Connect with us

East Asia

The role of CPC in supporting leadership schools in democratic countries

Published

on

The Department of International Communication is officially under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China “CPC”, known by its former name (International Department “ID” or External Department).

  It has played a major role in introducing the policies of China and its ruling Communist Party, since the establishment of the External Department of Political Liaison of the Party in 1951, especially those its contacts and communications with (communist and leftist orientations, as well as all other intellectual and ideological currents, in addition to its keenness to communicate with international think tanks and research, and the most prominent academics around the world).

   Through my academic experience, academic and research closeness by virtue of my specialization and my in-depth study in the politics of the Communist Party of China, I have been able to analytically approach all departments and committees of the ruling Communist Party and its local grassroots branches in all regions, provinces and autonomous regions of mainly ethnic nationalities in China, in addition to my PhD thesis has focused on tracking and analyzing all policies related to the Communist Party of China, especially the internal ones, which gave me the opportunity to get acquainted with the most prominent comrades in the ruling Communist Party in China and all the visions of the members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and its political office, and my attempt to extensively and permanently review a number of  (Documents issued by the archives of the Communist Party Library and its main sessions. Perhaps I had the luck to see old and rare archival documents dating back to the 1950s, and I was fortunate to be close to all international intellectual and research projects aimed at studying the history of the Communist Party of China, its main stations, and the main difficulties and challenges.  and patterns of relationship with the powers of the West).

   – Based on my academic and analytical understanding of the most prominent roles of the “External Department of Political Communication of the Communist Party of China”, as an academic and expert specialized in Chinese political affairs, I was able to track and monitor the most prominent main roles of the “International Political Liaison Committee of the Communist Party of China”, and its relations and contacts in the past and present, given the importance of the work of tthis international committee in conducting the basic planning and policies of the Communist Party, as the following:

  My research and academic exposure, as an expert in Chinese political affairs, came to the most prominent policies of the ruling Communist Party in China and its internal and then external relations through the Foreign Department of the Central Committee, with referring to many (recordings and jottings archives for all of the memories and documents during the Cold War era), and the most prominent rare communist documents that I dealt with, which enabled me academically to study, research, and become familiar with that era that is absent from the minds of new generations, especially my fellow young researchers and academics to study the role of the Communist Party of China and its relevant committee.  Through external contacts with the world, in support of the (national liberation movements in Africa and the world during the fifties and sixties), and even an extensive personal and academic acquaintance with the most prominent aspects of the old relations between (the Nasserist era in the history of Egypt for the late Egyptian leader “Gamal Abdel Nasser” and the late Chinese leader, comrade “Zhou Anlai”).

   My academic focus on the content of the work of the “External Department of Political Communication of the ruling Communist Party in China” was a pivotal factor in understanding China’s extended relations during ancient periods, and perhaps my study of that ancient era in which the complex conditions of my study led me to reach some new academic and analytica results, and the most important for me personally, was my ability to (rewrite and review the era of the late Egyptian President “Nasser” and the Free Officers in the history of Egypt and the main contacts of the leader “Gamal Abdel Nasser” with China).

  As a researcher and academic concerned with Chinese affairs and the policies of the ruling Communist Party, I was able to understand some ancient eras, due to tracking the work and monitoring of the roles of the “International Liaison Committee of the Communist Party”, especially after looking at an old archive of the “Cold War Project”, which I got close to historically and archivally. As an integrated international academic work, I approached its researchers, to understand how the old leaders of the Communist Party of China think during the (period of international liberation movements from Western colonialism) and compare them with the current communist leaders, and try to understand all Western theories that provided different and varied interpretations to understand the mechanism of thinking and formation of the Communist Party of China.

  Perhaps the new and very rare matter in research and analysis, which occupied my mind and analysis for a long time, because there were no serious studies about it in the first place, is (an academic research and analysis on the extent of the aspects of the relationship between the external department of the international communication of the Communist Party of China and the Department of Tourism of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during the era of the fifties in introducing China’s policies globally), especially in front of foreigners and visitors, given that the establishment of an independent department for tourism in China within the Chinese Foreign Ministry in the fifties, which made me pause for a long time to understand: the extent of the relationship between the (Department of Tourism and the International Liaison Committees) of the Communist Party of China, given that they basically mean to improve China’s image internationally and to understand, explain and interpret its policies around the world?

  In my personal and academic analytical opinion, it’s not possible to understand all those historical epochs and stages of the Communist Party of China, without a (precise analytical understanding of the working mechanism of the Committee for Communication and External Action of the Communist Party of China), which is entrusted with communicating primarily with the outside world and other parties in the world since the history of its establishment and establishment in the early fifties of the last century.

  In general, the “International Liaison Committee of the CPC Central Committee” aims to explain and clarify the policies of the Communist Party of China in the first place, define its achievements and clarify its most important roles internally and externally, and most importantly to respond to those American and Western accusations, and the “CPC” leaders always emphasize that “China is not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries to spread a certain style or ideology or to export the Chinese model of the Communist Party globally”. The Committee for “Liaison and Communication with the Outside World” of the Communist Party of China has also succeeded in (supporting many leadership schools in a number of African democratic countries, and providing educational programs created by the Communist Party of China).

  The International Liaison Committee of the Central Committee of the ruling Communist Party of China was able to highlight many of China’s global development efforts for leaders of foreign political parties and to remove confusion and ambiguity about policies related to China and its ruling Communist Party with the constant emphasis of the Chinese leadership on the keenness of the Chinese leadership of the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of China, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, to adopt many of the most profitable and beneficial development initiatives for the world, especially for the marginalized, the poor and developing countries, such as: (Belt and Road Initiative, Dialogue among Civilizations, Exchange and Civilized Cooperation among all, the common destiny of humanity, win-win principle, mutual benefits, pursuit of development and cooperation, South-South cooperation, dialogue and narrowing the gap between North and South), and the other Chinese global development initiatives.

  It is noted here that (the international or external section of the Communist Party of China), has no reservations about any trend, type, or intellectual or ideological current adopted by any of those foreign political parties that deal with it around the world, given that the leaders of the Communist Party of China can deal  with all of the (right-wing parties, left-wing parties, and with all other parties of different orientations and intellectual and ideological currents).

  Many of the tasks of the “CPC Foreign Department” have been carried out online during the period of the Coronavirus pandemic or “Covid-19”, with the aim of introducing the world to China’s achievements in eliminating the pandemic, and how to overcome challenges and learn from the Chinese experience, according to the principle of “common destiny for humanity”.

 Here, I can present statistics to understand the most important actual activities of the CPC Foreign Committee. We can identify here that (the CPC Foreign Department or Foreign Liaison Department) has succeeded in (communicating with more than 600 political organizations in more than 160 countries in the world), and these external contacts have increased during the same year of appointing the Comrade “Xi Jinping” in reign. The number and percentage of high-level party meetings between (the external department of the Communist Party with all foreign political parties increased by more than 50% between 2012 and 2017, until the total of those meetings reached more than 230 annual meetings).

  Some academics in the West have described the activities of the CPC’s Foreign Department as being similar to the “New Comintern”, that is meaning, the formation of an institutionalized communist regime led by China, which is (similar to the old international communist movement), led by the former Soviet Union before its disintegration.

 From my analytical and academic point of view, it is noted that (there is a fundamental difference between the communist system of China compared to other political systems such as Western democracy), China does not preach or advocate the adoption of communism, and its only goal is to prove that countries can become richer without being  Democracy in the literal sense that some are trying to export to us, and this message is receptive to politicians who see that the checks and balances of democracy in the same Western liberal concept are disturbing, with their call to change regimes according to the dictates and conditions of the West.

 The Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, played a major role through his presence and activities within the CPC’s external communication and work committees with the world before he took power in the first place, and head of the “Central Institute for the Qualification of Communist Party of China Leaders”, from which he was rehabilitated and nominated to become the country’s president in 2013.

  After Comrade “Xi Jinping” assumed power in China in 2013, he was more confident in the ideas of the Communist Party and the consolidation of its ideology among everyone, especially among the youth and training young people on party principles for the advancement of the Chinese nation. Hence, the Communist Party only started working on increasing its influence on private sector companies in a more specific and accurate way in a strategy known as: (the party building strategy that baptizes everyone), meaning: forming party committees in all Chinese companies, including those belonging to the private sector or to individuals, so that it can be considered whether the company’s decisions are in line with the policies of the government and the “CPC” or not?

  The late founder of modern Singapore “Lee Kuan Yew”, described, in an interview with American foreign policy experts “Graham Allison & Robert Blackwill”, in 2012, before Comrade “Xi Jinping” took office, saying that:

 “Xi Jinping has iron in his soul more than former President “Hu Jintao”, who came to power without going through the trials and tribulations of “Xi Jinping”. In the sense of referring to the long experience of Comrade “Xi”, given his presence and passing through all party positions in the “CPC” and his deep belief in his ideas and spreading the spirit and ideas of the importance of ideological education sound of Chinese youth and children, with the aim of consolidating the ideological ideas of the CPC within them through schools and various Chinese and local media)

  The role and spread of many (Party committees within all sectors of Chinese society during the era of Comrade “Xi”, with the aim of collectively uniting with the policies and leaders of the Communist Party of China), and we can understand the request of the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping” from the private sector to  (Unite around the Communist Party, its policies and leaders to jointly advance the Chinese state), and accordingly, “Yi Qing”, as the responsible for China Federation of Industry and Commerce has ordered to open (party committees supervised by the Communist Party to apply the state policies and laws and their interconnection together to defend the interests of the Chinese nation, especially abroad).

  Based on the immediately preceding point, we can notify that “Yi Qing”, as a senior official of the China Federation of Industry and Commerce, called on all companies and private sectors to establish (human resources departments led by the Communist Party of China and its internal committees, with the formation of monitoring units that allow the Communist Party committees to scrutinize company managers) and knowing the depth of their (commitment to the collective policies of the party and the state before the world). I can note and analyze that all of these measures have extended and included mainly all large Chinese companies and groups in particular, given the diminished role of smaller companies in positively influencing the dissemination of the policies and ideas of the Communist Party abroad decisively compared to those of their counterpart companies with space, business volume and investments larger than them in general  China.

  I can observe and analyze one of the main activities of the “CPC” Foreign Department during the era of Comrade “Xi Jinping” in organizing training courses for foreign political parties, especially those in developing countries, with the purpose of (understanding and highlighting mainly the policies of the strong central leadership of the Communist ruler Party in China).

  Here we can analyze the statement of the Head of the Foreign Department of the Communist Party of China, whose name is “Song Tao”, in an online briefing to party leaders from 36 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the assertion of “Song Tao”, that:

 “The achievements of the Communist Party of China in pushing the wheel of comprehensive development has proven the wisdom of the five-year plans adopted and defended by the Communist Party of China to advance the sectors of Chinese society in all fields”

   In his capacity as responsible for all the activities of the Party’s foreign committees and effectively communicating with the outside world, we can find out that “Song Tao” has emphasized that:

  “The Chinese regime and its Communist Party can be an important reference for its listeners to learn and benefit from its achievements and successes, how to overcome its failures and any negatives or challenges it faces. Because it turns out that collectively believing in the goal in China by sticking to the leadership of the Communist Party and rallying around it, and will put all those plans and measures on the right track”

  On this occasion, a general conference was held in Beijing at the end of 2017, which was joined by (leaders and members of political parties from 120 countries around the world, members of the Democratic and Republican parties at the USA has been attended, despite their public criticism of the policies of the Communist Party of China). Chinese President Comrade “Xi Jinping” also delivered the keynote speech, and many participants signed the statement (Beijing Initiative), praising all the policies of the Communist Party of China and Comrade President “Xi Jinping” in the world.

  One of the most prominent roles and works of the (Committee for the Outer World of the Communist Party of China) was to explain, publish and review the book of Chinese President Comrade “Xi Jinping”, known internationally as “The Complete Works of President “Xi Jinping”: On Governance and Administration”, which is consists of three parts to explain the view of Chinese President Comrade “Xi” on the methods and arts of government in China and his view of the world through it.

  The foreign committee committees of the Communist Party has organized (several training courses and international classes to explain the ideas of the Chinese President Comrade “Xi Jinping’s book” on the methods and systems of Chinese rule). The most remarkable thing to me is the keenness of a number of African leaders and officials from the ruling parties in countries, such as: (Angola, Congo Brazzaville, Ghana, Mozambique, Panama, and Venezuela) to attend classes and training courses organized by the “Foreign Work Committee” of the Communist Party of China to introduce and explain the ideas of Comrade “Xi Jinping” on the (philosophy of governance and administration in China), with the aim of benefiting from the Chinese experience and the experience of Chinese President Comrade “Xi Jinping” in managing the Chinese state’s policies internally and externally around the world, and understanding and explaining the reason for the success of the Chinese experience and its global development initiatives, such as the “Chinese Belt and Road Initiative”, and others.

  There are many official websites in China that promote and explain all (the ideas and policies of the Communist Party of China, and how to strengthen these efforts by communicating with the international community and all political parties around the world, including those parties and countries with a different democratic and liberal ideological vision), and that is a clear sign – according to my own analysis and understanding as an Egyptian researcher in Chinese Politics – to open up the Communist Party of China, and its great willingness to cooperate with everyone and all partners and other parties around the world, including those who differ with it ideologically and ideologically.

   Here, we can identify that the (External Department of the Foreign Political Communication of the ruling Communist Party of China with the world) also laid the foundation stone for building ideological schools for the ideas and policies of the Communist Party of China, most notably the opening of (The Ideological School of the Communist Party of China in Tanzania in 2018), and this Tanzanian school is funded  Completely from China and the CPC Foreign Liaison Committee, the opening ceremony of the Ideological School in Tanzania was attended by “Mr.Song Tao”, in his capacity as an official and main representative of the Communist Party of the Chinese state, and as the official head and representative of the CPC External Liaison Committee, as well as the presence and participation of many  Among the African officials in the opening of the communist ideological school in Tanzania, as representatives of a number of African parties ruling several African countries friendly to China, such as: (South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, and Zimbabwe).

