After US president George W. Bush took office, China launched an all-out diplomatic offensive with the aim of preventing any major changes in US policy toward Beijing. "Red Guard ambassador" Li Zhaoxing
On the eve of stepping down from his post, Li made a quick trip to Houston to visit Bush senior. According to revelations made by Li himself at a pro-Beijing gathering, Bush requested that Li tell Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and "the Chinese people" to please believe that he was the person who best understood his son. But what does he best understand about his son? Is it that George W. Bush will continue to promote Clinton's policy of currying favor with Beijing?
Because Li reported his "good news" to Beijing as requested, he caused China to focus its diplomatic efforts on Bush senior with the aim of influencing US policy.
In early February, Beijing sent its former ambassadors to Washington, Li Daoyu (李道豫) and Zhu Qizhen (朱啟禎), to the US. For their first stop, they rushed directly to the Houston home of Bush senior. Beijing had just launched a massive political campaign to expose and criticize Falun Gong (法輪功). Thus the Taiwan issue, originally the most sensitive problem in US-China relations, was supplanted by the Falun Gong issue. The two envoys demanded, via Bush senior, that the US government not support the sect either directly or tacitly.
For their second stop, the pair met up in New York with the former ambassador to Canada, Zhang Wenpu
Only for their third stop did the envoys go to Washington. But the trio didn't meet with Secretary of State Colin Powell or White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Their host was Under Secretary of State Alan Larson, who is in charge of economic, business and agricultural affairs. Although the appointment of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage hasn't yet been confirmed, having Larson meet the diplomats seems to indicate that the focus of US interest is the economy and furthermore indicates that there isn't much interest in the message being lobbied by the three visitors.
The decision by Beijing officials to focus diplomatic efforts on Bush senior is understandable because they are accustomed to going through the backdoor and using connections, Chinese style. Thus, they consider Houston to be the backdoor to Washington and they use the front door only after entering the backdoor.
Furthermore, according to the traditional, feudal and autocratic thought of the Chinese Communist Party, the patriarch of a family is the authority in a household and political elders are the authorities in the political world. Bush senior is therefore doubly qualified, making him doubly the object of their diplomatic offensive. Furthermore, they remember the elder Bush serving as the first chief of the US liaison office in Beijing after Richard Nixon signed his joint communique with China. He is an "old friend of the Chinese people."
But he is not the only older Bush with China connections. His older brother, Prescott Bush junior, is the chairman of the US-China Chamber of Commerce (
While the CCP's mouthpieces publicize the visit of the ambassadors to Bush senior to show their connections aren't commonplace, the spokesman for elder Bush said the visit was a courtesy call and not a policy meeting. The spokesman, however, was not willing to elaborate on the details of the meeting, as though there were secrets he couldn't reveal.
George W. Bush is a president elected by the people and not a successor chosen by Bush senior in the way that Deng Xiaoping (
Considering all the scandals spreading in the wake of former Bill Clinton's departure from office, and with public calls for a thorough investigation into whether Clinton administration officials accepted bribes from Beijing, President Bush and the White House have naturally raised their level of vigilance. More importantly, Beijing's preference for political backdoors causes Americans to dislike China even more. They are "demonizing" themselves.
The proof that Beijing's diplomactic efforts are failing and and may even backfire is that since Feb 16, when the US conducted air strikes on Iraq, Washington has thrice demanded that China explain its helping Baghdad lay a fiber optic network, in disregard of the UN sanctions. On Feb 21, when the new ambassador Yang Jiechi presented his credentials to Powell in what was merely a 10-minute courtesy call, Powell demanded that Beijing explain this problem. Yang wasn't given any room whatsoever to save face.
Of course, it is very hard to say whether US policy toward China will change direction again. Currently there is a relatively obvious tendency toward a tougher line, but the policy of interaction won't be suspended. The attitude toward Taiwan will be somewhat friendlier, but the "one China" principle won't be abandoned.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS