According to my understanding and analysis of the current appropriate Chinese confrontation mechanisms in the face of American boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, in fact, the United States of America has announced from the beginning, that it a state of (an organized ideological confrontation between democratic ideologies and alliances against a communist tyrannical ideology represented by China and its followers), so it has become a narrow American justification for the decision to boycott the Winter Olympics in Beijing, which is revolving around (the opposition of democratic countries to the participation of their ideological enemies).
Hence, as an expert specializing in Chinese political affairs and the policies of the contemporary Communist Party of China, I tried to present different interpretations and theories from the previous stage, given that we live in a “post-post” stage or post-beyond era”, and this requires us, as specialists academics and experts in Chinese, political and international affairs, to present some new other creative “explanatory and analytical theories”. There are many types that fit the nature of the current stage, and work to implement them in the form of the current confrontation between the United States of America with China, through:
Contemporary history assures us that decisions similar to the diplomatic boycott of sporting events in the first place take an (ideological form): The similar historical boycotting to the sporting events have been taken by a “same narrow ideological justification”, such as the American claims to its vision of China and communist policies and dividing the world into two regimes of totalitarian authoritarianism and other liberal democratic regimes. Because of the American position refusing to participate, I found several similar events, such as: (the decision not to participate in sports games by some Islamic countries with the presence of Israeli athletes in the sporting competitions, or North Korea’s absence from the 1988 Olympics, which was hosted by its enemy South Korea in the capital, Seoul). But the boycott that took place in the (Winter Olympics in Moscow in 1980), remains the largest in the history of world sports, after US President “Jimmy Carter” decided not to send athletes from his country to the Moscow Games in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Soviets responded after four years of that boycott the “Los Angeles Olympics 1984”, in the United States of America. The greatest impact of each of these two provinces was on the medal table in sports competitions, as each side took advantage of the other’s absence to increase the number of its medals.
It is necessary to present a new theory that goes beyond communism, even if it is linked to it in the first place, called “post-communism”, in view of the current radical international change: my humble research and academic view is represented as an expert in Chinese political affairs, specializing in the studies of the Communist Party, Chinese and its policies internally and externally, in presenting a “modern, communist school that fits the global political reality, and is even capable of imposing itself in the face of the policies of American ideological competition against China”. This is what requires us as academics and specialists in the fields of political science, especially after my deeply observation, as I have surprised that: “there are a serious division academically and at the international level in the field of Chinese and Asian theories compared to the other Western and American studies and theories in the Arab and Middle Eastern social sciences departments in our universities”, given that the nature of the current academic work in the field of political science and comparative political systems, as my specific specialization of study, as well as the trajectories of international relations and the social sciences in general, is in urgent and seriously need to (extract and present other theories).
As for the theory of Chinese confrontation in the “post-communist stage”, we find that the modern use of the term, in its positive aspect, reflects (a global communist aspiration to rebuild and produce other alternatives to the ideological confrontation methods with the United States of America): this is the Chinese-communist confrontation, If it is not tangible at the present time, it must be identified and proposed as a possible possibility for the framework and form of the existing ideological confrontation between Washington and Beijing, such as creating the social conditions and political forces that can move it and impose it on the ground. Only from this angle, we can understand (the reasons for calling for the return of the communist question in France and setting some new other post-communist rules and foundations”, that fit the nature of the current stage), as well as those echoes received by French communist thinkers, such as: (Alain Badiou, Antonio Negre, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Jacques Rancière), along with French Marxist writers who have never denied their belonging to communism, such as: (Lucien Seif, André Tozel, Jacques Bede, Daniel Bensaïd).
The need to develop a “post-communist theory”, presenting modern explanatory foundations on which it is based in view of the nature of the current stage: which is meaning to reconsider the complex and disputed legacies of Chinese communism in its traditional form, which revolves around the “ideological embodiment of Chinese communism” of the founding fathers and its Communist Party. Perhaps with great respect for the values and construction of “Maoist ideas”, it has become urgent to develop into other (ideas and forms of contemporary political discourse that suit everyone at home and abroad), and most importantly are able to respond firmly to all the projects of liberal democracies that the United States of America is trying to lead globally through a network of its alliances to confront China, and this remains a critical exploration of the foundations of the “post-communism”. It is becoming more and more necessary. Here we can apply the Chinese post-communist theory in the title of the work, and not only revolve it around the founding companion of China “Mao Zedong”, but it will proceed from “Maoism” to the stage of acknowledgment that the liberation ideas in Chinese thought were always the result of a collective production and not an individual one like the West.
The proposed ideas and foundations for the post-communist stage, must essentially go beyond the enormous influence exercised by “Mao Zedong” on political thought and discourse in modern China in particular and the comrades of the Communist Party of China: here, it is necessary for the current leaders in the Communist Party of China to remind themselves in creating some other constant (changeable new ideas, aspirations and promises of Chinese communism, that are not limited to a specific individual, time or time, but rather they are going forward with a contemporary communist future vision that goes beyond Maoism itself and is able to build on it). With this proposition, the “Post-Communist Chinese Stage and Theory”, will surely point to new ways of thinking, speaking and practicing politics that involved in the participation of hundreds of millions of Chinese people. As is well known that “Mao Zedong” did not compose or write all the texts signed in his name, rather than the “Maoist ideas” were the form that the Chinese communism has taken for many years in a traditional ideological dominant language in the political discourses to teach the Chinese people and their masses the (foundations of leadership, rally around the leaders of the Communist Party, and face the challenges).
The beginning of the practical application of the “post-communist Chinese theory” will be from the premise of changing the contemporary Chinese political discourses, and understanding that the United States of America is not in a real, tangible and realistic conflict with China: we can implicitly notify that the USA, as much as it is a struggle with itself over its suffering from many serious internal issues, besides other external challenges which they have lost the element of success. We note that the United States of America is trying to blame its failure on many inside and outside files on other external parties, such as: China and Russia. The prominent example here is the sudden American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the subsequent violations of human rights, bombings and deaths after the “Taliban movement” took control of the government, and the other (subsequent international sharp criticism against the Washington’s failure policies), especially from its European allies, who are now bothered by these (American unilateral and individualistic behavior without consulting its NATO allies before taking important decisions internationally), as well as the growth of other American internal problems, such as:
(The crises of marginalization of the poor citizens, racism against its black people with African roots, increasingly of the economic divide and inequality, and the political tensions in both internally and internationally levels)
Perhaps the “post-communist theory of contemporary China” will depend on the Chinese necessity to adopt (two different approaches and styles of contemporary discourses in the face of current American policies), the first one, which should be a discourse towards the American people and its nation themselves, and the second one is to confront the American politicians: what stopped me in this regard is the failure of the US government itself to persuaded several major US companies to participate in the game of “politicizing the Beijing Winter Olympics file” to participate with their country in the “diplomatic boycott” of the Beijing’s Olympics. But, (many of the largest American companies have refused to bow to the demands of their American government to “politicize the Olympics”). Despite the efforts of the US administration to organise many prominent activities to persuade its large companies and all of the other interests not to participate and boycott the Beijing Winter Olympics, with the assistance of some numerous other human rights activists, who are so close to the American administration itself to interfere in this regard. So, the Egyptian researcher is suggesting here, that “China in the post-communist era” should adopt a different discourse around which the American people themselves, who are rejecting the policy of their government.
What is worth mentioning and analyzing here, is the refusal of most of these American and Western companies to cancel their sponsorship of the Olympics, and even implicitly announce their broadcast of the Beijing Winter Olympics through their own network of channels: most of prominent American and Western large multi national companies have refused to participate with their governments and politicians in what they called “the risk of insulting China”, and even openly challenged their politicians, in favor of China, by (declaring publicly to uphold all trade agreements with China). There are hundreds of American sponsors and major advertising companies also announced their participation in covering the Olympics in advertising and commercial, and many of the (American sponsorship large companies, prominent prestigious agencies and TV Channels have been undertaken to sponsor the international sports events at Winter Olympics in Beijing), considered the People’s Republic of China as one of their (largest global markets) for them at all, and their collective unwillingness to harm their interests, in favor of some controversial political issues that they don’t give them any kind of consideration at all.
