Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international affairs is aware of the inordinate skills of China's diplomats to further the interests of the Middle Kingdom. For their part, officials in Beijing constantly insist that no country has the right to interfere in another's internal affairs.
And nowhere is this maneuvering more pointed and more harmful than in dealings over Taiwan and Tibet. But in order to bring or keep these lambs in the fold, all pretences of gentle diplomacy are dropped. Either they must accept the smothering love of the Motherland or face annihilation.
And so it is that given that the Chinese Communist Party occupies a glass house, it is not surprising that they fear having stones tossed from outside. By their very nature, authoritarian regimes are so brittle and fragile that a lone voice can be enough to bring about their collapse. It may not be enough to squelch internal dissent if views of outsiders openly dispute their domestic or foreign policies.
Most observers will also know that this "non-interference" policy is a one-way street for China. While insisting that others keep their nose of their affairs, Chinese officials often venture opinions on the goings on in other countries.
For example, Beijing frequently interferes with attempted visits by the Dalai Lama and Taiwanese public officials. A few years ago, China's ambassador to Australia, Zhou Wenzhong (周文重), issued an ominous declaration relating to dealing with Taiwan. He stated that "whatever means we choose to use is China's internal affair which brooks no foreign interference." All of this serves Chinese long-term objectives by maneuvering other countries into a position that accommodates Beijing's aims.
A recent case in point is found in China's stated opposition to Tokyo's decision to dispatch members of its Self Defense Forces to serve in Iraq. An editorial article in the official newspaper, China Daily, insisted that that the sending of its troops was banned under Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. But you have to give the Chinese credit on this point. After all, it takes an unimaginable dose of chutzpah for a totalitarian regime to insist on the sanctity of the rule of law.
Of course, it is understandable that many of its neighbors bear a grudge against Japanese aggression and worry about a resurgence of nationalist impulses. But conjuring up memories of Japan's wartime atrocities must be understood to be a clever ploy to keep Tokyo off balance in international affairs.
To this end, officials in Beijing (and Seoul) often insist that apologies issued for occupation by Japan were insufficient or lacking in sincerity. Meanwhile, the regular visits by senior Japanese politicians to the burial site of several convicted war criminals of the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo elicit statements of outrage.
Showing an ability to pile outrage upon outrage, Beijing introduced inaccurate and distorted information about Korea's early history to further Chinese political hegemony. In particular, Chinese officials have offered a gross misrepresentation of descriptions of the Koguryo (Goguryeo) empire (37 BC to 668 AD) whose territory included part of a Chinese regional kingdom. This strong warrior state successively defeated invading armies of the Chinese empires.
In the Chinese version, Koguryo was incorporated into a Chinese historical timeline and included a claim that these people were of "han" Chinese descent. Beijing also interfered with an effort by Pyongyang to place Koguryo tombs on UNESCO's World Cultural Heritage list of historic sites.
Ethnic Koreans that had lived in the region previously known as Manchuria for many centuries formed the core of the empire. Eventually, their capital was moved to Pyongyang from Jian in Manchuria in the fourth century.
After Koreans and Manchurian tribes lived together for centuries, they were incorporated into Chinese territory with a treaty by Japan and the Qing dynasty in China in 1909. It is amusing to think that Marxist-Leninists insist that unequal treaties signed by imperial powers have any legitimate force. It was left to Korean learned societies to insist that Beijing place the Korean kingdom of Koguryo in its proper historical perspective.
For its part, Beijing insists that everyone else should exercise the highest standards of historical probity. For example, the media and diplomatic channels have been used to criticize the content of Japanese history textbooks. It is a blatant act of hypocrisy to be inconsistent in stating concerns over the correct retelling of past deeds and misdeeds.
It is likely that the incident is part of a well-orchestrated and purposeful attempt to increase its political influence in Northeast Asia. This probably reflects concern over the large numbers of ethnic Koreans living in the northeastern provinces of Laoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang that were granted considerable autonomy during the early 1950s.
On the face of it, the fudging of a historical moment might seem a small matter. But, it turns out that China has irredentist claims on all its borders and in the waters that touch its shores. As it is, China claims about 80 percent of the entire area of the South China Sea, including the Spratlys and Paracels that lay along a broad plateau stretching from its eastern coastline up to 1,600 kilometers.
But hypocrisy, duplicity and deception are recognized skills of diplomacy. While Beijing is not alone in wielding these tools, its mastery of these dark arts make even the French look like amateurs. Those who would ignore Chinese intent and ability do so at their own peril.
Christopher Lingle is Professor of Economics at Universidad Francisco Marroqu in Guatemala and Global Strategist for eConoLytics.com.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS