Blog Archives

The Significance of Xi JinPing's Speech at Boao Forum for Asia

6/29/2015

One significant observation in the mainstream media is the lack of reporting of the Chinese leaders' public speeches. It is a good thing that Chinese leaders have made a conscious effort to make public speeches at international conferences. However, the U.S. mainstream media do not find it as worthwhile as the organic media do in reporting those speeches. The Chinese leaders, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister, Li KeJiang, have spoken in many public occasions offering their views of the world and more importantly about China's goals and action plans for China's development and her international cooperative projects. Decades ago, the West mainstream media considered the rare Chinese leaders' speeches mostly political rhetoric hence ignoring them, but it is hardly justifiable today, since the Chinese leaders are anxious to explain China’s peaceful rise and to share China’s blue print for raising the standard of living for Chinese citizens. Their initiatives of international cooperation appear to be win-win not only for growing China’s economy but also benefiting her partners’ national interests.

The 2014 APEC Beijing was an example where China had shared with the world her objectives to promote regional economic integration and strengthening comprehensive connectivity and infrastructure development. Another example was Xi's speech at the Korber Conference during his visit to Germany stressing China’s desire for peaceful development and pursuing a unique Chinese socialist system. Xi often made significant speeches and policy announcements during his foreign visits, Notable examples were the 'One Belt and One Route' vision revealed in Indonesia and the idea of creating an Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to facilitate much needed infrastructure development in Asia announced in Kazakhstan. These public speeches could be found in organic media, but their reach was obviously limited as compared to the mass media. I earnestly urge the mainstream media to modify its attitude in reporting, since the world prosperity and peace are highly dependent on our understanding and trust regarding China’s intentions.

The Boao Forum for Asia (BFA) is another major conference for leaders of Asian countries to discuss issues. BFA was proposed in 1998 by Fidel V. Ramos, former President of the Philippines, Bob Hawke, former PM of Australia and Morihiro Hosokawa, former PM of Japan, and was inaugurated on 2-27-2001 by 26 Asian countries’ leaders. Since 2002, Boao, Hainan, China has become the permanent host for the BFA, now a high-end platform for dialogs about Asian issues among leaders of national governments, industry and business organizations and academicians of countries in Asia and other continents. BFA takes a similar format to the World Economic Forum (WEF) held annually in Davos, Switzerland. BFA 2015 was held in late March in Boao where the President of China delivered a keynote speech. PM Li Keqiang spoke at Boao 2014 and Xi did in 2013, illustrating the importance of BFA to the Chinese government.

Xi’s Boao speech in 2015 is especially significant as he has spoken to the theme of BFA 2015: Asia’s New Future – Towards a Community of Common Destiny. I believe that it is worthwhile to summarize and comment on his speech as many US citizens are ignorant about China’s international initiatives. Xi’s opening remark relates to 2015 being the 70th anniversary of the ending of WW II, Chinese victory over Japanese aggression, and the founding of the United Nations and the 60th anniversary of the Bandung Conference and the formation of ASEAN community. 2015 is indeed an important year to be commemorated and reflected as a historic juncture to remember the past and look to the future. Xi then praises the Asian countries to have found their own path, outperforming each other in economy with strength reaching 1/3 of the world GDP. Over 70 years, Asian countries have gradually transcended their differences in ideology and social systems, becoming open and inclusive, with suspicion and estrangement giving way to growing trust, tolerance and appreciation. The interests of Asian countries have become intertwined, and a community of common destiny has increasingly taken shape. These statements may be more Xi’s wish than reality judging on the ‘China Threat’ drummed by Japan. However, he was right to say, “Through the Asian financial crisis, the international financial crisis, and the devastating natural disasters such as tsunami and earthquake, Asian countries demonstrated the power of unity in face of difficulties.”

Xi then emphasizes that Asia still faces numerous challenges, some old issues left over from history and new ones associated with current disputes, as well as various traditional and non-traditional security threats, presenting an uphill battle for Asian countries to grow the economy and eliminate poverty. From his words, “we have only one planet, and countries share one world; Asia and the world could not do without each other.” and “the world economy is still having risks of low growth, low inflation and low demand interwoven with risks of high unemployment, high debt and high level of bubbles.”, it is obvious Xi feels the challenge hence he urges, “China and Asian countries must see the whole picture, follow the global trend and jointly build a regional order, favorable to China, Asia and the world.”

Xi offers his vision to build a community of common destiny as follows:

i. All countries, no matter differences in size, strength or level of development, should respect one another and treat each other as equal members with equal rights to participate in regional and international affairs and respect each other's core interests, major concerns and other countries' growing strength, policies and visions. This righteous view and his words, “All of Asian countries must oppose interference in other countries' internal affairs and reject any destabilization activities in the region” do reveal China’s concerns..

ii. All countries need to seek win-win cooperation and common development. The old mindset of zero-sum game should give way to a new approach of win-win and all-win cooperation in economic and other fields. Xi made another wish point: Asian countries should actively promote reform of global economic governance to face the challenges. Xi mentions a number of on-going initiatives, building an even closer China-ASEAN community of common destiny, upgrading China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), advancing complementary and coordinated development between the AIIB and the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. China wanted very much the U.S. support in the AIIB initiative, but the U.S. and Japan are the only two major countries still opposing it.

iii. Asian countries need to pursue common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. I fully agree with Xi’s statement: “No country could have its own security ensured without the security of other countries or of the wider world.” I also agree that the Cold War mentality should truly be replaced with new security concepts to pave a secure Asia.

iv. Asian countries need to ensure inclusiveness and mutual learning among civilizations. China proposes a conference of dialogue among Asian civilizations to enhance interactions among Asian people and their rich cultural life.

Xi claims that the Chinese people are working in unison to deepen reform to realize the "two centenary" goals and the Chinese dream of great national rejuvenation with firm commitment to pursue the path of peaceful development. Xi pledges to protect the investment climate and the lawful rights and interests of investors as motivations and tools for sustaining China’s economic growth. Xi sincerely and repeatedly said before and in Boao, “what China needs most is a harmonious and stable domestic environment and a peaceful and tranquil international environment.” China has signed treaties of good-neighborliness, friendship and cooperation with eight of its neighbors, expecting to sign with all ASEAN countries. Xi’s explanation of the ‘One Belt and One Route’ vision, for meeting the development needs of China and countries along the route is truly a win-win strategy, If the U.S. had long understood the impact of ‘Belt and Route’, perhaps she would not oppose the AIIB and got egg on her face.

Xi’s speech has many points to be taken seriously by Americans, Japanese and Asian citizens. It is time for the China experts and the US media to deliberately re-evaluate the ‘China Threat’ hypothesis with more inputs from Chinese leaders’ speeches.

0 Comments

What is the Real Goal of the US AP Policy? Logical Path (III)

6/20/2015

0 Comments

Dr. Wordman

The Hawks have been saying that China is expanding her military rapidly causing security concern, but China's position is that China is spending appropriately for her size having a large number of neighbors, some pursuing aggressive border dispute with China. Militarily, it is illogical to encourage Japan to strengthen more her military power as an island country with no adjacent neighbors in proximity by land. Japan's navy is already the strongest in Asia and her Air Force is equipped with far more advanced technology. With the US-Japan Defense Treaty backing Japan's security, there is no reason for Japan to beef up military power unless she is threatened or being aggressive. The strategy (Drum ‘China Threat’ and Hijack ‘Pivot’) Japan’s pursuing by expanding military power and signing up military treaties is obviously provocative and inviting or creating a security threat to China and Asia. That is why it is puzzling why the U.S. would encourage Japan to engage more militarily. Does the U.S. think placing Asia under Japanese military prowess is a better situation because the U.S. can control Japan? If the U.S. could not even get the Japanese to agree to import the US beef or rice which Japan does need, will the U.S. be able to control Japan in commanding her military?! In addition to pitting Japan against China and to destroy each other in the name of letting Japan sharing more of the military expense burden that the U.S. could no longer afford, there is one other logic in the ‘evil thesis’, that is, the U.S. military industry stands to gain if Japan and China, in fact the better if all Asian countries, would engage in arms race. Was this the reason, the U.S. offered Abe Shinzo an ‘honor’ to address the joint US Congress?

China's military advances are impressive only because the PLA was in a very poor state far behind other countries. Comparing to Japan, China only recently rebuilt a used aircraft carrier bought from Ukraine, named it Liaoning, and commissioned it to service as a training carrier on September 25, 2012, whereas Japan had several in service for quite some time. China emphasizes in defensive weaponry for good reasons. She has ~14,000 miles of land borders with 14 countries including Russia and India, who all had taken aggressive steps regarding border disputes with China. For any one schooled in foreign affairs would tell you, an appropriate defense force is necessary to maintain an orderly neighboring relationship. The military hawks would also like to point to the South China Sea and say that China's land reclamation is a threat to the regional security, but the logic does not hold. If China would have offensive objective, it would be more logical to build military bases in inland China near the attack target, it would not make sense to build these small islands having obvious supply and maintenance issues in the event of conflicts. In fact, the land reclamation was started by, for example, Vietnam, long before China’s recent reclamation. So it is clear, China is making the investment for her own security concern, basically for the purpose of maintaining freedom of passage for cargo ships to and fro her ports. As for the argument that China might dominate the ocean resources in the South China Sea, China has been making her legitimate investment on her own islands and welcoming other countries to collaborative development for ocean resources. It only makes sense to sit down and talk about joint development and win-win projects rather than flexing military muscles around these tiny islands, after all we are not playing computer war games.

Therefore, it is logical for the U.S. to hold the flag of balancing (peace pivot) with sincerity to maintain peace rather than let the policy be hijacked by Abe towards a dangerous confrontational path. How will the balancing policy be played out is still very much in the hands of the U.S. Japan can only scheme so much. If the U.S. maintains a sane policy, the genuine balancing for peace can really work. Countries like Australia and some Asean countries would really welcome the ‘peace pivot’. In fact, if the U.S. would encourage Japan and China to reduce military build-up instead of engaging in an arms race; it is very likely other countries in Asia may join the call. China most likely would not have to move close to Russia for arms technology. Unfortunately, this strategy is not in the interest of the U.S. Military Industry segment. Hence, the evidence clearly indicated that the U.S. was encouraging Japan to expand in armament. In consequence, it is provoking China to expand her military in response, dragging all her neighbors to follow suit. If this were the real goal behind the U.S. pivot policy, it would be indeed a devious scheme pitting Japan and China to destroy each other in the name of "balancing".

There are other theses depicting the U.S. as an evil empire and painting her actions as a part of devious strategy designed all along to lead Japan and China to a serious confrontation. By this scenario, the U.S., especially, the U.S. Military-industrial complex stands to gain and the U.S. can maintain her superpower position without challenge. Logically, this might be a plausible strategy, however, the risk involved would be enormous since a Sino-Japan war could likely lead to a larger regional even a world war. China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapon if provoked by Japan and Japan would by all means drag the U.S. into the war, thanks to the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty. Presently, Russia, pointing this as obvious, is wooing China to align with her militarily. The recent ceremony commemorating the victory of WW II in Moscow, where China was the honored guest and participant, is a photographic evidence of Russia’s intention. Has this been factored in the ‘evil pivot’ policy? Does the U.S. really want to trigger a Russia-China versus US-Japan nuclear match or WW III by her pivot policy? As American citizens, we must speak up and correct the ‘pivot’ from an evil to a peaceful path. Hopefully, the U.S. has left some clever English in the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty to give her a way to prevent the above scenario. We all know, a nuclear war will impact everyone; the nuclear fallout alone will descend in California, even the entire western half of the United States.

Following the above analysis, It is logical to say that the real intension behind the US balancing policy should be genuinely defined for maintaining peace. The policy must not be ambiguous and the actions must be clearly guided to avoid any evil path. One key element that is missing in this policy is a clear goal to reduce arms build-up in AP. The US citizens must urge their Congress to not only control the US military spending but also take measures to achieve arms reduction in AP; weapon development and sales even military muscle flexing must be closely monitored to avoid stimulating arms race. The hyped ‘China Threat’ theory and the revision of US-Japan Defense treaty beyond the spirit of Japan’s Pacifist Constitution are certainly not the way for achieving the goal of maintaining peace. The new situations outlined in the guidelines for the US-Japan Defense Treaty include asset protection of U.S. forces, support for combat search and rescue operations by the U.S., the exchange of information to protect forces participating in ballistic missile defense operations, and logistical support for U.S. forces. Most dramatically is the inclusion of permitting Japan and the U.S. to use forces in cooperation if a third country is under attack. Japan clearly has indicated her willingness to do much more beyond her own defense. This should be of concern not only to China but also to the U.S.

The U.S. should work with Asian countries such as ASEAN members to reach a military detente including China and Japan rather than encouraging military competition. As American citizens, we should be able to see clearly the different consequences of the ‘peace pivot’ versus ‘evil pivot’ or military detente versus arms race. If we do, we must speak up and influence the US ‘pivot’ policy to move onto a peaceful path.