The announcement by the major American private channels about broadcasting matches, games and all the events of the Beijing Winter Olympics publicly came in flagrant defiance of the orders of its American government and administration to politicize decisions against China: we can find out that “NBC TV network”, which had certainly benefited from a similar previous experience by canceling the broadcast of the “Moscow Olympics in 1980”, based on orders from the US government to boycott the Russian Winter Olympics at this time, but at that time it has incurred heavy losses for its participation to the game of politicizing the Olympics and sporting events in favor of limited political issues between its government and others. Indeed, many US channels networks announced the transfer of the Beijing Winter Olympics, declaring that:
“Sales of publicity advertisements for the Winter Olympics in Beijing were strong, and continued to extend to the last moment, given the importance of the global sports events hosted by China”
The challenge of the US administration to participate in the Beijing Winter Olympics from its home did not stop at the level of American athletes, companies and sponsorships, but extended to many other European and Western allies countries of Washington itself: we can analyse by observation the case of “real, tangible and public Western challenge to the American diplomatic boycott” of the Beijing Winter Olympics has emerged, which is what was announced by the Minister of Science and Culture of the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture during an interview with the Finnish National Broadcasting Corporation on January 17, 2022, in his public statement about his travel to Beijing to attend the Winter Olympics in February 2022, with the official confirmation of Finland, despite being a Scandinavian democratic important country, that:
“Washington will never share its desire to boycott sporting events and politicize sports for narrow limlited political agendas”
It has become more clear now that we have entered the “post-democratic era”, a stage in which populist currents and illiberal trends have become prevalent, as is the case in Europe and the West: here, we find the American insistence on dividing the world, after holding a conference on “Leaders Summit for Democracy” on December 9, 2021, with the aim of creating a clear (global division between countries that adopt democratic values and the authoritarian, totalitarian, non-democratic ones), which caused an international rift that resulted in more divisions and confrontations, which may lead to the question, concerning:
“Is that American democracy only one pattern and measured by American standards only? And whether the practices of the United States in the Middle East, such as: military occupation, stirring up unrest, and others, are considered democratic practices that are accepted by the United States and internationally?”
Here, I fully agree with the words of the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, in his deep understanding and analysis of the concept of democracy, by his assertion that:
“The best shoes are the ones that fit the feet, and the best way of government is the one that serves the welfare of peoples and societies. Democracy is not a private patent for any country, but rather the common values that all countries of the world have developed, based on their historical traditions and political realities should be highly respected”
Comrade “Xi Jinping’s view” here, is that the people have the right to judge whether the development path in their country is appropriate or not? For example, China insists on dealing with all countries and regimes, and even supports African and poor developing countries, from West Asian and North African countries and encourages all of them to (follow the development methods that suit their national conditions, and China is committed to respecting the sovereignty of countries by calling for consultations on an equal footing, strengthening solidarity and cooperation between everyone). Also, according to my accurate reading of the reality, we have also gone beyond the stage of globalization by other stages. We are no longer in the “post-globalization era”, but we are in the “age of adaptation to the results of globalization”, which is represented in the need for rehabilitation and continuous education to keep pace with modern technology and artificial intelligence, and this stage requires a radical change in “the language and vocabulary of the Chinese post-communist political discourse”, according to what I have been indicated and aforementioned analyzed.
After my new analysis of the new theories of “post-communism era” and “post-democratic era”, I may arrive here with a fundamental assertion, that the United States does not have the right to judge whether it is a democracy or not. This was confirmed by the great Chinese thinker “Confucius”, who has always been stressing that:
“If a person cannot correct his own behavior, how can he correct the behavior of others?”
Here, although the United States of America claims that it is a “beacon of democracy”, it has committed all kinds of violations against the most basic principles of human rights and democracies, by intervening to change regimes by force in the Middle East, such as the Iraqi and Afghan cases. Then its chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the consequent tangible regional and international chaos, in addition to the most important thing, which is “the American failure itself to impose its democratic and liberal values by force around the world,” and its dealings with many authoritarian regimes and even protecting them to achieve its interests.
Hence, we actually have to search theoretically and academically for other (analytical and explanatory approaches), in order to enter into new theoretical directions in the world of “post-postmarks”, which necessitates a reconsideration of American democracy itself, and the reproduction of the world of new ideas in the era of “post-democracy, post-communism, and authoritarian democracy”, according to the nature of the current confrontation mechanisms between the United States of America and China in the international arena, and the new discourses should be adopted and fitted with the existing events.
What China Does Not Know about India
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.
Holding on to Uncle Sam: US-Taiwan Relations
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.
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.
U.S. Violates Its Promises to China; Asserts Authority Over Taiwan
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.
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?
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
Unmasking India’s IB and RAW
India’s prime minister Narendra Modi granted a year-long extension in service to retiring heads of India’s Intelligence bureau (Arvind Kumar)...
Defense4 days ago
Is Fatigue Causing Twists and Turns in Russia Ukraine War?
Science & Technology4 days ago
Space exploration and the future exploitation of asteroids
Defense3 days ago
What makes India’s participation in the Quad intrinsically unique?
East Asia4 days ago
What China Does Not Know about India
Economy4 days ago
What are Market Anticipations and Policy Expectations as Shares Tumble?
Tech News3 days ago
New Initiative to Build An Equitable, Interoperable and Safe Metaverse
Middle East3 days ago
India-UAE tourism and education linkages
Environment3 days ago
Global Food Crisis Must Be Solved Alongside Climate Crisis