Posted on 10/18/2001 10:02:07 PM PDT by super175
Most Chinese people - along with most of the international community - think the central Government's decision to side with the United States and its partners in the fight against international terrorism is Beijing's wisest decision in a decade.
President Jiang Zemin, who was among the first foreign leaders to telephone President George W. Bush after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, has handled the crisis well. He has condemned the September 11 assaults, expressed his shock and condolences to the American people, and reiterated his full support for the fight against terrorism.
In the past, Beijing has disappointed its people with poor foreign-policy decisions - for example, the central Government has been soft on Japan and stayed mute when Pakistan's military staged a coup two years ago.
The worst episode was in 1990, when Beijing abstained in the United Nations Security Council's vote endorsing the use of force to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait. China has been victimised by Japanese and other foreign aggression, so most Chinese are baffled as to why their government is sympathetic towards Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
China's unconditional support of the US-led war against terrorism is refreshing for the world and the people of China. A week after the attacks, Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan went to Washington on a trip that had been scheduled earlier to prepare for this weekend's summit between Mr Jiang and Mr Bush at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting in Shanghai. During Mr Tang's visit, the two countries agreed to share intelligence that might aid the Bush administration's war on terrorism. Soon after, Beijing sent a delegation of counter-terrorism experts to Washington to explore avenues of co-operation.
But for most Chinese, humiliations at the hands of America - for instance, the US-led Nato bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in May 1999, and the mid-air collision of a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet resulting in the loss of the fighter pilot in April this year - are still fresh in the mind.
Chinese people simply do not believe US claims that the embassy bombing was an accident because they think US intelligence systems are too sophisticated to allow such an error. As for the spy-plane incident, most Chinese are less concerned with the actual cause of the accident than with the fact that the US was spying on their country. Most insulting, in their view, is Washington's dismissal of its surveillance activities as "routine" and its resumption of such flights shortly after the accident.
Given this angry backdrop, many Chinese, although shocked, took some solace in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon because they revealed America to be as vulnerable as China. These people believe that to some extent the US Government's unilateral policies are to blame. That does not mean they think Islamic extremists are blameless or that ordinary American people deserve to be hurt, just that the US has reaped what it has sown.
There are plenty of reasons for Beijing to co-operate with the US-led international coalition against terrorism. This will burnish China's international image, improve its relations with Washington and legitimise its fight against terrorism in Xinjiang province, where pro-independence Islamic extremists periodically stage violent attacks.
Initially, Beijing might have attempted to link its co-operation with US support for its fight against separatists in western China and Taiwan, but it later decided this was unwise during such a crisis. But Beijing might still be concerned that US retaliation against Afghan-supported terrorist organisations could result in a long-term US presence in Central Asia and an expansion of Japan's military role.
Sino-American relations are at a crossroads. The US should stop demonising China, which cannot be a "strategic competitor" for the foreseeable future, even though Beijing prefers a multi-polar world. And China should initiate political reforms and abandon its policy of making the fight against US hegemony its security priority. In fact, the Chinese people and the American people are friends - it is just their governments that do not get along. One lesson to be drawn from the September 11 attacks is that it is much safer to make friends than enemies.
When Beijing and Washington drop their Cold War mentalities, they will find they are more constructive partners than strategic competitors. They will find a new world in which all people can live peacefully and co-operatively.
All the nations of the world - especially such powers as China, Russia and the US - are re-evaluating their foreign policies after the terrorist attacks. Most noticeably, Washington is co-operating more with the UN and its member countries and is involved more in the Middle East peace negotiations (the US has even come out in support of a Palestinian state).
The US-led military strikes on Osama bin Laden, who is alleged to have masterminded the September 11 attacks, and the Taleban regime harbouring him in Afghanistan have so far been proper and limited, although some hawks in the Pentagon want to expand the war.
These are signs that a new world is coming and Beijing and Washington should seize this opportunity.
Zhang Tianguang (zhangtianguang@yahoo.com) is a senior engineer who studied American Studies, as a civilian, at the PLA's Foreign Language University in Luoyang, Henan province.
Read some books still does not help you. You have to UNDERSTAND.
The KMT were not communist. They were also friendly to America. They also had democratic aims.
You seem to be misinterpreting the actual radicalness of communism and the communist party in context of the time.
There was one group called the Dixie Mission (from America) who preffered Mao though. Those people were later purged. John Paton Davies and several others were bona-fide communist sympathizers.
That's why the US supported KMT. What I mean by "good" is "friendly to America"
The DPP in Taiwan used to be called "communist sympathizers" by KMT. After DPP took power, it started calling KMT "communist sympathizers". Sounds like "communist sympathizers" are everywhere.
I did know some facts about China.
This though would be an interesting topic to look up...when and were and how the US got relations with the KMT...
One thing for sure, the KMT were not radical ideological Maoist communists. That probably tipped the scales in their favor...
Also we have to realize, in the 1920s and 30s and all the way up into the 1940s, the Communists were a small band of radicals out in the countryside. They did not even have the appearance of a legit government. What should America do? Choose a bunch of hooligans running around the countryside, or a somewhat established government?
China, under the KMT was headed down the path in the 1930s that the Mainland is now headed down (finally) in 2001. The Communists had a revolution against that though. Even Deng was put in prison, if I am not mistaken, over his economic views.
Communism interrupted what was originally the plan...
You scored a point with that comment...
Radical or not, it doesn't matter. The KMT was much more radical than the warlords it defeated. So what? I bet the US would have recognized PRC in 1949 if Mao promised to protect the US's interets. The Ameican ambassador didn't leave Nanjing when PLA seized the city. Instead he satyed there for several months and tried many times to contact CCP authorities with the help of his student, Huang Hua, who later became Chinese foreign minister. But Mao asked the US to apologize for its "mistake" or "crime" of supporting Chiang in the civil war before considering the possibility of establishing any diplomatic relations with the US. Of course this was something the US wouldn't do, so CCP expelled all US citizens from China.
>>They did not even have the appearance of a legit government.
Actually the CCP did set up a central government, called "The Soviet Republic of China", in its territory. Of course no one recognized it.
>>What should America do? Choose a bunch of hooligans running around the countryside, or a somewhat established government?
An established government was the right choice. No question about it. However, the US got so much involved in the civil war between KMT and CCP that there were no way CCP could be friendly to the US after it took power. Otherwise there wouldn't have been the Korea War and the Vietman War. Britain was smart. It stayed neutral during the civil war. Although it was ready to abandon Hongkong when PLA was marching towards the colony, Mao's troops stopped advancing at the border. Britain and China established deplomatic relations in 1950 and the CCP didn't confiscate or freeze British assets in China.
Right.
>>It was a revolution against the KMT and their 'capitalistic' ways.
It was a revolution against the KMT, but not neccessarily their 'capitalistic' ways. Liu Shaoqi said to the capilists in Tianjing right after liberation, "the more the capitalists, the better".
>>China, under the KMT was headed down the path in the 1930s that the Mainland is now headed down (finally) in 2001. The Communists had a revolution against that though. Even Deng was put in prison, if I am not mistaken, over his economic views.
How did the US know in 1940s that Deng would be in prison in 1960s? Did the US supported KMT because Truman had seen the future of China and the Cultural Revolution? BTW it was during the Cultural Revolution that the US and China became partners against the USSR. Did the US criticize Mao's "atrocity" when Nixon visited Mao's bedroom and chatted with "the great leader of a great nation"?
>>Communism interrupted what was originally the plan...
The plan only existed in the books.
US interests were to fight and defeat communism.
Did the US government think so?
Although China was technically 'communist' they were (and still are) operating in the grey area...
It was something like 30 years that the US withheld recognition...
If China did not help the US win against the USSR, we most likely still would not recognize the PRC. The CCP had to do something big to win trust.
I've never heard the term "communist sympathizers" when I grew up there. It is the translation that messed up the "facts". Just like we had the discussion long time ago about "yong guei zi".
I'm lucky that I read from both English and Chinese sources and I'm really shocked to find out especially in the mass communication field's translation is the worst. It scrwed up so many facts and no REPORTER even knows it.
Since I started using internet I don't watch TV and read news magazine anymore.
I have to admit that my kids always laugh at my English.
No, it is. It is the only significant part of China which was not taken over by the Communists and for many years Taiwan was considered by many countries (including Taiwan) as THE CHINA and where THE TRUE Chinese government had its temporary seat. To say that Taiwan is not part of China is like to say that West Berlin (or East Berlin depending on your attitude to the Soviet block) was not a part of Germany during the Cold War.
I think it is common everywhere. In the Cultural Revolution the logic was very simple: You are either with us (revolutionary) or you are against us (anti-revolutionary). If you are not a communist, you have to be anti-communist. If you are not anti-communist, you must be a communist. It is like black-or-white logic, easy for peasants to understand, though the inventors won't believe it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.