Hu is clueless
Chinese President Hu Jintao (
It is a fair objective for Russia. Russia threw off the mantle of dictatorship and adopted a more free and open society than under the Soviet communist dictatorship. Russia has held elections, and while still a fledgling democracy, the nation is remaking itself into a democratic nation of laws and rights.
When he adopted the position, Hu no doubt was referring to dominance of the US in the world today, and the fear among "lesser" states that their voices have been subdued in control over international affairs. In other words, countries such as China want their opinions to count in a meaningful way.
By "fair and democratic," China meant that its voice would have just as much weight as that of the US. That is "democracy" according to China. It believes in democracy when it comes to voting on international affairs, so it says.
Is it possible for a sovereign state to clamor for a "democratic" voice in international affairs, and yet deny that same right to its own people with respect to its own affairs? Is it possible for a country that has oppressed over 1 billion people and denied them the right to vote or dissent or worship, or even to speak or think freely, and whose government for over 50 years has been run by a string of self-appointed and brutal dictators, to legitimately argue for a "fair and democratic world based on international rights?"
Presumably "international rights" means human rights. Is it possible a country that routinely suppresses all freedoms and has year after year the worst human rights record on the planet can pretend it is committed to "a fair and democratic world based on international rights?"
Can Hu be so myopic he does not realize that the single most offensive regime in the world is his own? Can he be so myopic he does not realize creating a "multipolar, fair and democratic world based on international rights" would require first of all the dismantling of the Chinese communist dictatorship, where one-sixth of the world's population is under the thumb of brutal tyranny, and granting the right to vote to billions of Chinese?
Perhaps it is not myopia. Perhaps it is more insidious than that. Perhaps China craves the stage, the spotlight, the trappings of power and position, but does not intend to bestow the simple rights of dignity and freedom to its own people. Perhaps Hu is talking about what other nations should do, not China. Perhaps when China demonstrates it truly is a country that is a "fair and democratic [nation] based on international [human] rights" its opinion will count for something.
Right now, China is nothing more than a cash cow, and an ephemeral, untested, dangerous and unpredictable one at that. It is accommodated internationally in the way people step around a viper, or tiptoe around a scorpion, or diplomatically in the way one responds to a blackmailer without conscience.
To earn respect, Hu will be required to actually accomplish what he has unwittingly set out as the goal of humanity. To rid itself of dictators and oppressors, and brutal regimes, likes that of the Chinese Communist Party.
Lee Long-hwa
Pasadena, California
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS