I was a US diplomat in Beijing in 1979 when the US normalized relations with China and have been involved in China affairs ever since. I therefore take issue with "China Lends a Hand," an article published in the Washington Post by my former boss, Richard Holbrooke.
Holbrooke said China "lent a hand" in North Korea, Sudan and Myanmar. In reality, it was more like "China bites a hand."
On Korea: The Feb. 13 Beijing "joint statement" on North Korean denuclearization said nothing about Pyongyang currency counterfeiting or US sanctions.
Yet China demanded the US unfreeze US$24 million in North Korea's Macau bank accounts or the Beijing government would go public that US inflexibility -- not North Korea's criminal activity -- was the cause of Pyongyang's refusal to comply with the "statement."
On Sudan: The international outcry against China's support for Sudan's genocidal regime did prompt Beijing to dispatch Chinese Ambassador Zhai Jun (
When Zhai was asked specifically about the Sudanese government helicopter gunships that had supported the Janjaweed as they razed villages and massacred villagers in Darfur, he said: "I don't know anything about helicopter gunships."
When National Public Radio correspondent Mary Kay Magistad asked whether he believed the Sudanese government was not supporting the Janjaweed, he said: "I didn't say anything about support -- I haven't asked them anything about this, and if they were supporting them, they wouldn't tell me."
Just a few days earlier, Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan (
What does China really say about Darfur?
On the same day as Zhai's press conference, the China Daily wrote: "Harsh demands have been made of Sudan but little respect has been shown for the country -- one of the largest on the African continent. As a sovereign nation, Sudan, which learned bitter lessons during the colonial years, aspires to territorial integrity, national unity, ethnic reconciliation and regional peace and stability."
And that was it.
On Myanmar: Little comfort should be taken from US diplomats' talks with Burmese officials in Beijing about the nearly two-decade incarceration of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
Last year, the US Department of State told Congress that when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) visited Yangon, "he emphasized the need for Burma to have a more inclusive political process." That would have been nice if it were true. In reality, China praised Myanmar for "continu[ing] to advance the process of national reconciliation." That was all.
Last year, then deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick also told a congressional panel that "some of you might have seen there was a report by the new foreign minister of Hamas [Mahmoud al-Zahar] for the Palestinian government sort of saying he was going to go to China. I raised this with the Chinese promptly. Within two days, the Chinese said `we didn't invite him.'"
Zoellick portrayed Beijing's quick response and "non-invitation" of al-Zahar as the "foundations of the type of discussion with China about the types of mutual interest that we can have and work together."
Of course, the Chinese lied to him. China indeed had invited al-Zahar. A senior Israeli "involved in Chinese affairs," who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me that because Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Al-Zahar had a wonderful time in Beijing, by the way.
"On a bilateral relationship, yes, it was successful," al-Zahar said. "I met the minister of foreign affairs [Li Zhaoxing,
That was June 2 last year.
As I write this, on June 29 last year, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier on the Gaza border, sparking an Israeli retaliation attack. Chinese-made weapons have also been used by militants against armies in the Middle East, including Israel's.
What does this prove? That most US government officials and "opinion elites" -- like Holbrooke -- are wont to engage in wishful thinking when it comes to China. The least little gesture by China is seized upon as evidence of "China lending a hand" when the reality invariably is "China biting a hand."
John Tkacik is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
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