China - Jiang Zemin Comments -- Support for war or obstructionsim?

US Government ^ | 10-19-01

[tallhappy]

At the "Joint Press Availabilty" in Shanghai with President George Bush and Communist Party Secretary General Jiang Zemin, Jiang was asked specifically about support for "U.S. military action in Afghanistan."

His answer is worth noting in full. Is it support or obstructionism?

Here is the question and answer.

Q:And a quick question to our host, sir. Do you support the U.S. military action in Afghanistan, which President Bush says could last one or two years?

PRESIDENT JIANG: In my discussion with President Bush this morning, I've made clear that we are opposed to terrorism of all forms. And what we have done in the past has shown this attitude of ours very clearly. We hope that anti-terrorism efforts can have clearly defined targets. And efforts should hit accurately, and also avoid innocent casualties. And what is more, the role of the United Nations should be brought into full play.

I'd also like to make a comment on anthrax. I've also heard about it. And I think with regard to this problem, all countries should take a unanimous stand, because it's a public hazard. We should all unite and work to prevent it from spreading any further.

That's the end of the press conference. Thank you.

[tallhappy]

His answer is hardly a ringing endorsement or statement of solidarity or support.

Calling for a full UN role and no innocent casualties seems more obstructionist than supportive.

His immediate termination of the press conference is also strange.

What do you think?

[america-rules]

If the Chinese don't say "NO" it means yes so they are not obstructionist.

[Snerdley]

I think he's on board. He just wants clear assurances that our military action is not aimed at anything other than erradication of terror. I'm sure he's not happy haveing so much of our military so close to China, but as long as he knows we aren't going after China, then he's ok with that.

I'd ignore the UN comments. He's just grandstanding and trying to increase his influence by invoking the UN (veto power?). It isn't going to happen and he knows it.

-Snerdley

"Never start a fight, but by God, ALWAYS FINISH IT!"
-Captain John Sheridan
Earth Space Station Babylon 5

[NoCalEyes]

Russia can NOT like this type of relationship between China and the U.S.
They NEED China and the U.S. at odds, that is what they live for ~~~

[cgbg]

they are not obstructionist

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

(Hint: have the Chinese ever called in the UN to assist with their Muslim terrorist problem--or have they butchered the terrorists and anyone related to them like dogs?)

[Steven W.]

I was very intrigued by Bush's demeanor during the press conference ... I believe the Chinese tried to play hard ball during their meeting. I think Bush stood firm but was seemingly ticked. Now, that said, it's also possible he was concerned about reports on CNN immediately preceding the press conference "announcing" the "start" of ground troop deployments or he (obviously) had a lot of other things on his mind, but he was noticeably irked at something & my inference was that they (Chinese) were obstructionist during the meeting.

[Republican Wildcat]

a non-response response.

[Sooner]

Bingo.

[CJ Wolf]

Ah but who does he define as the 'terrorist'? 'Terrorism in all forms'. Can you say "Great Satan"?

Boycott china, they are not our friends.

[drypowder]

UN??? UN??? We don't need no stinking UN. Stick the UN and all the countries that say the US needs to have the UN involved. It is appalling how fast Bush acted to pay the UN dues following 9/11.

[Yougottabekidding]

Russia can NOT like this type of relationship between China and the U.S. They NEED China and the U.S. at odds, that is what they live for ~~~

Actually, what Russia really needs is to sell their aircraft, tools, electrical power stations, trucks, oil, and other products. Capitalism works, and Russians know it. -- Been there, done that!

[American Soldier]

Jiang is just praying we don't have a permanent presence there - he's acting polite so that we'll hand over as much influence as possible to the UN (i.e. China/3rd world dirtbags) so that we won't be able to act "unilaterally" in their backyard. We need to have military close to China...it would be nice to have a permanent presence in Central Asia especially so the Chinese could be made fully aware that taking back Taiwan means losing Eastern Turkestan. However I don't know if we could even support bases there very well, unless the Russians would cooperate and both the U.S. and Russia were to focus on allying with each other as opposed to Russia allying with every Muslim fundamentalist and Communist ***hole they can find...

[super175]

Personally I think there are several things here.

1.Chinese are known for doing blatant on the spur of the moment upredictable stuff. They were going nuts about Bush, now they are over their little tantrum and ready to get on with business.

I think they wanted to get back to normal a long time ago, but things were not so easy in the coming...

They need to learn to keep their cool if they want to maintain relations. They found out that they offended a lot of people with their outbursts, although they don't see it that way.

2. I think most of the more responsible people in China side with the US on this. Despite what it looks like through CCP politics, they know that if some foreign power came to Beijing and killed 5,000 people they would not be shouting for peace...

The Party does not want to look irresponsible or fecitious...

[DoctorMichael]

Response to one aspect: His immediate termination of the press conference is also strange.

Maybe about 3 (?) months ago one of the news stations showed a press conference with J.Zemin in Hong Kong and one of the reporters had him "pinned" on some obscure point.......and while the cameras were rolling Jiang went absolutely bonkers, got out of his seat, gesticulated wildly at the reporter (chattering away in Chinese). I thought he was going to completely loose it and break the camera! It was reminiscent of Zhironvski (?) in Russia getting into fights etc. on shows and in the Russian parliament

My comment: These guys still haven't got the "massaging-the-public" bit down yet, ie. they may be suits but their still tyrranical SOBS.

[flamefront]

Powell and Cheney both refer to a role for the U.N. to follow up the response in Ashcanistan.

[betty boop]

Them's weasel words, tallhappy -- IMHO. Hardly a declaration of fast support for PRC's American "partner." Looks like Jiang wants to play both sides against the middle to me. FWIW. Thanks for the post. best, bb.

[tet68]

Ringing endorsment??? Hell he sounds exactly like a democrat!

Yes,No,well maybe.

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

Sounds ok to me. He's just worried like every other country that the US might take this to "expand its horizons." We would be worried about this too if China was attacking Belize for a similar attack on them.

[flamefront]

PRESIDENT JIANG: In my discussion with President Bush this morning, I've made clear that we are opposed to terrorism of all forms. And what we have done in the past has shown this attitude of ours very clearly. We hope that anti-terrorism efforts can have clearly defined targets. And efforts should hit accurately, and also avoid innocent casualties. And what is more, the role of the United Nations should be brought into full play.

This harks back to Kadaffi and his notion of 'bad forms of terrorism' which begs just what is a good form?

It all depends (use your best Klintonese) what the meaning of "terrorism" is. One country's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. For Jiang his history is built on eradicating clearly defined targets of terrorists ...

in Tiennamen Square.

[Lake]

>>they know that if some foreign power came to Beijing and killed 5,000 people they would not be shouting for peace...

Absolutely. The whole nation will go crazy. Blood for blood is one of the Chinese heritages. That's why they never forget what happend in Nanjing in WWII.