China's foreign policy finally comes of age

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.

>>the notion that the KMT no longer calls the shots is an illusion.

The KMT still controls the politics, economy, media and military in Taiwan. The support for the KMT comes from the upper class of Taiwanese society, while the DDP's supporters are mainly lower-class people who don't have enough resources.

>>Thus nowdays, the KMT no longer sees the PRC as the archenemy and the KMT can no longer claim to be a balwark of "anti-communism."

Historically the KMT and the CCP were brothers. I don't see any difference between today's CCP and Chiang's KMT. That's why Jiang said weeks ago that the CCP is the "loyal follower" of Sun's idea.

>>The notion of a KMT-CCP "confederation" which would rule the Mainland and Taiwan has been openly proposed.

Not only "confederation", some KMT people who used to be diehard anti-communist are now talking about a new KMT-CCP alliance. They are preparing to set up braches in the Mainland.

The KMT gave up some of their power because they were forced to by others who had growing economic and political power. One of these groups was the indigenous Taiwanese elite who had power before the KMT invaded from the Mainland, and many of whom had supported the Japanese occupation of Taiwan for 50 years. One of their leaders was Lee Teng-hui:

Where did you get this idea?

The era of KMT in China was totally different from KMT in Taiwan and totally different from KMT of today. It was in the plan of transferring political power to local people. The best example was Hsia, Lin Yong-Gung and Lee and they were not rich and powerful.
Well, Lee was a traitor to his party and it was a joke to Lee that he was kicked out by the KMT and most of KMT members are his fellow local Taiwaneses. If you know Min-Nan Yu you will be ashamed the words and phrases Lee uses in his speech. He was not a leader, he was a low-class "da lao chu" and BTW, he loves money. His wife tried to smuggled 500 million CASH into the US.

DPP was supported by the US so that KMT will not be in the way of US-China trade. Look at the broader picture and think. US wanted a stable Asia and KMT was one of the trouble maker and would not give up any chance for a re-take of China. You have to look at the Asia 25 years ago.

Most of your analysis are good but this one is off the course. Sorry!

Did you read Lee's book? He got involved in politics was an accident.

Communism was not really such a big deal. We let ourselves fool ourselves into thinking was. Revolutions per se are more important, but they still just represent a Chaotic (as in science, not so much government) singular event point in the evolution of a nation. In fact, Communism was always just a white wash over the real factors, and we confuse the real base factors with Communism. Russia was more adaptable to it because the serfs didn't own much of anything anyways. They didn't have banks and banking, just mattresses, so they hardly missed it. China has always though of itself as separate isolationist, so Mao's isolationism was Chinese based, not Communist based.

The First American Revolution succeed to a great extent because it actually had a lot of British support. The Second One hasn't been completed because the base concepts of the Founders are still relatively exotic to most Americans in practice. The French Revolution is perhaps the most fascinating of all because he revolved on itself in several permutations. Still, the French remained just as impossible now as they were before.

It is always best to go back and long at the long term nationalistic imperatives and give them more credit than superficial ideologies.

China will be a play in Afghanistan, though most likely a player in the background. The recent scene between Bush and North Korea is a clue. It looks to me to just be an excuse to let Chinese military hardware, perhaps produced in Korean factories, into afghanistan to do to us what we did to the Russians. What goes around comes around.

You must have heard of those who were executed or put in prison for opposing the KMT.

I heard some went to prison but not aware of people executed. I was totally brain-washed by the KMT and ignornant, not like those smart people provided you those secret information.

US imprisoned tens of thousands Japanese-Americans during the WWII. After the WTC attack, US detained and watched a lot of Middle-Eastern-Americans. Sir, it is a war. During a war people establish rules and laws to protect majority. Go study the wars between Taiwan and China from 1949 to 1965 then tell me what the policies should be.

BTW, I read an article over the net says Tibet was part of China for 700 years. Interesting!

>>Go study the wars between Taiwan and China from 1949 to 1965 then tell me what the policies should be.

Of course the KMT dictatorship was the right policy. Also go study the wars between the CCP and the US and the USSR from 1949 to NOW then tell me what the policies should be. Please also tell me the difference between the CCP and the KMT.

You are really something. CCP & US, USSR & US?

There was never an actual fight (war) between CCP & US or USSR & US and that is why we called them COLD WAR. Taiwan and CCP had actual wars and people got killed, especially in the early years after 1948. CCP has been trying to invade Taiwan since 1948 and still tries to today. KMT used to thinking about taking back mainland China for a long time. There were actual wars. During the Gang of Four era in China, Taiwan had a slightly chance to have troops landed in China.

You have not answered the Japanese-Americans's imprisonment and current Arabic-American detaintions. Yeah, it is different, we have TWO major parties instead of one.

>>The "urban" Zhou Enlai-led faction broke off from the KMT and formed the CCP.

There were mainly three types of CCP factions at the time: 1)intellectuals and academics who introduced Marxism to China and thought it would solve the problems in China. Most of them were French-educated students, including Zgou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. They were impressed by the Russian Revolution led by Lenin. Also they knew the west civilization and democracy. 2)Soviet-trained communists who were sent to Russia by the CCP or the KMT, including Chiang's son. Those people were radical revolutionaries who took orders from Moscow and acted like Russian proxy. 3)native communists who were poor students, peasants or workers, including Mao. They got involved in the revolution mainly for their personal reasons, porverty, unemployment, hatred, or ambition. They were the most destructive forces and believed in nothing but violence. Before the CCP split from the KMT, many CCP members had important positions in the KMT. Zhou Enlai was the head of political department of KMT's military academy. Mao was the head of peasant movement committee of the KMT.

>>Thus the CCP leaders in power today do have a strong affinity and common historical roots with the KMT, which the Maoists didn't have.

One of the ways to distinguish factions in the CCP is to look at their families or education background. Mao was from a middle peasant family in a rural villige and his wife, Jiang Qin, was brought up in a landlord's house where her mother worked as a housemaid. Zhou was from a bankrupt landlord family and educated in France and Japan. Deng was also French-educated and his father was a landlord. Liu Shaoqi's father-in-law was a big capitalist in Tianjing and his wife spoke fluent English and worked for the Americans in Beijing after WWII.

>>The KMT maintained good commercial relations with the US. The DPP did get some US support, as long as they agreed to maintain policies that were favorable to American investors in Taiwan.

I believe the KMT has more connections in the US than the DPP has. Everytime when the US is talking about "Taiwan is our friend", it referrs to the KMT.

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.