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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath