On Sept. 1, the Xinhua news agency published excerpts from a white paper on the government's policies and positions on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. The aim was to create an image of Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) as an "angel of peace" prior to his planned North American trip.
China rushed out the report in response to the threat to use nuclear missiles against the US in mid-July made by Major General Zhu Chenghu (
Before discussing this issue, it is necessary to clarify a sentence in the white paper -- "China's national defense budget has been reviewed and approved by the National People's Congress, and it is both public and transparent."
According to the "Report regarding the implementation of the 2004 budgets for the central and local governments and the draft 2005 budgets for the central and local governments," this year's defense budget says: "To improve the ability of our military to use advanced technology in defensive warfare, respond to sudden incidents and protect our national sovereignty and territorial integrity, 244.656 billion yuan [US$30.3 billion] has been allotted to national defense, an increase of 12.6 percent over last year." Given only this figure and ignoring the rest because they are "military secrets," the congress passed the budget.
Is this what they mean by "public and transparent?" Basing the report on such a lie also makes the whole report a lie.
The white paper's first topic is an explanation of China's nuclear-arms policy. It reiterates the claim that China will not be the first to use nuclear arms. Repeating it 100 times, however, would still be useless, since Beijing hasn't punished Zhu for airing an opinion that violates government policy. If Zhu did not violate discipline, then the white paper is a big lie.
The second topic deals with biological weapons. The white paper states that China respects its obligations under international treaties, but it doesn't deny that it is conducting research into such weapons. The reason this topic is discussed is that there have been outbreaks of strange diseases in recent years, raising suspicions that these stem from viruses developed in biological warfare-related research. The outbreaks have been classified as national secrets. Leaking any details about them is banned. Why the ban if these are not military secrets?
The third topic deals with "preventative" policies. Last year, Chinese submarines went as far as Guam for "preventative" purposes. During the recent Sino-Russian military exercise, Russia used long-distance bombers that China is considering purchasing. It might get both technology and patents, allowing it to build its own planes. These aircraft can fly 5,700km without refueling, which is more than the distance from the China's coast to the west coast of the US. If China builds these planes, we can only wonder where it plans to drop its bombs.
The fourth topic is troop reduction and maintaining a low level of defense spending. The two issues are lumped together to show that increased military expenditure is largely due to improving the welfare and pay of military personnel. The size of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been almost halved since 1985. But since 1989, China's defense expenditures have increased by two-digit figures annually.
If the above were true, PLA personnel would be very well-off, so it is odd that veterans have made so many appeals for better treatment that Beijing had to ban further appeals. It is evident that all the increased defense spending has gone toward purchasing weapons or been embezzled. In any case, it is widely accepted that China's actual military expenditure is three times the stated amount.
Fifth, China claims that it has been active in international non-proliferation efforts. Not true. Nuclear and missile technology in North Korea, Iran and Pakistan can all be linked to China's weapons proliferation. Last October, the Sinopec Group signed an oil-gas agreement with Iran in exchange for closer military ties.
The white paper also makes threats against other nations. It says "China does not wish to see a missile-defense system produce a negative impact on global strategic stability." It also says "As the Taiwan question involves its core interests, China opposes the attempt by any country to provide help or protection to the Taiwan region of China in the field of missile defense by any means."
China does not explain what it means by "core interests" but clearly this is a reference to the interests of the senior leadership.
All this proves that China is no more than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson and Lin Ya-ti
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS