Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) is due to visit the US next month, but there is some confusion as to the actual details of his itinerary. Some reports have him arriving in Seattle on April 22 and meeting US President George W. Bush in Washington two days later; others have him arriving on April 20 and meeting Bush on April 22. This in itself is not unusual. A degree of secrecy is required to ensure Hu doesn't run into any Falun Gong protests. There is, however, another report which I have every reason to believe is true: that Hu will be received by Microsoft chairman Bill Gates at his luxurious Lake Washington residence during the Seattle leg of his trip.
A meeting between Hu and Gates is, one would think, quite important, and certainly not before time. They are both powerful men who share mutual interests.
At first glance it might seem that Hu, national leader of China, has little in common with Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corp. This, however, is not the case, for Hu's daughter got married in 2003 to Daniel Mao (茅道臨), Internet tycoon and former chief executive officer of Sina Corp. If Gates is one of the fathers of the Internet in the US, then Hu is the father-in-law of the Internet in China; and just as Gates is the wealthiest man in the US (and the world), Mao is ranked 11th in China.
More important, however, is Hu's special interest in the Internet. Ever since he came to power, he has sought to strengthen state control of the Web, arresting anyone with views that conflict with his own, and throwing the book at them. The US State Department's 2005 Country Reports of Human Rights Practices is critical of the Chinese government, saying that it seeks to censor print, broadcast and electronic media, as well as Internet content.
The worrying thing is that the four major Internet companies in the US -- namely Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and Cisco -- are all aiders and abetters in China's efforts, erecting between them the world's most effective Internet supervision architecture.
Despite admonitions expressed during a US congressional hearing recently, I foresee these Internet giants continuing to collude with the Chinese dictators for financial reasons. Together, they will ensnare the Chinese populace in their Web of censorship, and cast their "net" over freedom and democracy in China. There will be no discussion of how to improve human rights in China when Gates meets Hu. The only talk will be about how the two men can further their own interests.
Gates is known, not only in the US but the world over, for his donations to good causes. Why, then, is he not promoting improvements in human rights in China, the world's largest dictatorship? This would serve to prove that his donations are more than a mere public relations exercise. He should be trying to encourage Internet freedom in China, rather than undermining his reputation through his actions.
Google made its move on China last year, bagging several Microsoft employees, including Lee Kai-fu (李開復), former head of Microsoft Research China. This provoked Microsoft into taking Google to court. During the hearings, Lee revealed how Gates had sounded off about the Chinese government in particularly colorful language. Gates seems to spend most of his time in court for one reason or the other, but this was the first time his anti-Chinese streak came to light.
If these companies continue to pander to the Chinese government like this, they will not only be shooting themselves in the foot, they will also allow the US to get caught up in China's net, a situation that could eventually threaten that country's national security.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers