Chinese President Hu Jintao (
In his first substantive paragraph, Hu states, "Back in the 1420s, the expeditionary fleets of China's Ming dynasty reached Australian shores. For centuries, the Chinese sailed across vast seas and settled down in what was called `the southern land,' or today's Australia. They brought Chinese culture here and lived harmoniously with the local people, contributing their proud share to Australia's economy, society and thriving pluralistic culture."
These statements are poor malarkey. There is not the slightest evidence that Chinese ships visited the northwest coast of Australia, let alone settled here. And the Chinese fleets, though great, had a very limited period of activity. They most certainly did not travel "for centuries."
However, what is most offensive about these statements is that China uses these voyages to claim islands far to the south of Vietnam as Chinese territory. Is China laying the basis for a future claim of Australian territory?
A few paragraphs later, Hu correctly states, "Democracy is the common pursuit of mankind, and all countries must earnestly protect the democratic rights of their people." But it is simply not true that China has "moved steadfastly to promote political restructuring and vigorously build democratic politics under socialism, while upholding and improving our systems of people's congresses, multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party and regional ethnic autonomy." About the only true part of that statement is that China remains under the "leadership of the Communist Party."
A few paragraphs later, Hu says, "China and Australia are different in social systems. This is the result of different choices made by our people in light of their national conditions and the two countries' different historical evolution."
Again, when have the Chinese people had a "choice?" The revolution, when the Chinese people last had some choice, finished in 1949. Since then the Chinese people have had no opportunity to express their wishes about their social system or about their political leaders, local or central.
Finally, in the last substantive paragraph, Hu addresses the issue of Taiwan. He reiterates the Chinese position that "Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory." But he goes on to say, "The greatest threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait is the splittist activities by Taiwan independence forces." This is not true on two levels.
First, the only party threatening military action in the Taiwan Strait is China, which persists in refusing to renounce the use of force. Each year, China also adds 50 missiles pointed at Taiwan to its arsenal, so that now the num-ber of Chinese missiles pointed at Taiwan is around 400. On the other hand, Taiwan has not threatened China. Nor has the US, Japan or Australia.
Second, according to June polls run by the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, less than 10 percent of Taiwan's residents identify themselves as "Chinese." Over 40 percent identify themselves as "Taiwanese," while another 40 percent describe themselves as both "Taiwanese and Chinese." Only one of six residents favor unification with China even in the future and those who favor immediate unification number less than 5 percent.
Unlike Chinese, Taiwanese do have the right to vote and decide on their future and, at least at present, they do not want to re-unify with China.
Hu's call that "The Chinese government and people look to Australia for a constructive role in China's peaceful reunification" is very strange. Up to now, China has claimed Taiwan to be an "internal matter" and told other countries to stay out of its affairs.
If Hu is asking Australia to side with China against the US on the Taiwan issue, he is mistaken. Australia has consistently (though more quietly) sided with the US in support of a peaceful resolution of the issue. This Australia-US cooperation on Taiwan started in the early 1990s as Taiwan democratized and has continued under both Labor and Liberal governments.
China's blatant attempts to control Australian democratic institutions are also offensive. The calls and e-mails of the Chinese embassy to Australian media asking that protests against Hu be ignored in reporting is an attempt to transport Chinese practices to Australia. The demand for three guests of the Greens to be removed from the public gallery -- or else Hu would refuse to speak -- is also insulting and unacceptable.
As a China specialist for 35 years, I laud the improvement in the Australia-China relationship. But improvement is a two-way street and Hu should also show respect for Australian democracy. As noted above, Hu said, "Democracy is the common pursuit of mankind, and all countries must earnestly protect the democratic rights of their people." This, of course, includes the Chinese people, who account for one-fifth of mankind.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, where he is director of the Taiwan Research Unit.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS