Jiang's era went out with Clinton (China, Taiwan)

President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó) and Vice President Annette Lu (§f¨q½¬) are vying to denigrate Hu. During a visit to Tatan island, Chen even appeared to belittle Hu and extol Jiang when he invited Jiang to come to Tatan for tea and a chat, apparently judging that Hu will fail to acquire genuine power.

Taiwan and the US have struck different tones. As early as Feb-ruary, when he visited Beijing, US President George W. Bush had already focused his attention on Hu. On his recent trip to the US, Hu received far more cordial treatment than Jiang ever has. The difference between Taiwan and the US is that Bush is already focused on the new era while Chen and Lu remain focused on yesterday's man, Jiang.

Jiang, former US president Bill Clinton and former Russian president Boris Yeltsin belong to a previous era. After the Tiananmen Square massacre and the collapse of the communist empire in the USSR and Eastern Europe, a wave of freedom and democracy swept over the world. The US became the world's only superpower and the leader of the free nations. Russia, its powerful adversary of yore, fell from its throne and embarked upon the path of transforming into a free democracy. Obviously, it should have the attitude of a new friend happy to accept help from the US and the free world.

But the weird thing is that the oldest large democracy and the newest large democracy are not becoming friends. Instead, they vie with each other to become strategic partners with the last large communist nation. The US exports modern technology to China, while Russia exports modern weaponry. Together they have helped to guide the rapid rise of Jiang's empire to replace the USSR as the new communist military hegemon.

Thus, the global wave of freedom and democracy has been forced to stop at the Great Wall of China.

Times have changed. Even if Hu wants to continue with Jiang's old act he'll never again find partners like Clinton and Yeltsin. He faces an era altogether different from that faced by Mao Zedong (¤ò¿AªF) and the late US president Richard Nixon or Deng Xiaoping (¾H¤p¥) and former US president Jimmy Carter, or even Jiang and Clinton.

Thirty years ago, Mao and Nixon established a US-China global strategy to counter the USSR and agreed to shelve the Taiwan problem for the short term. This strategy made for two points of equilibrium. The first point was a strategic, triangular equilibrium between the US, China and the USSR which prevented global military expansion by the latter. The second was a strategic, triangular equilibrium between the US, China and Tai-wan. This kept the peace in the Pacific from 1972 to 1978.

Twenty-four years ago Deng and Carter, while continuing the combined US and Chinese check on the USSR, broke the equilibrium between the US, China and Taiwan. Carter's national security advisor was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish-American. He had a pro-China and anti-USSR bias. He distinguished between bad "traditional communism" (the USSR) and good "commercial communism" (China), and he urged Taiwan to "continue to maintain its commercial freedom" under the rule of Deng's "commercial communism."

Under Brzezinski's guidance, the Carter administration's treatment of Taiwan included breaking diplomatic relations, withdrawing troops, scrapping treaties and pressuring Taiwan to negotiate with China on unification. Then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (½±¸g°ê) responded by refusing to make contact, negotiate or compromise. He took the path of reform to protect Taiwan and shattered Deng's dream of reunification.

The most ridiculous president in US history, Clinton, completely disregarded the enormous changes in the global strategic status quo after the fall of the USSR. He belittled free allied nations and indulgently allowed China to assume the USSR's former position as a military hegemon. He disregarded the free, modern nation of Taiwan which had created economic and democratic miracles, allowing Jiang to succeed in suppressing Taiwan, making military threats and shutting Taiwan out diplomatically.

Clinton cooperated with the "butchers of Beijing" by declaring the "three no's" policy regarding Taiwan and criticizing its then president, Lee Teng-hui (§õµn½÷), for being a troublemaker. He sent a delegate to speak at the UN's General Assembly against Tai-wan's bid to join the world body and he seriously damaged the strategic equilibrium between the US, China and Taiwan, generating turbulence in the Taiwan Strait for much of the 1990s.

Now all this has passed. Bush pointed out in a speech at the US National Defense University on May 1, 2001: "Today's most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.?They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world. They hate our friends, they hate our values, they hate democracy and freedom and individual liberty.?Many care little for the lives of their own people. Today's world requires a new policy, a broad strategy of active nonproliferation, counterproliferation and defenses.?We must work together with other like-minded nations to deny weapons of terror from those seeking to acquire them.?We must work with allies and friends who wish to join with us to defend against the harm they can inflict.?And together we must deter anyone who would contemplate their use."

On April 29, the day before Hu arrived in Washington, Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke at the Advanced School of International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. She repeated Bush's new strategy, saying: "Our goal today, then, is not just a favorable balance of power, but what President Bush has called a balance of power that favors freedom. When people are trying to kill you, and when they attack because they hate freedom, other disputes ... [between the US and its allies] suddenly look a bit different. They look like policy differences, not fundamental clashes of values."

Regarding China, Rice empha-sized, "China [is] a country in the midst of a fundamental and still uncertain transition... . While none of us believe that just because China joined the World Trade Organization, its democratic development is assured -- nobody believes that -- we do recognize that some of the things that China will do as a part of its WTO membership -- whether it's rule of law or transparency or giving greater economic freedom to entrepre-neurs -- will change the political landscape in China."

It was this group of new faces that Hu met in the US. They are different from the old figures of the Clinton administration, who were untrustworthy "China hands" adept at saying what people wanted to hear and whose positions fluctuated unpredictably.

These new people have clear minds and well-defined positions. Their actions accord with their words, and they can be trusted. They have abandoned Clinton's imaginary world and absurd strategy, and are facing the real world. Without any ambiguity whatsoever, they have proposed and are implementing the new Bush strategy which "favors freedom." Rice has pointed out that, "[Bush] is a president who has been successful because he is both morally clear and plainspoken." They welcomed Hu in a cordial manner, but they will never bow to his wishes as Clinton bowed to Jiang, causing harm to a free nation. They are willing to establish a constructive, cooperative relationship with China, but they will never shrink from mentioning that they hope China will move toward freedom.

Hu couldn't have failed to notice. He can't avoid facing this new era, the new world order, new opponents and new allies.

Ruan Ming is a visiting professor at Tamkang University and a former special assistant to the late Chinese Communist Party secretary-general Hu Yaobang (JÄ£¨¹). This is the first part of a two-part article. Part two will appear tomorrow.

Describes Clinton and his spineless corrupt sycophantic team well.

One thing also to keep in mind is who Ruan is (or was). He was at a high level in China's government in the 1980's before Tiananmen square.

He and all his kind were purged. He's exiled to Taiwan.

There are so many who parrot the ChiCom line that only the ChiComs can run China. They claim no one could take their place -- dissidents couldn't etc...

But Ruan and others who were purged prove them wrong. There were and could be a group of experienced competent people who would be able to govern a free China.

But they are neutralized.

A strongman perhaps but a believer in the free market and was generally very pro American and Anti Soviet( if you look at the way he dealt with commie hardliners within China and his foreign policy you could almost say he was anti communist). He was probably the best ruler China has had since the Tang dynasty. You have to give him credit Mao totally destroyed an already impoverished country after Deng it was pretty close to 1st world status and a great power. Not only that its population from what I hear( from people who have traveled there) is the most capitalistic in their thinking of any in the world( travellers get mobbed immediately by people trying to sell them things).

Hmmmmm. Anyone who thinks THEY REALLY understand China is probably delusional. . . even Mao. . . especially Mao . . .

Howsomever, I'd place my bets much more on Chen than on any U.S. power structure elite analysts. Bush Sr certainly didn't have much of a clue--thinking his hothouse 2 years as pampered and very carefully and cleverly managed Ambassador made him a grand expert.

It may be that Chen is merely aware that it's not over until it's over and Jiang still has plenty of power to cause trouble. But he'd be unwise to denigrate Hu. Doesn't sound very Chinese. It would be more Chinese to keep both as held in at least illusory esteem.

Of course, who knows what data is flowing at secret levels and which of that has any real foundation.

There ARE many skillful people very competent to run China. MANY are TRULY puzzled as to precisely the best ways to do it. They see, quite rationally, many flaws in the U.S. system. They are not thrilled with the European system. They want the blessings of the best of all systems. Formulating that, codifying it, systemizing it has so far eluded virtually everyone. It will take some very creative thinking to achieve it.

I did what I could to seed some thoughts to some key party members. I know many are certainly searching, learning, biding their time waiting for an opportunity to rise to the occasion and increase freedoms dramatically.

But fear of chaos is virtually genetic. No one wants death and chaos. Yet there's lots of seeting buried anger over Tienanmen. And yet there's plenty of youth who seem to have bought the party line and have a growing hostility to the U.S. and western ways. It's a troublesome mixture of things.

I suspect God will manage the forces very creatively to HIS ENDS.

Agree. The Chinese are, if anything, VERY ethnocentric.

Playing Chinese chess, the half game, when my student friend was teaching me, we'd be playing along and a friend would come up. . . another Chinese student.

Now, understand that his is a game which has written on the paper that comes with the chess pieces--two cardinal rules--one of which is--NO TALKING from onlookers--no assisting etc.

Anyway--I'd think that given that they'd both played all their lives and I was just learning, the newcomer would help me. WRONG!

A 3rd Chinese student friend would come up who'd also played all his life. . . I thought--wonderful, two against two. WRONG! it was 3 lifelong players aiding each other against the beginner. As many as 6 or 7 friends or even mere countrymen would end up colluding together against the western barbarian.

I've asked why in many different groups, contexts. It's like why is almost an incomprehensible question. It's like asking why there's a sky or why water is wet to them. It's like, there's no other option, OF COURSE Chinese would aid one another against the westerner. Fairness--which Chinese have a very KEEN and supersensitivity about if it involves others being fair to THEM--fairness just doesn't enter into that FROM THEIR ETHNOCENTRIC perspective.

