at opening up. 

If the West's expectation is for China to remain a permanent user of technology rather than a creator or pioneer, reality has already given its answer. US pressure on China's high-tech sector has only accelerated China's push for homegrown innovation and technological self-reliance. Advancing technological progress and open collaboration is not only the most powerful response to tech hegemony, it's also the inevitable trend of the future. In this trend, a country's contribution to open source, or any broader scientific effort, should never be judged by what passport it holds.