Will Hutton wrote recently about CNOOC's bid for Unocal ("China, US need to avoid conflict as global resources dwindle," July 12, page 9). Some commentators urge calm in the face of the Chinese economy's seemingly insatiable appetite, and a retreat from what they term protectionism, or worse, hysteria.
Some warn of retaliation by Beijing for American concern over China's aggressive growth, and for characterizing China as a "security threat."
Hutton also warns against America's tendency to categorize CNOOC's bid as a threat to "national security."
But many commentators (including Hutton) skip over a crucial fact in their analysis. Hutton glosses over it as follows: "Much Congressional sound and fury has been vented on Russia for not opening up more to US oil companies which want to buy strategic reserves. Now that boot is on the other foot -- China buying an American oil company and its reserves."
The CNOOC bid is not a typical corporate takeover by a typical large corporation, or even a typical foreign corporation. It does not resemble any acquisition made in Russia by a US company, or by any Japanese conglomerate in the US, including the myriad acquisitions by Sony.
The reason for the difference is this: CNOOC is not a private corporation, but instead almost wholly owned by China's communist government.
In other words, it is not a foreign corporation trying to acquire Unocal, but rather it is communist China that is trying to buy it. I for one am not comfortable with the acquisition of any substantial American assets by the communist government of China, protests by Beijing about CNOOC's independence notwithstanding.
The fact remains that the communists own 71 percent of CNOOC, and if anyone believes politics does not figure into management, I have a bridge I would like to offer to them.
As for China's possible good intentions regarding such assets, one merely needs to look at the controversy surrounding the huge number of oil wells seized by Beijing as "state assets" from independent drillers once oil was found -- resulting in a huge class action against the Chinese government.
If China could be ruthless against its own people, just imagine what it could do with foreign assets. Companies owned by Beijing are not like other companies. They are subsidized by the Chinese government, inherently making competition unfair, and they are controlled by Beijing -- and therefore indirectly by the Chinese Communist Party -- making them inherently dangerous.
Control of CNOOC lies with a ruthless cadre of dictators who recently threatened to "nuke" the US in any fight over Taiwan. As long as China remains a bastion of communist tyranny and hegemony, the motives and movements of its puppet masters and puppets will be viewed with suspicion.
Hutton refers to the similarities between the current "rise" of China, and the "rise" of Germany in the late 1800s. He writes: "No country has offered such a comparable challenge to the world order since Germany's rise at the end of the 19th century." But Hutton's chortling merely refers to the economic impact, and not the political.
Within several decades of Germany's meteoric rise, the world was plunged into two world wars. If Hutton is suggesting that appeasement of Beijing would avoid conflict, he is partly right. Europe swallowed Hitler's demands for appeasement at first, and it avoided immediate conflict.
But if history teaches anything, it is that appeasement of the ruthless never satisfies an insatiable appetite for power. In the long term, that strategy with Germany led to years of war, and 50 million deaths. Snuffing out the insatiable impulse in the first instance would have been better.
There is always a price for dealing with the devil, and putting America's assets in the hands of communist China is a mistake. Chevron? No problem. BP? No problem. The government of Venezuela? Big problem. Communist China? Hell no!
Lee Long-hwa
United States
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