I was a US diplomat in Beijing in 1979 when the US normalized relations with China and have been involved in China affairs ever since. I therefore take issue with "China Lends a Hand," an article published in the Washington Post by my former boss, Richard Holbrooke.
Holbrooke said China "lent a hand" in North Korea, Sudan and Myanmar. In reality, it was more like "China bites a hand."
On Korea: The Feb. 13 Beijing "joint statement" on North Korean denuclearization said nothing about Pyongyang currency counterfeiting or US sanctions.
Yet China demanded the US unfreeze US$24 million in North Korea's Macau bank accounts or the Beijing government would go public that US inflexibility -- not North Korea's criminal activity -- was the cause of Pyongyang's refusal to comply with the "statement."
On Sudan: The international outcry against China's support for Sudan's genocidal regime did prompt Beijing to dispatch Chinese Ambassador Zhai Jun (
When Zhai was asked specifically about the Sudanese government helicopter gunships that had supported the Janjaweed as they razed villages and massacred villagers in Darfur, he said: "I don't know anything about helicopter gunships."
When National Public Radio correspondent Mary Kay Magistad asked whether he believed the Sudanese government was not supporting the Janjaweed, he said: "I didn't say anything about support -- I haven't asked them anything about this, and if they were supporting them, they wouldn't tell me."
Just a few days earlier, Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan (
What does China really say about Darfur?
On the same day as Zhai's press conference, the China Daily wrote: "Harsh demands have been made of Sudan but little respect has been shown for the country -- one of the largest on the African continent. As a sovereign nation, Sudan, which learned bitter lessons during the colonial years, aspires to territorial integrity, national unity, ethnic reconciliation and regional peace and stability."
And that was it.
On Myanmar: Little comfort should be taken from US diplomats' talks with Burmese officials in Beijing about the nearly two-decade incarceration of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
Last year, the US Department of State told Congress that when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) visited Yangon, "he emphasized the need for Burma to have a more inclusive political process." That would have been nice if it were true. In reality, China praised Myanmar for "continu[ing] to advance the process of national reconciliation." That was all.
Last year, then deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick also told a congressional panel that "some of you might have seen there was a report by the new foreign minister of Hamas [Mahmoud al-Zahar] for the Palestinian government sort of saying he was going to go to China. I raised this with the Chinese promptly. Within two days, the Chinese said `we didn't invite him.'"
Zoellick portrayed Beijing's quick response and "non-invitation" of al-Zahar as the "foundations of the type of discussion with China about the types of mutual interest that we can have and work together."
Of course, the Chinese lied to him. China indeed had invited al-Zahar. A senior Israeli "involved in Chinese affairs," who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me that because Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Al-Zahar had a wonderful time in Beijing, by the way.
"On a bilateral relationship, yes, it was successful," al-Zahar said. "I met the minister of foreign affairs [Li Zhaoxing,
That was June 2 last year.
As I write this, on June 29 last year, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier on the Gaza border, sparking an Israeli retaliation attack. Chinese-made weapons have also been used by militants against armies in the Middle East, including Israel's.
What does this prove? That most US government officials and "opinion elites" -- like Holbrooke -- are wont to engage in wishful thinking when it comes to China. The least little gesture by China is seized upon as evidence of "China lending a hand" when the reality invariably is "China biting a hand."
John Tkacik is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS