Posts tagged ‘negotiations’

Thursday, September 8, 2022

The State of Taiwan

First of all, let me come clean: like many people I know, I take sides. I believe that Taiwan’s citizens have a right to determine their future, and that China has no legitimate reasons to interfere with Taiwan’s affairs.
However, you may be aware that not everybody sees Taiwan this way. China’s Communist Party (CPC) doesn’t only want to rule Hong Kong, Macau, and “the mainland”, as the People’s Republic is often referred to by mainlanders, Hong Kongers, Macauans, and by many Taiwaners alike. Rather, the CPC wants to rule Taiwan, too.

taiwanren_are_also_chinese

“Taiwanese are also Chinese, aren’t they?” A tourist from Hong Kong visiting Taiwan on “double-ten” day, in 2009

In the end, China will most probably try to occupy Taiwan, either by laying siege – a naval blockade – to it, or by trying to invade it right away. In either case, China will probably have its way unless Taiwan’s (probably substantial) military resistance gets support from America, and maybe from Australia, Japan, and other countries. So, if lucky, China would gain control over Taiwan by military force, and that would be that (apart from a rather unpredictable Taiwanese population under occupation – Taiwaners could turn out to be rather unruly).

A. Image concerns

But success by naked force, however tempting it may be in the eyes of many Chinese citizens, isn’t the preferred means to achieve the goal of what the CPC refers to as „reunification“. That’s true for a number of economic and military (including nuclear) reasons, as even a successful invasion and a rather smooth occupation might come at heavy opportunity costs, imposed by countries that wouldn’t accept China’s annexation of Taiwan.

This is also true for image reasons, While China appears to have abandoned the idea that it could convince the Taiwanese that „reunification“ with China would be in their best interest, it apparently still hopes to achieve the goal of „peaceful reunification“ by coopting Taiwan’s economic and political elites, and by intimidating a sufficient number of Taiwan’s citizens so as to push them over.

But if the need for military action to achieve „reunification“ would arise (from China’s point of view), China would like to justify its military aggression, just as it has tried to justify its efforts to isolate Taiwan internationally (hint: the never-ending Taiwan-WHO saga, or pressure on governments of third-party  countries to threaten Taiwan’s economic lifelines.

On Twitter, you are faced with a lot of Chinese propaganda, carried forward by the CPC’s official mouthpieces as well as its useful minions (some of them may be paid by China, others may act out of mere fanatism). Some free samples:

Table 1

“Taiwan is an inseparable part of China” (Reality shows that this is not the case.)
“If Taiwan declares independence, we / China will go to war right away.” (We are looking for an excuse – we’ve decided to annex Taiwan anyway.)
“Taiwan has always been a part of China.” (Only during the Qing era, and only if the Qing cared to say that there was “one China” including Taiwan. They probably didn’t care.
“There is only one China.” (Yes, and thank God for that.)
“Taiwan is part of China because Taiwan’s official name is “Republic of China”. If so, which Congo is part of the other? There are two Congos, the “Republic” and the “Democratic Republic”.China’s logic probably prescribes that the Republic must annex the Democratic Republic, because it’s always the democratic countries that get annexed.
You / your country have committed yourselves to the one-China principle. This is probably the case in a number of bilateral declarations of China and third governments – but by no means in each of them. For example, “one-China” policy basically means that you somehow handle China’s “once-China” principle, not necessarily that you agree with it.
Besides, you can always walk away from it – it has happened before.

So, a lot, if not all of the mouthpiece talk on “social media” is hollow words, suitable for propaganda, and maybe not even that. But China has to make do with the excuses it can find to gloss over its aggressiveness.

Did I mention that China applies pressure on third-party governments to deny Taiwan international space? Well, it isn’t just the World Health Organization, or the Nigerian government who accept that pressure, because it comes with good business. Many other third-party countries do likewise, to varying degrees. We’ll have a look at the examples of America and France later on.

But first, let’s take a look at the nomenclature that is flying around when people talk about China-Taiwan relations. To that end, I might use some pseudomath (it isn’t really that scientific).

B. Chinamaths

Table 1

table_one_mainland_china

or the other way round,

Table 2

table_two_orc
Then there’s that One China – or more than one idea of what that is. But wide swathes of mainland Chinese people, plus uncertain numbers from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, will have this kind of math on their mind:

Table 3

table_three_orc

From the CPC’s perspective, it can’t be
table_must_not_exist
because that would imply that Taiwan’s political system would be the emperor of the whole Congo.
Now, when we are talking about Taiwan, we usually refer to everything that is governed from Taipei, not just the island of Taiwan itself, although that’s where Taiwan’s (or the ROC’s, etc.) citizens live.

Table 4

table_four_taiwan
That’s my definition of Taiwan, too – when you read “Taiwan” in this post, this table-4 definition is the definition of it.

C. Taiwan: one country, two positions

Position 1 (pan-Green, more or less)

It may be more than two just as well, but these are the two I can think of.
One is that, when Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan, it didn’t transfer sovereignty to anyone else. Two authors, Michal Thim and Michael Turton, described that position in an article for “The Diplomat” in 2017 – they are themselves supporters of this position, I believe.
Under international law and practice, only an international treaty can settle the status of specific territories, they wrote, adding that the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the Treaty of Taipei between Japan and the Republic of China on Taiwan fell under that category. If those two had contradicted one another on the matter of Taiwanese sovereignty, the San Francisco Peace Treaty would have outweighed the Treaty of Taipei, but both treaties were silent on the issue of who owned Taiwan, merely affirming that Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan.

Position 2 (pan-blue, more or less)

Another position, also widely spread among Taiwanese citizens (if they care about what might be the legal superstructure of their statehood) is the Republic of China.
Now, there are probably many sub-positions to this one, like Taiwan equals the Republic of China, or that Taiwan can somehow claim mainland China (plus Hong Kong and Macau)  as well (that would be a minority, I guess). There is also a an interpretation of what the RoC is that seeks common ground between the San Francisco Peace Treaty supporters, and the RoC guys. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen adopted (and possibly coined) it when she ran for president for the first time, eleven years ago: the ROC, having lost all its territory in 1949, found shelter on Taiwan.

“Taiwan Independence”

In practical daily life, globally speaking, China and Taiwan are two separate countries. The rest is silly political squabble. But the silly squabble is accompanied by the clouds of war, and that’s why the rest of the world tries to take it into consideraton.
Obviously, wanting to please China (because it might be great business) is another reason to care about the “one-China” noise.

Supporters of the San-Francisco-Peace-Treaty version may argue that Taiwan is independent because Japan gave up sovereignty over it, and because there was nobody entitled to pick it up.

The “Taipei Times”, a paper from Taiwan’s “pan-green” political camp, led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), described it this way, in 2017:

Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) changed the constitutional system and became the nation’s first directly elected president.
By “vesting sovereignty in Taiwanese,” he acknowledged that Taiwan had become an independent state via democratic elections.

This, from Taiwan’s pan-green point of view (or the “Taipei Times” rendition of it), means that Taiwan’s independence is the status quo. Taiwan is independent, and the above is the legal reason.

Position 2, the pan-blue one, basically, may be best summarized by what former Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou told an American audience in 2017:

On the question of Taiwanese independence, Ma recalled once being asked by a reporter why the island doesn’t formally declare. “Have you ever heard of a country declaring independence twice?” he replied. “We were an independent country back in 1912 — how can I declare independence again?”

1912 refers to the declaration of the Republic of China in the aftermath of the 1911 Xinhai Revolution. Ma therefore sees Taiwan as an independent state in the continuity of the mainland RoC from 1912 to 1949. That is pretty much in line with the general KMT view.

And if any version of “Taiwan independence” was palatable to the CPC in China, it would be this second one, because it is somehow about “one China”. The official reason for Beijing to be mad at Tsai Ing-wen and her DPP is that they would rather consider Lee Teng-hui the founding father of Taiwan’s sovereignty, than RoC founder Dr. Sun Yat-sen.

They ignore, however, that President Tsai’s position is somewhere between those two positions, and probably leaning towards position 2. It would be hard to ignore the RoC superstructure when you want to become Taiwan’s President – in fact, you are sworn in on the RoC’s constitution, in front of a large picture of Sun Yat-sen. That’s a tradition left behind by the KMT’s dictatorship era when there was only one legal political party on Taiwan anyway – the KMT itself. The RoC had, for many years, been a one-party state.

What is noteworthy is that both positions – pan-green and pan-blue alike – avoid another declaration of independence. What either camp would do if there wasn’t a threat of war from China is a question for another day. China’s reading of Taiwan’s status is that there hasn’t been a Taiwanese declaration of independence (yet).

How does the rest of the world deal with the “one-China” noise (mostly from China, not from Taiwan)? Let’s have a look at two third-party governments that have established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and severed (official) diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (RoC). Some countries either switched official diplomatic relations from Taipei to Beijing at some point in time, and some others – like the Federal Republic of Germany – hadn’t had diplomatic relations with Taipei anyway, and therefore found it rather easy to establish theirs with Beijing.
The two examples I know a few things about are the American and the French positions concerning Taiwan’s status.

D. Third-government positions

Sample 1: America

The frequently-quoted Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China (aka the “Shanghai Communiqué”), issued in February 1972 on a visit by then U.S. President Richard Nixon to China, says that

The Chinese side reaffirmed its position: the Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all U.S. forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of “one China, one Taiwan”, “one China, two governments”, “two Chinas”, an “independent Taiwan” or advocate that “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined”.

As far as the withdrawal of U.S. forces and military installations are concerned, the U.S. appears to have obliged (although there may be varying, and unconfirmed, numbers of U.S. military staff plus equipment in Taiwan from time to time, or permanently, or whatever).

But Washington did not agree with China’s definition of Taiwan’s status – the 1972 Joint Communiqué basically says that the Americans listened to what the Chinese said about it during the talks:

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes. The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges.

Nearly seven years later (save one month), Washington and Beijing established diplomatic relations. That was accompanied by the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations of January 1, 1979. Here,

The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.

This is followed by a bilateral reaffirmation of the principles agreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Communiqué. Also,

The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

When you have read some “legal papers” before, you’ll probably think that in the 1979 Joint Communiqué, Washington didn’t accommodate Beijing’s positions any further than in the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué. I also think so.

The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China (1972) only says that Washington understands that Chinese people in China and Taiwan see it that way.

The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China (1979) doesn’t even acknowledge that an unspecified number of Taiwaners (“all Chinese”) sees it that way.

Sample 2: France

France went a step further than America in pleasing China – in 1994, that is, not in 1964 when Paris and Beijing established official diplomatic ties, and when Paris didn’t mention Taiwan at all, according to a piece by France-Info, published in August this year.

In 1994, France stated in another communiqué with China that (my translation)

The French side confirmed that the French government recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legal government of China, and Taiwan as an essential part of Chinese territory.
La partie française a confirmé que le gouvernement français reconnaît le gouvernement de la République Populaire de Chine comme l’unique gouvernement légal de la Chine, et Taïwan comme une partie intégrante du territoire chinois.

Now, I would think that this states explicitly that Taiwan, from France’s point of view, is under China’s jurisdiction. But Antoine Bondaz, a Research Fellow and the Director of both the Korea Program and the Taiwan Program at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), points out that (my translation)

France doesn’t say explicitly that Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China, there isn’t any such declaration.
La France ne dit pas explicitement que Taïwan fait partie de la République populaire de Chine, il n’y a eu aucune déclaration.

Sounds like logic applied by a bunch of weasels, but that’s diplomacy. And if this assessment is correct, you can be pretty sure that China’s diplomats knew that, and still didn’t squeeze France to make further concessions (because that would have meant no communiqué at all, I suppose).

E. Some cold hard facts

All this is mostly about superstructure – cream on a cup of coffee that wouldn’t go away even if there was no cream. What remains as a fact is the existence of Taiwan (and its semiconductors, of course), and a Chinese disposition towards violence against Taiwan.
So if there are two Chinas, just as there are two Congos, why would China believe that it has a right to harass, invade and/or annex Taiwan?
Former Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi probably said it best, at the 17th Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi in July 2010, reportedly: “China is a big country and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact”.

____________

Note

Thanks to Multiburst who suggested that this topic deserved some more attention than what a few tweets would allow.

____________

Related

Some people, March 23, 2022
China-Deutschland, “Beijing Rundschau”, Oct 11, 2017

____________

Friday, July 8, 2022

Chinese-Philippines Ties: “Brimming with Expectations”

The following is my translation of a press release by the Chinese foreign ministry (FMPRC), published on Wednesday morning (GMT) this week.

Links within blockquotes were added during translation.

Lines of disputes in the South China Sea (map)

一百聞不如一見:
maritime disputes (click map for source)

Main Link: 

Wang Yi meets Philippine national security advisor Carlos

王毅会见菲律宾国家安全顾问卡洛斯

On July 6 local time, State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Philippine National Security Advisor Ms Carlos1) in Manila.

当地时间2022年7月6日,国务委员兼外长王毅在马尼拉会见菲律宾国家安全顾问卡洛斯女士。

Wang Yi said that Sino-Philippine have a thousand-year history of friendly relations. During the past six years, with the joint efforts of both sides, Sino-Philippine relations had achieved a change for the better and advanced quality. The election of President Marcos had opened a new page in Sino-Philippine relations, and the two countries’ peoples were brimming with expectations for the development of bilateral relations. This visit represents the Chinese side’s focus on Sino-Philippine relations and its support for the new government, the continuity and stability in China’s friendly policies toward the Philippines. China would like to cooperate with the Philippine side to implement the important consensus between the two heads of state, to deepen pragmatic cooperation and to initiate another “golden age” in Sino-Philippines relations.

王毅表示,中菲有着千年友好交往历史。过去6年来,在双方共同努力下,中菲关系实现转圜改善、提质升级。马科斯总统当选为中菲关系翻开了新的一页,两国人民对双边关系发展充满期待。此访旨在体现中方对中菲关系的重视和对菲新一届政府的支持,体现中国对菲友好政策的连续性和稳定性。中方愿同菲方落实好两国元首重要共识,深化各领域务实合作,开创中菲关系下一个“黄金时代”。

Carlos said that the two peoples of the Philippines and China were were deeply attached and culturally connected to each other. China was a friendly major power. Chairman Xi Jinping had emphasized that he wanted to create a prosperous and beautiful future together with the Ascia-Pacific countries. The Philippine side is fully in favor of this and would like to broaden exchange and cooperation with the Chinese side, handle disagreements properly, promote mutual trust, improve confidence, gather goodwill and strengthen friendship.

卡洛斯说,菲中两国人民相亲、文化相通。中国是友善的大国。习近平主席强调要同亚太国家共创共享和平繁荣的美好未来,菲方完全赞同,愿同中方扩大交流合作,妥善处理分歧,促进互信、增强信心、积累善意,巩固友好。

Wang Yi said that China had never followed the traditional great powers’ road of colonialism and lootings and that it would maintain its own peaceful development, maintain cooperation and win-win, maintain shared development of opportunities with neighboring countries, join hands to build the community of human destiny2) together and take good care the global village inhabited by all of us together.

王毅说,中国从不走传统大国殖民掠夺的老路,将坚持自身和平发展,坚持合作共赢,坚持与邻国分享发展机遇,携手共建人类命运共同体,呵护好我们共同居住的地球村。

Wang Yi emphasized that China and the Philippines were neighbors neither of which could be moved away, and our choice was friendship, friendship, and friendship again. The healthy continuation and the stable development of Sino-Philippine relatoins was in accordance with the two countries’ and the two peoples’ fundamental and long-term interests. Given the current international and regional situation full of uncertainty and instability, the two sides must continue and enhance their traditional friendship, and let Sino-Philippines relations become more stable and durable, so as to keep them moving forward on the right track.

王毅强调,中菲是搬不走的邻居,我们唯一的选择就是友好、友好、再友好。中菲关系健康持续稳定发展符合两国和两国人民的根本和长远利益。面对当前充满不确定不稳定性的国际地区形势,双方要传承弘扬传统友好,使中菲关系更加稳固坚韧,始终沿着正确轨道向前发展。

Both sides believed unanimously that people-to-people exchange should be strengthened and that the two countries’ friendly public opinion and the societal foundations of the two countries’ friendship be solidified.

双方一致认为应加强人文交流,夯实两国友好的民意和社会基础。

The two sides unanimously believed that the valuable experience of the two countries should be summed up, the overall situation of Sino-Philippine friendship should be actively protected, bilateral relations should not be defined by disputes, and definite differences not be allowed to be in the way of the two countries’ cooperation.

双方一致认为应总结两国交往宝贵经验,努力维护中菲友好大局,不以争议定义双边关系,不让具体分歧阻碍两国合作。

____________

Notes

1) Clarita Reyes Carlos, aka Clarita Carlos
2) frequently, but not precisely, translated as a community with a shared future
____________

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

Biden-Xi Videolink last Friday: “Some People haven’t put the positive statements of Mr. President into practice”

When one guy knows what the other one thinks while saying something completely different, that’s probably called successful diplomacy – at least when relations are rotten. That’s also true for the video meeting of the American and Chinese heads of state last Friday (March 18).
What strikes the reader of the communiqués are the shares of the two participants in each others’ readouts.

Xinhua communiqué of Biden-Xi videolink on March 18, 2022

Characters count: Biden 224 / 1187 Xi (Xinhua)

The White House’s readout contains only 164 words, none of which can be attributed to the Chinese interlcoutor alone – and it mentions implications and consequences if China provides material support to Russia. Xinhua, on the other hand, doesn’t even mention President Biden’s threat.
Let’s focus on the Xinhua communiqué.

The first cross-purposes talk is about the legendary “One-China policy”. This term, probably garaged in every joint statement ever issued by China and a new diplomatic counterpart, can mean very different things from one country to another. The US, for example, “acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.” There’s no position taken by the United States here.

So when Biden declares that “that U.S. policy on Taiwan has not changed”, Xi Jinping knows that this is no recognition of China’s claims concerning Taiwan. Still, as if they mean the same thing, Xi expresses tells Biden how much he values his statement.

Following that, Xinhua’s account moves on to Chinese accusations made by Xi. Sino-US relations hadn’t recovered from the difficulties created “by the previous administration” (i. e. the Trump admin, but without naming it). Rather, even more challenges to these relations were emerging. Xi continues:

In particular, some people in America send wrong signals to the forces [in Taiwan] supporting “Taiwanese independence”. If the Taiwan issue isn’t handled well, this can have a subverting effect on [Sino-US] relations. We hope that America attaches sufficient attention to this. The immediate cause for the situation in Sino-American relations is that some people on the American side don’t implement the significant consensus the two of us [Biden and Xi] have achieved, and that they haven’t put the positive statements of Mr. President into practice either. America’s strategic intentions towards China have created misinterpretations and wrong assessments.
特别是美国一些人向“台独”势力发出错误信号,这是十分危险的。台湾问题如果处理不好,将会对两国关系造成颠覆性影响。希望美方予以足够重视。中美关系之所以出现目前的局面,直接原因是,美方一些人没有落实我们两人达成的重要共识,也没有把总统先生的积极表态落到实处。美方对中方的战略意图作出了误读误判。

Xi ostensibly gives Biden “credit” by condemning the Trump administration. This follows an opportunistic pattern in China by which it also judges its own past dynasties. Every misery and every defect is blamed on (now powerless) sinister guys from the pre-“communist” past, and the CPC is the mother of all progress. That’s how those in power today can talk with each other and be at ease – albeit at the cost of historical accuracy, at least in public.

Also, Xi applies a similar ambiguity to opponents in America, as Biden America applies to the status of Taiwan. Who are those “some people on the American side”? They could refer to quarters within the Biden administration, but also to opposition politicians like Trumps former secretary of state Michael Pompeo – considered a spawn of hell by Beijing, for reasons like these.

As China doesn’t understand the concept of an opposition, those portrayed by Xi as saboteurs may just be some American newspaper columnist who happened to catch his eye.

Then the conversation – according to Xinhua – turns to Ukraine. Xi uses the same keywords as usual – avoiding escalation, paying attention to the tasks of the moment, overcoming “cold-war mentality”, etc.. Both heads of state agree, finally, to make efforts respectively to a) get their countries’ relations back on track and b) to find an appropriate solution for the “Ukraine crisis”.

Main Chinese concerns, apart from more stable Sino-US relations, appear to be economic issues. The situation “it had come to in Ukraine” wasn’t what China wanted to see, Xinhua quotes Xi. He criticizes “comprehensive and indiscriminate sanctions that caused “suffering among the common people, and points to a double challenge – Covid-SARS and economic development, both influenced by the two most recent crises.

There may be one deviation from the usual talk however: “only the one who attached the bell to the tiger  can remove it again”.

If Biden followed up and asked if this referred to him or to Putin (or Zelensky, or everyone) is not passed down on us, but one might guess that Xi didn’t mainly refer to Moscow.

Ding Xuexiang, Liu He and Wang Yi as well as other persons attended on Xi’s side of the meeting.

Thursday, March 10, 2022

Flames of War, deeply felt and lamented by China

The following is my translation of a Xinhua report, republished by the Chinese government (State Council). There’s also a translation by “China Daily”, on their “English-Language Solutions” website. Blend them together as you see fit.

It might be worth mentioning that one of the participants on Xi’s side was Ding Xuexiang (丁薛祥), the Communist Party’s general office director, although Xi probably took part in the “video summit” in his capacity as China’s head of state.

March 8 Xi-Macron-Scholz "video summit"

Chinese pyramid: That’s the way Xi likes it


Main Link: Xi Jinping holds video summit with French and German leaders
习近平同法国德国领导人举行视频峰会

March 8, 2022, 19:53, Xinhua
2022-03-08 19:53 来源: 新华社

In the afternoon of March 8, Chinese state chairman Xi Jinping held a video summit with French president Macron and German chancellor Scholz.
新华社北京3月8日电 国家主席习近平3月8日下午在北京同法国总统马克龙、德国总理朔尔茨举行视频峰会。

Xi Jinping pointed out that in the current world, once-in-a-hundred-years changes and the centennial pandemic situation go hand in hand. They bring global challenges that require global cooperation. China and Europe speak numerous common languages in terms of seeking peace, seeking development, and promoting cooperation. We must shoulder responsibilities to bring more stability and certainty to a turbulently changing world. The two sides must take a continuous and far-sighted approach to strengthen dialogue, maintain cooperation, and promote Chinese-European relations. China’s development will bring more space for Chinese-European cooperation. Based on the principle of mutual benefit and double-win, the two sides must maintain and deepen green and digital partnership relations and pragmatic cooperation in all fieds. The two sides should continue and maintain multilateralism, and advance major global agendas.
习近平指出,当今世界,百年变局和世纪疫情交织,带来很多全球性挑战,需要全球性合作。中欧在谋和平、求发展、促合作方面有很多共同语言。我们要拿出担当,为动荡变化的世界注入更多稳定性和确定性。双方要加强对话,坚持合作,推动中欧关系行稳致远。中国的发展将为中欧合作带来更大空间。双方要继续本着互利共赢原则,持续深化绿色、数字伙伴关系和各领域务实合作。双方要继续坚持多边主义,推进重大全球性议程。

Macron and Scholz expressed congratulations regarding the successful holding of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games. The world is facing many challenges, and fighting alone will only worsen the situation. The European side attaches importance to China’s important and positive role in global affairs and wants to work closeley with China to make common efforts to solve climate change, public health and other important global challenges. The European side wants to work together with theChinese side to  successfully hold a European-Chinese leaders’ meeting, to promote a continuous forward development of French-Chinese and German-Chinese as well as European-Chinese relations.
马克龙、朔尔茨表示,祝贺中方成功举办北京冬奥会。当今世界面临诸多挑战,单打独斗,只会使形势恶化。欧方重视中国在世界事务中发挥的重要和积极作用,愿同中方紧密合作,共同努力解决气候变化、公共卫生等重大全球性挑战。欧方愿同中方一道,办好欧中领导人会晤,推动法中、德中以及欧中关系不断向前发展。

The two sides exchanged views on the current situation in Ukraine.
双方重点就当前乌克兰局势交换意见。

Macron and Scholz explained their opinions and positions concerning the current situation in Ukraine, saying that Europe is facing the most serious crisis since World War 2, and that France and Germany support a negotiated solution of the problem, to give peace a chance. They thanked the Chinese side for advocating humanitarian proposals. They want to strengthen communication and coordination with the Chinese side, mediate peace and promote talks to avoid further escalation of the situation which would create an even more serious humanitarian crisis.
马克龙、朔尔茨介绍了对当前乌克兰局势的看法和立场,表示欧洲正面临二战以来最严重危机,法德支持通过谈判解决问题,给和平一个机会。感谢中方提出人道主义局势倡议,愿同中方加强沟通协调,劝和促谈,避免局势进一步升级,产生更严重人道主义危机。

Xi Jinping emphasized that the current situation in Ukraine is worrying. The re-ignition of the flames of war on the European continent is deeply felt and lamented by China. The Chinese side advocates that all countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity are respected, that the United Nations’ charter’s objectives and principles should be complied with, that all countries’ reasonable concerns should be attached importance to, and all efforts directed at the peaceful solution of the crisis should be supported. The top priority job now is to avoid further escalation, let alone loss of control, in the tense situation. The Chinese side appreciates the French and the German efforts to mediate in the Ukrainian situation and wants to maintain communication and coordination with the French, German and European side to play a positive role together with the international community in accordance with any side’s requirements in this matter.
习近平强调,当前,乌克兰局势令人担忧,中方对欧洲大陆重燃战火深感痛惜。中方主张,各国主权、领土完整都应该得到尊重,联合国宪章宗旨和原则都应该得到遵守,各国合理安全关切都应该得到重视,一切有利于和平解决危机的努力都应该得到支持。当务之急是避免紧张局势升级,甚至失控。中方赞赏法德为斡旋乌克兰局势所作努力,愿同法方、德方和欧方保持沟通和协调,根据当事各方需要,同国际社会一道发挥积极作用。

Xi Jinping emphasized that we must jointly support Russian-Ukrainian peace talks, maintain momentum in the two sides’ negotiations, overcome difficulties to keep the talks going, and to arrive at results and peace. We would like to call for the greatest degree of limits and restraint to avoid a large-scale humanitarian crisis. China has put forward a six-point initiative concerning the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and would like to provide Ukraine with further humanitarian material aid. We want to work together to reduce the negative impact of the crisis. The relevant sanctions are creating shocks for the stability of global finance, energy, transportation and supply chains, create burdens for the global economy already under the negative impact of the pandemic, and are disadvantageous for all sides. We must actively advocate common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security concepts. The Chinese side supports France and Germany setting out from Europe’s own interests, giving thought to lasting security in Europe, maintaining strategic independence and promoting the building of an equal, effective and sustainable European security framework. The Chinese side also views an equal dialogue between Europe, Russia, America and NATO with optimism.
习近平强调,我们要共同支持俄乌和谈,推动双方维护谈判势头,克服困难谈下去,谈出结果、谈出和平。我们要呼吁保持最大限度克制,防止出现大规模人道主义危机。中方提出了关于乌克兰人道主义局势的六点倡议,愿向乌克兰进一步提供人道主义物资援助。我们要一起努力减少危机造成的负面影响。有关制裁对全球金融、能源、交通、供应链稳定都会造成冲击,拖累疫情下负重前行的世界经济,对各方都不利。我们要积极倡导共同、综合、合作、可持续的安全观。中方支持法德两国从欧洲自身利益出发,为欧洲持久安全着想,坚持战略自主,推动构建均衡、有效、可持续的欧洲安全框架。中方也乐见欧俄美及北约开展平等对话。

The two sides also exchanged views about the Iran nuclear issue.
双方还就伊朗核问题交换了意见。

Ding Xuexiang, Yang Jiechi, Wang Yi, He Lifeng and others took part in the meeting.
丁薛祥、杨洁篪、王毅、何立峰等参加会议。

Thursday, March 3, 2022

Forgetful Fury

There’s a lot of talk about China feeling uneasy about Russia these days – which may be so.

But don’t expect China to support any measures that could topple Russia’s regime. For one, they need Russia on their side if they try to invade Taiwan: politically for sure, and militarily (in terms of arms supplies or other kinds of technical support), probably. Also, it is generally useful to have a permanent backer at the UN Security Council (if the Chinese ambassador there forgets his smelling salts, for example, and passes out at a critical moment for feeling uneasy, next to Russia).

If you know China’s North Korea policy, you’ll know it’s Russia policy even better. North Korea is a disaster zone with missiles, and Russia is a gas station with missiles, working warheads, and veto power. And with tanks, obviously, but that doesn’t matter to China.

If China did anything that toppled Russia’s regime, it would be inadvertently.

But there’s another reason for China’s reservations, too. China’s regime is much worse than Russia’s. It’s fascinating how easily the hell named Xinjiang has been forgotten on the international scene. Do those who ask China to condemn the invasion of Ukraine really know who they are talking to? Do they want to prove the obvious, because they know the answer? Or do they hope for a moderating effect of Beijing’s unease, on Moscow’s killing spree?

The last point would be the likeliest. But it doesn’t look like a gamechanger either.

Be mad at Moscow, if you have to, but don’t be forgetful.
____________

Related

We cannot even die for a cause like them, Uyghur Times, March 2, 2022
____________

Saturday, February 19, 2022

Wang Yi: Minsk II “the only way”

Xinhua MSC coverage, Febr 19

Xinhua MSC coverage, Febr 19

Main link: FMPRC press release, Febr 19

On February 19 in the evening, State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on invitation, took part in the 58th Munich Security Conference, gave a keynote speech by video link from Beijing. He answered the conference host’s questions concerning China’s approach and position concerning NATO eastward expansion, European security and the situation in Ukraine.

2022年2月19日晚,国务委员兼外长王毅在北京应邀以视频方式出席第58届慕尼黑安全会议中国专场并发表主旨讲话。王毅现场回答了主持人有关中方对于北约东扩、欧洲安全和乌克兰局势态度立场的问题。

Wang Yi said that the Cold War has long ended. Being a result of the Cold War years, NATO should judge the hour and size up the situation and make necessary adjustments. If NATO blindly expanded eastward, will that be conducive for maintaining long-term peace and stability in Europe? This is a question our European friends should seriously reflect on.

王毅表示,冷战早已结束,北约作为当年冷战的产物,应该审时度势,作出必要调整。如果北约一味东扩,是否有利于维护欧洲的和平稳定,是否有利于实现欧洲长治久安?这是一个值得欧洲朋友认真思考的问题。

Wang Yi emphasized that all countries’sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity ought to be respected and protected as this was a fundamental standard in international relations, reflecting the United Nations Charter’s objectives. It was also a principled position that had always been upheld by China, and Ukraine was no exception. If anyone doubted China’s position on this issue, that was just a hype with ulterior motives, and a distortion of China’s position.

王毅强调,各国的主权、独立和领土完整都应当得到尊重和维护,因为这是国际关系的基本准则,体现的是联合国宪章的宗旨,也是中方一贯秉持的原则立场,对乌克兰也不例外。如果有人在此问题上质疑中方的态度,那就是别有用心的炒作,也是对中方立场的歪曲。

Wang Yi said that as a permanent Security Council member, China had always decided on its position based on the merit of the issue itself, thus handling international matters. China believed that concerning the Ukraine issue, one should get back to the Minsk II starting point. As this agreement was binding,  agreed upon by all parties after negotiations, and obtained the Security Council’s approval, it was the only way to solve the Ukraine issue. According to our understanding, both Russia and the European Union support Minsk II, and when I had a phone conversation with US Secretary of State Blinken recently, America also expressed support. As that’s the case, why can’t the parties sit down together for a full discussion, produce a roadmap and a timetable towards a workable protocol? What every party needs to do now is to earnestly assume responsibility, make efforts for peace, rather than blindly pushing up raising tensions, creating panic and make war.

王毅表示,中国作为安理会常任理事国,一贯按照事情本身的是非曲直决定自身立场,处理国际事务。中方认为,在乌克兰问题上,现在应该尽快回到新明斯克协议这一原点。因为这一协议是当事方通过谈判达成的具有约束力的协议,得到了联合国安理会的核可,是解决乌克兰问题的唯一出路。据我了解,俄罗斯、欧盟方面都支持新明斯克协议,前不久我同美国国务卿布林肯通电话时,美方也表示支持。既然如此,为什么各方不能坐在一起进行充分讨论,制定出落实协议的路线图和时间表。当前各方需要做的是,切实负起责任,为和平而努力,而不是一味推高紧张,制造恐慌,甚至渲染战争。

As for the prospects of solving the Ukraine issue, Wang Yi said that Ukraine should become a bridge, connecting East and West, rather than a frontline state in the confrontation of powers. As for European security, all sides could raise their own concerns, with Russia’s reasonable security concerns being respected and taken seriously. China expected that all sides should find a solution through dialog and consultation.

至于乌克兰问题解决前景,王毅表示,乌克兰应当成为东西方沟通的桥梁,而不应该成为大国对抗的前沿。对于欧洲安全,各方都可以提出自己的关切,其中俄方的合理安全关切应该得到尊重和重视。中方期待各方通过对话协商,找到真正有利于维护欧洲安全的解决方案。

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

Update: DPRK Institute of International Studies on Development as a Human Right

The following is an update to yesterday’s blogpost on the same North Korean article, but from a different source (Voice of Korea’s German service).
The KCNA article has actually been online since yesterday, although not as prominently as by Voice of Korea who put it right after their daily news bulletin.
As KCNA doesn’t use permalinks, I have copied and pasted their content in English and Chinese, as follows. I’m not aware of the original article’s wording (which can also be found on KCNA’s website), but the English and Chinese versions, with the same content in all paragraphs with about the same emphasis, both adopt a style as seems most fluent in the language they use.

2019_calendar_demilitarized_zone

“DMZ – another Chance for Peace”,
a 2019 calendar co-published by
KBS World Radio and the
DMZ Ecology Research Institute,
sponsored by “the CDF of
Korea Communications Commission

Pyongyang, September 27 (KCNA) — Kim Jin Hui, a researcher of the Institute of International Studies of the DPRK, released the following article: 朝中社平壤9月27日电 朝鲜国际问题研究院研究员金真姬发表了署名文章。文章内容如下:
Shortly ago, UN human rights experts in a joint statement noted that the U.S. unilateral sanctions seriously impede the economic development and the improvement of people’s living standard in many countries and violate their rights to development, stressing “the right to development is a human right that can not be forfeited.” 前不久,一些联合国人权专家发表联合声明谴责,美国的单方面制裁对许多国家的经济发展和个人生活改善产生严重影响,国家发展权遭受威胁,并强调了“发展权是不可剥夺的人权”这一点。
“The right to development is a human right that can not be forfeited” – this is a definition stipulated in the “declaration of the right to development” adopted at the 41st session of the UN General Assembly on Dec. 4, 1986. “发展权是不可剥夺的人权”,这是距今35年前的1986年12月4日召开的第41届联合国大会上通过的“发展权利宣言”中明文规定的定义。
According to the declaration, the world human rights conference held in June, 1993 adopted the “Vienna declaration and action program” which recognized the right to development as a part of human rights. 根据这一宣言,1993年6月召开的世界人权大会通过了承认发展权是人权一部分的《维也纳宣言和行动纲领》。
Despite the lapse of several decades since then, the right to independent development, a due right of a sovereign state, has not been prioritized as a true human right in the international arena but been ruthlessly infringed upon by the U.S. unilateral, illegal and outrageous interference in the internal affairs of other countries. 从此已过数十年,但作为真正人权的主权国家的堂堂权利——自主发展权仍在国际舞台上不被重视,却因美国的单方面非法内政干涉行为一直惨遭蹂躏。
Due to the blockade by the U.S., Cuba has suffered damage amounting to 1 trillion US$ for the past 60-odd years. 60多年来持续的美国的封锁活动导致古巴遭受竟达1万亿美元的严重的经济损失。
Despite the ever-worsening global health crisis caused by COVID-19, the U.S. pressurized the foreign companies trading with Cuba into refusing to provide the latter with artificial respirators indispensable for treatment of COVID-19 patients last year. Worse still, the U.S. toughened the restrictions on the shipment of supplies to Cuba to badly hurt its public health and people’s life. 美国不顾肆虐全球的大流行传染病事态,去年再次施压与古巴交易往来的外国公司拒绝交付古巴疫情防控所需的制氧机。近期还采取措施极力限制对古货运,对该国保健领域予以严重打击,也对民生造成重大障碍。
The U.S. has stretched out its vicious tentacles to politics, economy, military, culture and even daily life in Venezuela, Syria and other countries, crippling their overall economies and stymieing their normal and peaceful development. 委内瑞拉、叙利亚等诸国的情况也是如此,因为伸向政治、经济、军事、文化乃至民生领域的美国的黑手,整体经济陷入萧条,主权国家的正常和平发展受到严重侵害。
The gravity of the issue lies in the astonishing situation that such ruthless violation of the right to independent development is perpetrated under the pretext of “preserving human rights.” 粗暴蹂躏主权国家自主发展权的此类行径,公然打着“维护人权”的旗号,这就是事态的严重性所在。
The U.S. has trumpeted “human rights” more loudly than any other countries in the world. 世上再也没有像美国那样大谈“人权”的国家。
The U.S. has never missed the chance of criticizing other countries for their “human rights performance”, releasing the “country reports on human rights practices” every year to find fault with other countries as if it were a global human rights judge. 美国一有机会无端指责他国“人权问题”,自封为国际人权判官,每年发表“国别人权报告”,对他国人权状况说三道四。
In July this year the U.S. Department of State set the “promotion of human rights and democracy” as a priority task of the U.S. diplomats in different parts of the world and issued an order to examine all means available for performing the task, thus betraying its sinister intention to more intensively and openly meddle in other countries’ internal affairs through “human rights diplomacy.” 今年7月,美国国务院把“人权和民主增进”提出为被派往世界各国的美国外交官员的优先课题,并指令研讨在执行过程中能够运用的一切手段,从而显露出了要更加露骨地加大通过“人权外交”的内政干涉力度的居心。
No wonder, the U.S. abuses the “human rights issues” for putting political pressure on the anti-imperialist independent countries. 尤其,美国把“人权问题”当做镇压反帝自主国家的政治手段。
Not content with criticizing the legally elected Belarusian government as an illegal one engrossed in “violence and oppression,” the U.S. incites the anti-government forces to rebellion. It also engages in a vicious attempt to make a dent in China’s political stability by taking issue with it over Xinjiang and Hong Kong affairs. 美国污蔑合法选举的白俄罗斯政府为专事“暴力镇压”的非法政府还嫌不够,唆使反政府势力制造内乱;还粗暴干涉中国的新疆和香港事务,企图破坏中国的政治稳定。
All these facts clearly prove once again that “human rights” touted by the U.S. are nothing but a trick to easily realize its wild ambition for dominating the world. 一切事实再次清楚地表明,美国所说的“人权”老调只不过是企图轻易实现其称霸世界野心的诡计。
The U.S. is the most heinous human rights abuser in the world that severely disturbs the normal and peaceful development of sovereign states under the pretext of “human rights”. 美国就是打着“人权”旗号,严重阻碍主权国家正常和平发展的世上最可恶的反人权犯罪国家。
Unless the U.S. hypocritical moves under the cloak of “human rights protection” are smashed, it is impossible for each country to achieve its independent development and to build a free, prosperous and new world. 没有粉碎美国虚伪的“维护人权”活动,就不能实现每个国家的自主发展,更不能建设自由繁荣的新世界。
Now many countries resolutely stand against the U.S. human rights farce for curbing their development. 目前,许多国家坚决抗衡阻碍本国发展的美国的人权侵害行径。
The U.S. “human rights protection” racket is bound to end in vain. -0- 美国的“维护人权”活动势必遭到失败。(完)

____________

Related

Xi Jinping’s Korea War speech, Nov 2, 2020
____________

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Sherman-Xie Tianjin Meeting: “The Eyes of the Chinese Common People are Sharp”

The following is a translation of a rant by China’s deputy foreign minister Xie Feng (谢锋), as rendered by a number of Chinese mainstream media (with Shanghai newsportal Guanchazhe apparently as the original source), in a meeting with U.S. deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman and her delegation in Tianjin on Monday.

The meeting apparently didn’t make it into Monday’s main Chinese telvision newscast, “Xinwen Lianbo”.

Links within blockquotes added during translation. My translation may contain errors, and corrections aind suggestions are welcome.
20210726_dragon_tv_tianjin_sherman_xie
Main Link: Deputy Foreign Minister Xie Feng’s Tianjin Talks with U.S. Principal Deputy Secretary of State Sherman

(Guanchazhe online news) In the morning of July 26, Chinese vice foreign minister Xie Feng held talks in Tianjin with American deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman.

(观察者网讯)7月26日上午,中国外交部副部长谢锋同美国国务院常务副国务卿舍曼在天津举行会谈。

According to Weibo @玉渊谭天 news1), Xie Feng said during the talks with Sherman that Chinese-American relations were currently in deadlock2) facing serious difficulties, the basic cause of which was that some people in America regarded China as an “imaginary enemy”.

据微博@玉渊谭天 消息,谢锋在和舍曼会谈时表示,中美关系目前陷入僵局,面临严重困难,根本原因就是美国一些人把中国当作“假想敌”。

Xie Feng said that for some time, some people on the American side had embellished Sino-American conflicts as so-called “Pearl-Harbor moments” and “Sputnik moments”. Some experts and scholars stated clearly that America is comparing China to second world wartime Japan and the cold-war Soviet Union, wanting to establish China as an imaginary enemy country, to reignite a sense of national purpose by demonizing China, thus deflecting the American people’s discontent with domestic politics, the economy and society, shifting the blame for deep-seated American structural contradictions onto China.

谢锋表示,一段时间以来,美方一些人在渲染中美冲突和美国面临的挑战时提到所谓“珍珠港时刻”和“斯普特尼克时刻”。一些专家学者明言,美方是在把中国比喻成二战时的日本、冷战时的苏联,想通过树立中国这个“假想敌”,重新点燃国家目标感,通过妖魔化中国,转移美民众对国内政治、经济、社会的不满,把美国内深层次结构性矛盾甩锅到中国身上。

Xie Feng pointed out that the entire American government and society were mobilized to comprehensively contain China, as if America’s domestic and external problems could be easily solved and as if America could become great again, and American hegemony continue, if only China’s development was contained. America readily criticized China, and things looked as if without gossiping about China, nothing could be said and done in America. We urge America to change its current, extremely mistaken, thought and its extremely dangerous China policy.

谢锋指出,美全政府全社会动员,全方位遏制中国,似乎只要遏制住中国的发展,美内外难题就能迎刃而解,美国将重新变得伟大,美国治下的霸权就可以延续。美方动辄拿中方说事,好像不扯上中国,都不会说话做事了。我们敦促美方改变当前这种极其错误的思维和极其危险的对华政策。

Xie Feng said that the eyes of the Chinese common people were sharp. America’s “competition, cooperation, confrontation” trichotomy was just America’s smokescreen. The innate character were confrontation and containment, while cooperation was a stop-gap plan of convenience and competition was the discourse trap. When China is needed, cooperation is demanded; when there’s an advantage [on America’s side], there’s decoupling, blockade and sanctions; and in order to contain China, [America] unscrupulously applies conflict and confrontation. If only matters of concern to America should be solved, if only results wanted by America should be reached, if benefits are unilateral and there’s always leeway for extreme measures [for America], how in the world can that be justified?!

谢锋表示,中国老百姓的眼晴是雪亮的。美方的“竞争、合作、对抗”三分法就是遏制打压中国的“障眼法”。对抗遏制是本质,合作是权宜之计,竞争是话语陷阱。有求于中方时就要求合作;在有优势的领域就脱钩断供,封锁制裁;为了遏制中国,不惜冲突对抗。只想解决美方关切的问题,只想得到美方想要的结果,单方面受益,既要坏事做绝,还想好处占尽,天下哪有这样的道理?!

Xie Feng pointed out that America’s so-called protection of the “rules-based international order” was just about packaging its own and a minority of Western countries’ “lineage rules and gang regulations”, to be used to block and suppress other countries. America is turning away from the international community’s accepted international law and international order, damagaging the international system it once participated in building, [then] building a new stove to throw the so-called “rules-based international order” out. Only in order to play shameless games, to usurp and change rules to restrict others, to strive for its own profit, it wants to execute the “law of the jungle” where you either eat or are eaten.

谢锋指出,美方所谓维护“基于规则的国际秩序”,就是想把自己和少数西方国家的“家法帮规”包装成国际规则,用来规锁打压别国。美方抛弃国际社会广泛接受的国际法和国际秩序,破坏自己曾经参与构建的国际体系,另起炉灶抛出所谓“基于规则的国际秩序”,无非是想耍赖,想篡改规则限制别人、谋利自己,是想施行弱肉强食、以大欺小的“丛林法则”。

Xie Feng said that what the world needed most these days was joint cooperation, rising to the challenges from the same boat3). The Chinese people loved peace, actively promoted the building of a new world order of mutual respect, fairness and justice, cooperation and double-win, the building of a community with a shared future for mankind4). China wanted to interact mutually with America on an equal footing, seeking common ground while keeping differences. America should change its ways5) and choose meeting with China halfway, mutual respect, fair competition, and peaceful coexistence. Healthy and stable Sino-American relations are not only in both sides’ interest but also the international community’s shared expectation.

谢锋表示,当今世界最需要团结合作、同舟共济。中国人民爱好和平,积极推动构建相互尊重、公平正义、合作共赢的新型国际关系,构建人类命运共同体。中方愿与美方平等相待、求同存异。美方应该改弦易辙,选择与中方相向而行,相互尊重,公平竞争,和平共处。一个健康稳定的中美关系不仅符合双方利益,也是国际社会的共同期盼。

Xie Feng said that America should first solve its own human rights problems. From a historical perspective, racism and genocide against native people; seen from reality, 620,000 people died from inactivity in fighting the virus; from a global perspective, putting all military might into wars of aggression, using lies to provoke wars, bringing the world serious disasters. What is America’s advocacy role for democracy and human rights based on?

谢锋表示,美方应该首先解决好自己的人权问题。从历史看,对土著居民搞种族灭绝;从现实看,消极抗疫造成62万美国人死亡;从世界看,长期穷兵黩武,用谎言挑起战争,给世界带来深重灾难。美国凭什么以全球民主人权自居?

Xie Feng said that America wasn’t qualified to wave around and making indiscreet remarks6) about democracy and human rights in China. If there was no strong and effective leadership of China’s Communist Party, no strong governing system, no appropriate road of development for China, and if the Chinese common people were denied democracy, freedom and human rights, how would the Chinese people be able to release such huge creativity and productivity? How did China, an enormously large country with more than a billion inhabitants, create the two miracles of rapid economic growth and long-term social stability? How was the Chinese nation able to perform the great leap of standing up, prospering and becoming strong within just 100 years? Western opinion polls show that the Chinese masses’ satisfaction with Chinese government exceeds 90 percent – an amazing rate for any country.

谢锋说,美方没有资格在中方面前指手画脚谈民主人权。如果没有中国共产党坚强有力的领导、没有一套行之有效的政治制度、没有一条适合国情的发展道路,如果老百姓都被剥夺了民主、自由、人权,中国人民怎么能释放出如此巨大的创造力和如此巨大的生产力?中国这么一个十几亿人口的超大规模国家怎么能创造经济快速增长与社会长期稳定两大奇迹?中华民族怎么能在短短的100年间迎来从站起来、富起来到强起来的伟大飞跃?西方民调显示,中国民众对中国政府的满意度超过90%,这在任何一个国家都是惊人的。

Xie Feng said that Chinese culture advocated not to do to others what you don’t want others do to yourself, as it had no hegemonic genes, expansionist moods, or any precedent cases of coercion of any other country. Facing external interference, China had adopted adequate and lawful countermeasures to defend the country’s righteous interests, to protect international fairness and justice, and never ran to other peoples’ doors to pick fights, to reach into other people’s property, let alone occupy other countries’ territory – not even an inch. The patent and intellectual property on coercive diplomacy7) is all belonging to the Americans, as America applies sanctions on a grand scale, long-arm jurisdiction and interference in domestic politics. America’s so-called “interaction with other countries from a position of strength” is really just about bullying others based on one’s power, tyrannize others based on one’s power, [with the idea that] might makes right. It is coercive diplomacy through and through.

谢锋表示,中国文化主张己所不欲、勿施于人,从无霸权基因、扩张冲动,从不胁迫任何国家。面对外来干涉,中方采取的是合理合法反制,捍卫的是国家正当权益,维护的是国际公平正义,从未跑到别人门口挑事,从未将手伸进别人家里,更没占领过别国一寸土地。胁迫外交的发明权、专利权、知识产权,都非美国人莫属,是美国大搞单边制裁、长臂管辖、干涉内政。美方所谓“从实力地位出发与别国打交道”,本质就是仗势欺人、恃强凌弱、强权即公理,是彻头彻尾的胁迫外交。

____________

Notes

1) I’m not familiar with this account, but this way of quoting Xie Feng may intend to carry his message the Chinese public in a less official way than through the Chinese foreign ministry’s website
2) or, in other translations, in a stalemate
3) Please see Adam Cathcart’s great comment with classical background – two antagonized parties, condemned to cooperate
4) More literally translated: a community of common destiny for mankind
5) Literally translated, this could be mounting a new bowstring (or a string on a musical instrument) and change track”. This is sort of loaded, as the saying has also been used in the context of self-criticism and becoming a new man. The memory of that isn’t really cherished by the common people and doesn’t look like a constructive remonstrance to me.
6) literally: pointing fingers and drawing feet
7) more literally: diplomacy that threatens violence

____________

Related

G7, small-circled cliques and factions, May 4, 2021
Anchorage meeting,wise and competent, March 15, 2021

____________

Updates/Related

“Taiwan most important in Tianjin talks”, RTI, July 27, 2021
____________

%d bloggers like this: