There is a blind spot in the US State Department and academia regarding China. They think China equals the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but it does not ("Extracts on the US-China rivalry," Sept. 1, page 8).
US "hegemony," as frequently cited in CCP propaganda and now apparently accepted by US academia, is very different from Chinese hegemony. The US is an established economic and military global presence. It only has to maintain the present "order" to ensure its interests, while China needs to break into this order to expand its reach.
The US is an established democracy with domestic order, while the CCP struggles to ensure domestic control, maintain its autocratic power and suppress its opposition.
Taiwan is a good example of this flashpoint. Taiwan is already in the US democratic alliance and the commercial sphere. The US only needs to maintain the "status quo" to ensure its presence and interests, while the CCP needs to break that alliance if it is to annex Taiwan and expand its reach into the Pacific, thus gaining control of territory with commercial and military value.
US hegemony at least professes democracy and self-determination and lets host nations decide the course of their own interests, while CCP hegemony amounts to total control, as in Tibet, Hong Kong and a future Taiwan. It cannot afford to do otherwise because of its lack of popular and ideological appeal. Any small loss of control, is like a hole in the dike and will lead to collapse of the system.
Regimes such as the CCP have appeared and disappeared throughout Chinese history. It has only been in power since 1949. The greatest power in China -- as with any other nation -- is the people. US policy needs to focus on countering the CCP and its attitude and foster its destruction if necessary. In other words, war or no war, the CCP must be opposed.
It's up to the CCP to wage war, but it's up to the US to win it.
Regimes such as the CCP surface and survive on the appeasement, hesitation and cowardice of its neighbors who do not stand up to it. The US' enemy -- or "rival," if you will -- is the CCP, not China. China will always be there, the CCP will not.
Chen Ming-chung
Chicago
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry