[Marxism] Fwd: U.S. Machinations Against China and China's Response (From Jim Craven)
lnp3 at panix.com
Wed Mar 2 10:52:53 MST 2005
>China strongly objects to US report criticizing China's human rights
>China is firmly opposed to a US State Department report criticizing
>China's human rights situation without any reason,
><http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/>Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu
>Jianchao said Wednesday in
>He made the remarks when asked to comment on the Country Reports on Human
>Rights Practices released by the US in Washington Monday.
>"Only the Chinese people themselves have the right to comment on the human
>rights situation in their own country."
>"The Chinese government, sticking to a policy it calls 'putting people
>above everything else,' has made many efforts toward building a democratic
>country under the rule of law," Liu said. "As a result, the Chinese people
>are now enjoying an improved situation in terms of human rights."
>Liu said he hoped the
><http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/data/usa.html>United States would put
>more focus on its own human rights problems and work harder to resume the
>China-US human rights dialogue and benefit bilateral exchanges.
>China to issue human rights record of the United States
>The Information Office of the State Council will issue on March 3 the
>Human Rights Record of the United States in 2004, in response to the
>Country Reports on Human Rights Practices issued by the United States,
>which irrationally condemns human rights in China.
>It will be the sixth Chinese report in response to the annual country
>reports on human rights by the United States in six consecutive years.
>The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2004, based on plenty of
>facts, is divided into six parts, uncovering the bad records of the United
>States concerning the invasions into other countries and the mistreatment
>of foreign inmates, as well as the bad records in the aspects of life,
>freedom and personal security of the US citizens, their political rights
>and freedom, economic, social and cultural rights, racial discrimination,
>conditions of women and children.
>Anyone who poses threats shall bear responsibility
>At the beginning of this year, Washington's "China threat" theory was
>heard everywhere. For a while there was filled with confused voices in the
>Capitol Hill about canceling China's permanent normal trade status and
>resuming "diplomatic ties" with
>is more noteworthy is that the
><http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/data/usa.html>United States is speeding
>up its actual plans for containment against China.
>First, bogged down in the quagmire in the Middle East, Washington has
>stepped up drawing
><http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/data/japan.html>Japan together with it
>to contain China, so as to cope with the situation of shortage in its
>global troops disposition. On February 19, the US-Japan Security
>Consultation Committee issued a joint statement, for the first time openly
>listing the Taiwan Straits as a "common strategic objective" of the two
>nations. As US media put it, this is the most significant turn since the
>United States and Japan entered into a security alliance, and also a grave
>provocation to China that will lead to a rapid deterioration of
>China-Japan political relations.
>Second, whipping up opinion, Washington plays up and exaggerates China's
>military strength and creates an atmosphere of tension across the Straits,
>with the aim of roping Taiwan into passing the arms purchase plan, and
>foots the bill for US military interest groups. News also came out
>recently that the United States, Japan and Taiwan would jointly play the
>game of a military drill.
>Third, the United States intimidates the EU for its intention to lift arms
>embargo on China, turning a question of eliminating political
>discrimination into one of military security.
>Fourth, the United States remains suspicious of business affairs in
>China-US relations, turning business deals between enterprises into
>national security concerns, such as the case of Lenovo's purchase of IBM's
>Dragging Japan into involvement in the issue of the Taiwan Straits is a
>move openly provoking China's core national interest, an act that runs
>counter to US clear-cut commitments made in the process of establishing
>diplomatic ties with China and a move that may shake the political
>foundation of Sino-US ties. Despite the "ambiguous" and "mild" wording
>used in the US-Japan "Joint Statement", people with discerning eyes can
>clearly see its implications. Taiwan has reportedly responded to the
>statement with "extreme excitement". The sovereignty ownership of Taiwan
>is the core of China's national interest, and it is impossible for China
>to swallow the bitter fruit of any act that damages the integrity of
>China's sovereignty. Any action of conniving at "Taiwan independence" will
>mean inciting tension and war flames across the Taiwan Straits.
>There have always been two tendencies in America's formulation of its
>China policy, one holding China as a "potential rival" that must be
>contained by all means; the other believing that China's momentous
>development is irresistible, so the only way to follow is to induce China
>to properly play a "responsible" and "constructive" role. Washington's
>China policy carried out in recent years has been a combination of the
>two. US lately acts toward China are many-way containment in reality, and
>inducement in wording.
>To be "constructive" has always been a two-way practice in interstate
>relations. If a country, breaking its promise or going back on its words,
>adopts an irresponsible attitude in willfully provoking and harming the
>fundamental national interest of another country, and yet it asks the
>latter to take a "responsible" and "constructive" attitude, how is this
>possible? The United States should understand this elementary truth.
>In fact, it is the United States that should carefully consider the
>question of a "responsible" and "constructive" attitude. Adhering to a
>one-China stand and making an explicit statement that "Taiwan is not an
>independent sovereign state" is a "constructive" attitude. But one must
>act as what one has said and must not play fast and loose, saying one
>thing today and doing another thing tomorrow. The United States has
>repeatedly expressed its opposition to a unilateral change in the status
>quo of the Taiwan Straits, but what is the status quo of the Straits? The
>most fundamental status quo of the Taiwan Straits is: Under the consensus
>on "the two sides belonging to one and the same China", the Taiwan Straits
>has avoided military conflicts and has begun exchanges. Challenging the
>one-China principle and consensus is unilaterally changing the status quo
>across the Straits, is disrupting the tacit agreement of peace reached
>between the two sides and is creating trouble and stirring up war. The
>United States should have clear formulations about this.
>This article by Huang Qing is carried on the third page of the Global
>Times, February 28, and translated by People's Daily Online
>James M. Craven
>Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo-i'poyi
>Professor/Consultant,Economics;Business Division Chair
>Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
>Vancouver, WA. USA 98663
>Tel: (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
>"The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
>The people who count the votes decide everything."
>Employer has no association with private/protected opinion
>FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!
More information about the Marxism