 The new thing that stopped me in studying and analyzing here, is that a number of African countries that are internationally classified as democratic countries, such as: (Ghana, Kkenya and  South Africa), the Foreign Department of the Communist Party of China sponsored several visits by delegations from those democratic parties.  To China, in the presence of the leaders of African democratic ruling parties, with the aim of (studying the form and construction of parties, governance and all policies related to China and its Communist Party).

  Most notably, the “New National Party of Ghana”, which is currently the ruling party in Ghana, asked for many trainings from the Communist Party of China and its Committee and External Communication Department, in order to (enhance skills  Ideology of Ghanaian New National Party Members).

  We can notify that the (formerly ruling Democratic National Congress of Ghana) sent dozens of its employees to China to receive and learn such training, and the (Ghana Democratic National Congress) also opened a leadership school in the Ghanaian capital that provides educational programs and materials created by the Chinese Communist Party.  It aims to spread its ideas and adopt its policies among the members, despite the different and different ideological views of the Ghanaian party.

 We conclude through our analysis of the most prominent roles of the International Liaison Committee of the Central Committee of the ruling Communist Party in China, that it is (the eye through which the world and its political parties see China and its ruling Communist Party). Here, the importance of the document issued by the “Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China” on August 16, 2021, entitled: “The Chinese Communist Party: Its Mission and Contributions”, comes in emphasizing the importance of the “Chinese people” themselves at the heart of the “people’s government and the people’s army”.  In order to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, which is already confirmed by all the documents of the International Liaison Committee of the ruling Communist Party, on the role of the ruling Communist Party and its main committees in discussing all issues of concern to the Chinese people, such as: (five-year plan, drafting reports submitted by the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of China to the National Congress of the Communist Party of China, and the plenary sessions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China), all of which aim to affirm the advancement of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people before the world, and the role of the ruling Communist Party in achieving this.

Associate Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Politics and Economics / Beni Suef University- Egypt. An Expert in Chinese Politics, Sino-Israeli relationships, and Asian affairs- Visiting Senior Researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES)/ Lund University, Sweden- Director of the South and East Asia Studies Unit

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

What China Does Not Know about India

Published

on

Indian authorities said on April 30 that they discovered Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi Group had made illegal remittances to foreign entities by passing them off as royalty payments. As a result, they seized USD 725 million from Xiaomi’s local bank account in India. I deemed that the Chinese smartphone company has a misunderstanding of India and how the Indians do business.

China still does not comprehend India. While the Chinese often consider their own country as an ancient and great civilization, Indians consider India as an even more ancient and greater civilization.

India established diplomatic relations with China in the second year of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. Following this, New Delhi issued a statement supporting China’s entry as a permanent member of the United Nations’ Security Council. Many Chinese, therefore, often perceive that China-India relations were rather good at that time. If not completely incorrect, this is at least a subjective misunderstanding of India on China’s part.

In reality, India prided itself as a great country in the world, vis-à-vis with Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. By recognizing China, India showed the two great powers that it has the authority to self-determination.

For a long time, China has created an impression within the country that it is the founder of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Back in 1955, Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru had already issued a call for the creation of the movement to the world, which gained support from many developing countries, including China. The rest of the world, including India, sees China as merely a responder to NAM. The world, not least India, perceive China to be a mere member of the NAM, not a founder. As the initiator of NAM, Prime Minister Nehru naturally became its spokesperson and leader of the organization. He was especially responsible for delivering speeches in many developing countries on international affairs.

From the points of India’s view, the well-known Bandung Conference held in Indonesia in 1955 has its origin as India’s idea as early as 1947. It was only because of India’s help that China was allowed to attend the NAM conference, which introduced the People’s Republic to the world. These perceptions of India are indeed, largely true. The relationship between India and China at that time was far closer than that between Pakistan and China today.

On the international front, India would even be chosen as a mediator in the disputes between the United States and the Soviet Union. President Dwight Eisenhower also complimented India at the Indian Parliament, saying, “India speaks to the other nations of the world with the greatness of conviction and is heard with greatness of respect”. It is rare for any U.S. President to heap this kind of praise on a country. Much later, President Donald Trump also inherited this momentum and arranged for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to jointly hold a session in the United States, where they were well-received by both Indians and Americans alike. This certainly added to India’s national pride.

The Soviet Union at that time also recognized India’s status in the world, and it actively wooed India. Being able to make friends with India was synonymous with having several NAM countries as partners, which was anything but trivial. Indeed, from the past to the present, from India-Soviet friendship to today’s India-Russia relations, the two countries’ friendly relationship has a history of more than 70 years, and it has not changed despite numerous trials. The Chinese would make a blunder if they believe that such relationships could be challenged solely through the use of money.

“India was, I guess, the most positive example of USSR’s connections with non-socialist states,” states Sergei Lounev, professor of Oriental Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. The professor was certainly not exaggerating. As early as 1971, the Soviet Union and India signed a Friendship Treaty, pledging to act against any military alliance or aggression directed against either of the two nations. For the Soviet Union, it was the first such treaty signed with a country that did not formally embrace socialism.

All of this is history. However, the Chinese appear to understand India poorly, and the same is true in India’s understanding of China, resulting in frequent misperceptions. With its strong nationalist sentiment, India believes it is stronger, wiser, and better than China, and its actions would naturally reflect this belief.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Holding on to Uncle Sam: US-Taiwan Relations

Published

on

The bilateral ties between the United States of America and Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC) have developed through a peculiar and complex course. The relationship, however ambiguous, continues to form a crucial aspect of security relations in East Asia.

Recognition, De-recognition

When the Communist forces led by Mao Zedong expelled Chiang Kai shek’s Nationalist regime, who fled to the isle of Taiwan in 1949,  US President Harry Truman decided to accept the inevitability of the Communist victory in China and even planned to work out a bilateral relationship with the newly established People’s Republic of China without heeding much to the plight of his former ally Chiang. It was the eruption of the Korean War (1950-1953), which displayed the strength and danger of a Communist alliance between the Soviet Union, China and North Korea, that made President Truman realise the importance of supporting the staunchly anti-Communist regime of Chiang’s Kuomintang (KMT)  as a bulwark against what became apparently the rising tide of Communism in the third world nations of Asia. The raison d’être of Chiang’s regime was to overthrow the Communist Party rule in Beijing and “reunify” Taiwan and Mainland China, an act that both the KMT and CCP believed would restore China’s historical rights over the island snatched away by the Japanese  and would redeem the historical injustices it faced at the hands of the colonial powers. Chiang constantly insisted for the United States to help him in waging a war against Mao to achieve this objective. However, Washington was not ready to support another war in the region.

Chiang finally succeeded in framing Mao’s maritime offensive acts during the early 1950s as a growing threat and pursued the Eisenhower administration to sign with him the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty which promised military protection for his regime. The United States abdided by Chiang’s One China policy under which it recognised that Chiang’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative government of the one China that exists on the face of the earth.

It was by utilising Washington’s vast diplomatic clout that Chiang did not just earn non-socialist allies but also found place in the United Nations Security Council as a Permanent Member.

However, the golden days couldn’t last long. The growing differences between China and the Soviet Union became more apparent by the 1970s and gave way to clear enmity as border clashes and ideological tensions ensued. The United States saw this development as an opportunity to crack the socialist international alliance and decided to turn the dynamics of the security triangle between itself, Moscow and Beijing in its favour by recognising the People’s Republic of China. US President Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing in 1972 and the Shanghai Communiqué that followed stated that ‘Chinese on both sides of the border believe that there is but one China’ and that ‘Taiwan is a part of China’. Washington left it to the CCP and KMT to decide which one represented the “One China” and promised not to intervene. In 1979, came a decisive shift as the United States established official ties with the PRC. Following Beijing’s non-negotiable One China Policy, Washington broke away all official ties with the ROC and officially recognised the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of the one China.

This came as a major setback for Chiang not just as a great betrayal but also as following Washington, several non-socialist allies like Canada shifted to recognise Beijing. Chiang refused to budge on his One China policy and broke away all ties with any country who recognised Beijing which costed him much of his diplomatic standing.

A major shock came when the issue of the permanent seat at the UNSC was raised. Washington asked Chiang to accept simultaneous representation of both ROC and PRC but the latter refused it and as UNSC Resolution 2758 was raised at the 26th United Nations General Assembly to oust ROC, Chiang staged a walkout thus leaving the space for the PRC to gain. What followed was a period of diplomatic  isolation as by 1980s, the ROC was ousted from most major international organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as space was created for the PRC to be accomodated.

The only positive development for the Republic of China was the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 by the US Congress as a response to the government’s decision to establish official ties with Beijing. Thanks to an active Taiwan lobby, many Senators opposed the government’s decision and claimed that Washington must retain unofficial ties with Taiwan. Under the TRA, Washington not only maintains robust socioeconomic and cultural relations with Taiwan which function through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the US which function in more or less the same way as the embassy but also maintains that any resolution to the Taiwan issue in a way other than a peaceful measure would be considered by Washington as a threat on the Western Pacific, implying its security perceptions of an expanse covering the concerns of the United States of America.

Democracy hues: Reunification to  Independence

While the TRA brought some respite, Chiang Kai shek’s son Chiang Ching kuo, who took over the reins of governance after his father,  realised the importance of democratisation in order to not just enhance Taiwan’s soft power among the liberal West but to also make it appeal to the Mainland Chinese who had presented the demand for civil freedom and  democratic rights in the Tiananmen Square Movement of 1984. Hence, in 1987, the martial law was removed. Chiang’s successor, Lee Teng hui declared a unilateral end to the Chinese Civil war in 1991 thus, establishing socioeconomic and cultural ties with the Mainland and breaking away from the old KMT tradition of No Contact, No Negotiation and No Compromise with Communist China.

While the rhetoric of abiding by the  “One China Policy” was maintained, Taiwan inched closer to an independent status, thanks to the democratisation process which made it important for the regime to reflect on the popular opinion which turned heavily anti-unification. With a proliferation of governmental and indigenous  non-governmental organisations such as civil societies and political parties; deregulation of media and educational reforms among other changes led to the emergence of a new islander Taiwanese identity as distinct from Chinese ethnicity. For instance, in the 1994 White Paper Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan dissociated Republic of China from One China for the first time while maintaining the rhetoric of abiding by the policy. Such sentiments further developed as the leader of the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) (which calls for Taiwan’s independence from the Mainland), Chen Shui bian, became the first non-KMT President in Taiwanese history. The growing strength of such sentiments is reflected in the eruption of the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan against President Ma Ying-jeou’s “viable diplomacy” with Mainland China which the protestors saw as making Taiwan increasingly economically dependent on Beijing which hampered the prospects for its  independence as well as in the election victory of DPP’s Presidential candidate Tsai Ing wen who remains a major pro-Independence figure.

Thus, during the Cold War itself, Taiwan’s Foreign policy has changed from pressing the United States to recognise it as the One China to the one of being recognised as an independent sovereign nation which historically developed distinctly from that of China. Ever since the fall of the USSR in 1991 and the end of the Cold War which made Washington the undisputed hegemon in the international order, the United States has shifted its focus away from Taiwan to other regions such as Afghanistan where it finds its national interests served best. Taiwanese foreign policy in such a scenario has been to hold onto the United States as much as it can so as to ensure regime survival.

Is Taiwan still important to the United States?

While the dilution of ideological politics and increased communication with China since its Reform and Opening up (改革开放) in 1978 and the fall of the USSR has decreased Taiwan’s relevance for the United States, it still remains important.

First and foremost is the strategic reason as access to Taiwan presents a wide maritime defense depth for launching both offensive and counteroffensive measures.

Second, Taiwan is a region rich in natural resources particularly coal, oil and gas.

Third, as a democracy which has remained favourable to it since the very beginning, the United States does not just feel obligated to protect Taiwan for ideological reasons  but also Taiwan’s presence as a flourishing democracy poses a major domestic political challenge to the CCP led PRC where the regime has taught its people that Western style democracy is unfit to Chinese culture and civilisational history.

Fourth and most importantly, the United States’ hegemony rests on its control of the Asia-Pacific region and though it might seem to be reducing its expanse, leaving China to take over Taiwan and the vast strategic importance it holds would be the last nail in the coffin of the era of US hegemony. The US hence, would fight till the last to maintain its relevance in the region by keeping Taiwan independent.

Is it important enough to go to war?

Though Taiwan is important to Washington, it puzzles many analysts if it would go to war with China in case Beijing tries to take over the island.

While the nuclear nature of both the nations is a huge deterrent which would, if at all, lead to a pyrrhic victory; the vastly enmeshed Sino-American economic relations is also a major reason where any hard blow on the Chinese economy would also hit Washington’s. If the United States loses the war, it would not just be immensely destroyed but would exit the world stage with a bang rather than a whimper making it harder to stand back as a world leader. Moreover, even if the United States wins, there would be no guarantee that China would not recuperate its forces and try another time to occupy the territory leading to more hostility and instability.

At the turn of the century, the United States realised China’s rise as an indisputable fact which meant that whether Washington liked it or not, it would constantly find Beijing on its way at every juncture. While such a development does not always mean confrontation or ensure cooperation, it shows the importance of dialogue and compromise in order to maintain stability which is mutually beneficial. Hence, while the United States would not sit back and watch Beijing take over Taiwan, it is also true that it would not rush to wage a war. Even though Beijing has stepped up its rhetoric of absorbing Taiwan with force if necessary, it realises that such a move would not be a cakewalk and hence is likely to consider other options before using force. The hard part of such developments is that it has reduced the central focus of Taiwan’s Foreign policy to holding onto the United States and by putting all its eggs in the American basket, Taiwan can hardly do anything substantial rather than wait for the two superpowers to decide on its future.

Continue Reading

East Asia

U.S. Violates Its Promises to China; Asserts Authority Over Taiwan

Published

on

USA China Trade War

As Werner Rügemer headlined on 28 November 2021 and truthfully summarized the relevant history, “Taiwan: US deployment area against mainland China — since 1945”. However, despite that fact, America did officially issue a “Joint Communique” with China recognizing and acknowledging not only that Taiwan is a province of China but that for America or its allies or any other nation to challenge that historical fact would be unethical.

The U.S. regime hides this crucial historical fact, in order to hoodwink its masses of suckers into assuming to the exact contrary — that Taiwan isn’t a Chinese province. Here is how they do this:

The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia, which blacklists (blocks from linking to) sites that aren’t CIA-approved, is the first source for most people who become interested in what is officially known as the Shanghai Communique of 1972, or the 27 February 1972 “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”. That article, avoids presenting the Communique’s 1,921-word text, but instead provides, in its “Document” section, a mere 428-word very selective, and sometimes misleading, summary of some of the document’s less-important statements, and also fails to provide any link to the document itself, which they are hiding from readers.

The U.S. regime’s Wilson Center does have an article “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”, at which only the document’s opening 286 words are shown, while the rest is veiled and the reader must then do additional clicks in order to get to it.

The U.S. State Department’s history site, does provide the entire 1,921-word document, but under a different title, one that plays down the document’s actual importance, “Joint Statement Following Discussions With Leaders of the People’s Republic of China”.  (If it’s a “Joint Statement,” then whom are the “Leaders of the People’s Republic of China” “jointly” issuing it with — that title for it is not only false, it is plain stupid, not even referring to the U.S, at all.) Consequently, anyone who seeks to find the document under its official and correct title won’t get to see it at the U.S. State Department’s site.

Here are some of the important statements in this document (as shown below that stupid title for it at the State Department’s site):

With these principles of international relations in mind the two sides stated that:

               —progress toward the normalization of relations between China and the United States is in the interests of all countries;

               —both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict;

               —neither should seek hegemony in the Asia–Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and

               —neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.

Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest. …

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

The Wikipedia article’s 428-word summary of the “Document” did include parts of the paragraph which started “The U.S. side declared,” but the summary closed by alleging that the document “did not explicitly endorse the People’s Republic of China as the whole of China. Kissinger described the move as ‘constructive ambiguity,’ which would continue to hinder efforts for complete normalization.” How that passage — or especially the entire document — could have been stated with less “ambiguity” regarding “the People’s Republic of China as the whole of China” wasn’t addressed. In fact, the statement that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China” includes asserting that the Taiwanese people “maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” So: the U.S. did agree with that, even signed to it in 1972. If the U.S. refuses to agree with it now, then what was the U.S. agreeing to in that Communique, and under what circumstances does the Communique become null and void for either of the two agreeing Parties to it? When does it stop being binding? Perhaps the document should have added something like “The U.S. Government will never try to break off pieces of China.” But maybe if that were to have been added to it, then the U.S. regime wouldn’t have signed to anything with China. Is the U.S. regime really that Hitlerian? Is this what is ‘ambiguous’ about the document?

In fact, the affirmation that, “The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan.” is now routinely being violated by the U.S. regime. Here’s an example:

One of the leading U.S. billionaires-funded think tanks, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), was co-founded by Kurt Campbell, who is Joe Biden’s “Asia co-ordinator” or “Asia Tsar” with the official title of “National Security Council Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific.” The other co-founder is Michèle Flournoy, who also co-founded with the current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, WestExec Advisors, which firm’s client-list is secret but generally assumed to be top investors in firms such as Lockheed Martin. That advisory firm’s activities are also secret. 

Perhaps nothing is more profitable than trading on inside information regarding corporations whose main, if not only, sales are to the U.S. Government and its allied governments. Trading on inside information needs to be secret in order to be non-prosecutable. The clients of WestExec Advisors might be extraordinarily successful investors, because they’ve hired people who have ‘the right’ contacts in the federal bureaucracy and so know where your ‘national security’ tax-dollars are likeliest to be spent next.

CNAS issued, in October 2021, “The Poison Frog Strategy: Preventing a Chinese Fait Accompli Against Taiwanese Islands”. It was written as-if the Shanghai Communique hadn’t prohibited this. The presumption there was instead that America and Taiwan would have so much raised the heat against China’s not being picked apart, so as for China to have militarily responded in order to hold itself together; and, then, a stage, “MOVE 2,” would be reached, in which:

The Taiwan and U.S. teams engaged in more direct communication, which aided the U.S. team in framing the crisis. By Move 2, the U.S. team had accepted that using military force to retake Dongsha would be too escalatory and might disrupt the formation of any counter-China coalition. Accordingly, the team reframed the takeover of Dongsha as an opportunity to expose Chinese belligerence and to encourage states to join together to balance against China’s aggressive behavior. The U.S. team’s decision to place U.S. military forces on Taiwan during Move 1 became a key driver for the rest of the game.

Then, 

By Move 3, both the U.S. and Taiwan teams were in difficult positions. The U.S. team did not want to let Chinese aggression go unpunished, both for the sake of Taiwan and within the context of the broader regional competition. At the same time, the U.S. team wanted to show its partners and allies that it was a responsible power capable of negotiating and avoiding all-out war. The Taiwan team was caught in an escalating great-power crisis that threatened to pull Taiwan into a war that it was trying to avoid. The Taiwan team had to balance its relationships and policies with the United States and China while simultaneously spearheading de-escalation. And in the early part of the game, before communication between the United States and Taiwan teams improved, the Taiwan team had, unbeknownst to the U.S. team, set up a back channel with the China team. At the same time the back-channel negotiations were ongoing, the U.S. team was still, in fact, considering additional escalatory action against the China team. …

Toward the end of the game, the U.S. and Taiwan teams’ main strategy was to isolate China diplomatically and economically and garner enough international backing among allies and partners to make that isolation painful. To this end, the Taiwan team focused on pulling in some of its regional partners, such as Japan, while the U.S. team reached out to its NATO allies.9 To avoid unwanted escalation or permanent effects, the U.S. and Taiwan teams limited their offensive military operations to non-kinetic and reversible actions such as cyberattacks and electronic warfare.

Under “Key Takeaways and Policy Recommendations” is:

Given the inherent difficulty of defending small, distant offshore islands like Dongsha, Taiwan and the United States should strive to turn them into what the players called “poison frogs.” This approach would make Chinese attempts to seize these islands so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.

The U.S. regime’s having in 1972 committed itself to there being only “a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves” has somehow now become a license for the U.S. regime to provoke “Chinese attempts to seize these islands” and yet to cause — by America’s constant further provocations and lying — this to be “so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.”

In other words: the U.S. regime expects to portray China as being the aggressor, and the U.S. regime as being the defender — but, actually, of what? It would be the defender of breaking off a piece of China to add it to the U.S. regime’s allies, against an ‘aggressive’ China that opposes America’s violating its own, and China’s, 1972 Joint Shanghai Communique — which prohibits that.

On May 19th, The Hill, one of the U.S. regime’s many propaganda-mouthpieces, headlined “China warns of dangerous situation developing ahead of Biden Asia trip”, and opened: 

China warned the U.S. that President Biden’s visit to East Asia this week could put their relations in “serious jeopardy” if officials play the “Taiwan card” during the trip.

In a phone call with national security adviser Jake Sullivan, China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi warned the U.S. against speaking out on the independent sovereignty of Taiwan, a self-ruling democratic island in the Indo-Pacific that China claims is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing’s control.

China doesn’t claim that Taiwan “is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing’s control,” but that, just like Hawaii is NOT a part of “the mainland” but IS “under U.S. control,” and NOT “a self-ruling” nation, Taiwan is NOT a part of “the mainland” but IS (not ‘should be’, but IS) under China’s control, and NOT “a self-ruling” nation. Just as there is no “independent sovereignty of Hawaii,” there also is no “independent sovereignty of Taiwan.” How many lies were in that opening? (And this doesn’t even bring in the fact that whereas Hawaii is way offshore of America’s mainland, Taiwan is very close to China’s mainland.)

And how long will the U.S. regime’s constant lying continue to be treated as if that’s acceptable to anything other than yet another dangerously tyrannical regime — a U.S. ally, perhaps?

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia1 hour ago

Economic And Political Reform Is Needed In Sri Lanka, Not State Violence

Sri Lanka’s worst economic crisis since independence has highlighted years of political and economic mismanagement and a reliance on state-sanctioned...

Economy3 hours ago

The Waning Supremacy of the Petrodollar Economy

Since the 1970s, the US dollar has been the undisputed reserve currency around the globe. Agreements with Saudi Arabia (and...

Economy5 hours ago

Chinese Maritime Strategy: Further Expansion and Progress

The Belt and Road Initiative represents a shift in China’s global perspective as well as an update to its role...

Health & Wellness7 hours ago

World’s richest countries damaging child health worldwide

Over-consumption in the world’s richest countries is creating unhealthy, dangerous, and toxic conditions for children globally, according to a new...

New Social Compact9 hours ago

Open and Closed: From Russia to China to America, the Largest Societies Are Pushing Their Limits

Today we are seeing the largest nations in the world pushing their limits. Open societies are pushing the limits of...

World News13 hours ago

UNICEF urges leaders to keep schools safe following deadly Texas shooting

Governments must take greater action to ensure school remains a safe place for boys and girls, the head of the...

Americas15 hours ago

The Despair of American Youths under an Overly ‘Critical Society’

A recent tragic incident in the United States has stunned the world. This incident, is not merely “domestic terrorism”, but...

Trending