One benefit, I'm now pretty good. Only about 3% of the students at the university can routinely beat me. Old men experts in the park won't play me unless they have no fear of losing face.

But this compulsion to help one another against the foreigner is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INTENSE AND SEEMINGLY GENETIC. It's quite a phenomenon for a shrink and sociologist to observe.

I think the youth in the Mainland who are somewhat cheekily hostile to the U.S. do it as a kind of ethnocentric pride mixed with rebellion against the world authority of the U.S. But MOST adults of any age maturity at all are keenly appreciative of American blessings to China in WWII AND currently. Certainly there is jealousy at many levels over the wealth and progress America represents.

I think you are full of fang pi.

Hot air, blather.

Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate them. But you sound like one of the Clinton people or ChiCom PR agents.

I could hear some stupid "expert" parroting the ChiCom talking points and get the same contentless meaningless remarks you made.

And the Almighty can and does speak for Himself.

Color me exceedingly mystified at your response.

I'm about as hostile as you can get to BILLDO AND SHRILLERY AND THEIR ILK AND TEAM AND IDIOLOGY.

I deplore the Beijing commies who are still entrenched and regret ever loosening anything in the way of less totalitarianism. I was there during the democracy demonstrations. I know the ruthlessness and the fear and the suffering if only 2nd hand on the part of the suffering. Your allegations are about as off the wall about me as I've experienced in a while. But I'm stilly mystified and curious as to how and where from you came up with them from any of my post. Sheesh.

My post was merely from the heart more or less off the top of my head from my memories and experiences and associations there. I happened to have had some very well connected close friends. I also happened to have the ear a number of times of a significant group of rising stars in the government.

You can blackwash all that and form delusional constructions on it until the cows come home but it won't change the realities I lived with and know about as well as I know myself or anything else.

You play up the negative and fatalistic thoughts and analysis that play right in to the ChiCom hands.

Given that Lake, a total ChiCom propagandist praises your coments, you should re-evaluate your view or perhaps how you present it.

I am glad to see your response and believe you and take you at your word. It's just that saying acquiesence to totalitarian is genetic is essentially what the ChiComs want you to believe. They also like the hostility to the US played up as if it is universal as well.

It's just that saying acquiesence to totalitarian is genetic is essentially what the ChiComs want you to believe. They also like the hostility to the US played up as if it is universal as well.

I don't recall saying anything close to "acquiesence to totalitarianism is genetic"

I think I noted that their ethnocentrism approaches, seems like,is virtually genetic. That's a very different statement.

Of course hostility to the use is not universal. But it's evidently much above what it was when I was there in terms of percentage of youth feeling that way. When I lived there, a very small minority ever evidenced such feelings at all--a VERY small minority out of 1,000. Now, the percentages seem significantly higher. That's sad and disturbing even if the percentages are from 1% changing now to 8% or even 12 or 15% or more.

I have no idea what it really is as I haven't systematically queried my loved ones living there now.

Third World democracies are a dysfunctional, chaotic joke. Just look around the globe. If democracy is so wonderful, why are all these Third World democracies such basketcases while China and the rest of one-party E. Asia all raced ahead? Hmm? It's also not some simple matter to change a government and automatically assume whatever follows will work smoothly or predictably, as you blithely believe. Indians are some of the smartest, most capable people in the world and many Indians recognize India desperately needs economic reforms like land and labor reform, but India's entrenched majority-poor population, who have the power of the vote since India is a democracy, always block such economic reforms. So any developing country needs to develop a majority-middle class population first through long experience with capitalism before adopting democracy. This was the case for America and Europe itself around 200 years ago (American and French Revolutions were led by "bourgeoisie") and formerly one-party Korea, Taiwan, etc. over just the past several years. They only adopted democracy after they developed middle-classes and no longer needed the services of 18th-century "enlightened despots" in the case of the West or garden-variety one-party authoritarian leaders in E. Asia's case.

>>The Chinese are, if anything, VERY ethnocentric.

Well, maybe they behave like that when they are in a group, but individuallly they may not be ethnocentric. They hate America while they admire the American advancement.

>>As many as 6 or 7 friends or even mere countrymen would end up colluding together against the western barbarian.

It's the bad part of the Chinese culture. They tend to believe in power and you were in the weak side. That explains why China needs a strong, powerful leader.

>>OF COURSE Chinese would aid one another against the westerner.

I don't think so. If the westner is powerful enough, they might aid him. The Chinese people is not a people of unity. They have been fighting among themselves for 5,000 years. Of course aiding foreigners is not popular in China because you are taking the risk of being called "traitor". When it goes to the nationalistic sentiment, no rationale works.

>>But this compulsion to help one another against the foreigner is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INTENSE AND SEEMINGLY GENETIC.

Because of the history.

>>I think the youth in the Mainland who are somewhat cheekily hostile to the U.S. do it as a kind of ethnocentric pride mixed with rebellion against the world authority of the U.S.

Also because they don't know the US. They don't know the hardship of the cultural revolution and they take the American culture they enjoyed for granted.

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.