Over the past six months, China has been continuously advocating its new "peaceful rise" position. But no matter how we look at it, a more suitable name to describe this process would be "rise by terror."
This "peaceful rise" idea was proposed for the first time in Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's (溫家寶) speech on Dec. 10 last year during a speech at Harvard University. "China today is a country undergoing reform and opening-up and a is rising power dedicated to peace," Wen was quoted as saying in the Harvard Gazette.
In a symposium to commemorate the 110th anniversary of Mao Zedong's (
Obviously, these lies are intended to deny the threats China poses to Taiwan. China's "peaceful rise" notion was crafted by the 11th Party Congress central committee and will continue until the middle of this century, when its basic modernization goals are achieved. But despite all the rhetoric, there has only been terror. For example:
Just two months after the Party Congress, China declared a war of "self-defense" against Vietnam, fighting its way to Lang Son before pulling back. This was done to threaten neighboring countries and to oust Hua Kuo-feng (華國鋒), who was chairman of the Central Military Commission.
On June 4, 1989, the government surrounded the capital with troops to crush peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square. Zhao Zi-yang (趙紫陽), then party general secretary, was incarcerated.
In July 1999, the government cracked down on the Falun Gong movement. Many people have died from the persecution and many more have been incarcerated. This crackdown, along with that of other dissident groups, has been done in the name of maintaining stability.
Even China's economic development is fraught with violence. Chinese government officials in every region work with transnational corporations and Chinese "entrepreneurs" to exploit Chinese workers. Recently, US Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (趙小蘭) signed four joint letters of understanding with China to improve workplace safety and protect workers' rights. That such actions required foreign intervention gives us an idea of the terror ingrained in China's economic development.
Since 1995, Beijing has constantly threatened Taiwan with invasion and frequently holds military exercises along the coast of Fujian Province. It has even test fired-missiles towards the country. Threatening language is commonly employed in reference to Taiwan among Chinese officials and their media. High-ranking military officials have also threatened nuclear strikes against Los Angeles or against dams in the US as part of an "unlimited war" strategy. As communications in China's media are strictly monitored, it can only be assumed that these views are at least tacitly accepted. All this is simply government-sponsored terrorism.
The Straits Times daily in Singapore, in a recent report, said that some members of the National People's Congress and other party officials sent a letter to the central government suggesting that if Taiwan ever intended to threaten the Three Gorges Dam, they should revoke their guarantee of not using nuclear weapons against Taiwan in the event of war.
Note the use of the word "intended." It only requires Bei-jing to judge Taiwan's intentions for it to go back on its international commitments not to use their nuclear capabilities in a first strike. It is widely known that the National People's Congress cannot oppose government decisions, so their suggestions are crafted to coincide with the wishes of their superiors -- or as a "nuclear bluff" game at the least. This is the behavior of a rogue state.
Whether internationally or domestically, China uses the tactics of terror to reinforce its power. This by any other name is still the rise of terror.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Ian Bartholomew
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new