0 Comments

What is the Real Goal of the US AP Policy? Evil Pivot (II)

6/13/2015

0 Comments

Dr. Wordman

(Continued from issue #95)

Japan's ambition to be No. 1 economy was never diminished. Although Japan is desperate to find a solution to grow her economy under the burden of an aging population; however, many of the U.S. and Japan’s diplomatic actions such as their joint military exercises, excluding China from the TPP initiative, cultivating more bilateral military treaties with Asian countries and the recent update of the guidelines of the US-Japan Defense Treaty all do not help the Japanese economy but make China nervous. Abe Shinzo, with his personal extreme right background and his provocative behavior in officially worshipping WW II war criminals, denying Japanese war atrocities, revising Japan’s Pacifist constitution and eagerness in engaging in external military activities and cultivating bilateral military alliances, is making the ‘peace thesis’ hard to believe. Hence, an opposite ‘pivot’ thesis, interpreting the real goal of US AP policy as an evil goal with a devious scheme has surfaced.

The ‘evil thesis’ is principally based on the words and deeds of the ‘extreme right’ in Japan echoed by the hawkish US opinions all having their respective historical origins. The current leader in Japan, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo (33rd, post WW II) seems to be the pivoting force propelling a “Pivot’ policy opposite to the ‘peace pivot or peace thesis’ discussed in the last column – the real intention of US pivot policy is genuinely for maintaining peace. Prime Minister Abe Shinzo is not a genius in economics; unfortunately, his 'three arrows' economic policy has basically faltered in failure. Worse than unfortunate, Abe Shinzo inherited the 'will' from his grandfather Nobusuke Kishi (A class A war criminal surfaced as Japan’s 6th PM post WW II after the Allied Occupation ended and the purge of war criminals was fully rescinded in 1952). Nobusuke’s will is ‘to revive Japan's military might and glory’. Abe believed since his first short lived term of PM in 2006-7 (27th post WW II) that the military power and war is the fast solution to Japan's problems and to reversing Japan's declining role in the world. This hawkish and legacy concept is dangerous but real so long the tenacious Nubuske ‘will’ is continuously hanging over Abe and the Japanese Administration.

No doubt, the U.S. is feeling threatened by the peaceful rise of China to surpass her economy. To some hawkish thinkers in the US think tank, this feeling coincides with the current 'China Threat' view promoted by the right-wing politicians in Japan. Neither Japan nor the U.S. hawkish right-wing would accept the peaceful rise of China, no matter how many times and how many ways the Chinese leaders stress that China wants nothing but a peaceful rise. The ‘China Threat’ view shared in the right wing of the U.S. and Japan are not based on the same logic and principles, however. In Japan, the logic is simply derived from the Nobusuke's will, that is, Japan should have been the victor of WW II. The U.S. was lucky to have developed the A-Bomb first. China never defeated Japan, China should have been occupied by Japan just like Taiwan and Manchuria had been. Japan's future is to ally with the U.S. and return to military power and eventually defeat China and then the U.S., ultimately returning Japan to her pre WW II glory. On the other hand, in the U.S. the logic is simply inherited from the Cold War, making enough trouble around any rising power (disagreeable regime) internally and externally so it will not be able to rise to threaten the interests of the U.S. (or even to make it to collapse) There were ample examples in history lending credits to the previous statement. In the case of China, the logic is that her high growth rate in the past two decades must be quenched. A stagnant economy in China would be most desirable so it would not be able to surpass the US economy. This US hawkish view is selfish and insecure but understandable from the cold war legacy. On the other hand, the Japanese hawkish view (opposite to some of the Japanese business leaders’ wish to support a ‘peace pivot’) is dangerous and threatening to mankind including Americans and Japanese people themselves.

When Nobusuke struck a deal with the U.S. signing the US-Japan Mutual Cooperation Treaty, the Japanese people opposed and protested. The U.S. wanted to test the seriousness of the protest ended up causing President Eisenhower to cancel his visit to Japan. Nobusuke later had to resign from his Premiership. In a deeper analysis, the Japanese people then loved their Pacifist constitution and still do today despite of the right-wing administration’s effort to re-educate the Japanese youth about Japan’s war history. Although Nobusuke lost his job, he nevertheless succeeded in planting his long-term strategic goal - to rely on the U.S. for defense till Japan is strong again. Nobusuke's 'will' to nurse Japan back to a 'normal' country (meaning restoring her past glory) has become the central long-term goal to be carried out by his grandson Abe Shinzo.

Japan as a nation has fostered a belief that the Japanese people (Da He Race) is a superior race, brave, intelligent and hard working but heaven has dealt them an unfair environment, small islands with limited resources. Hence Japan must expand from their islands through wars; to this day, the right-wing Japanese still interprets WW II as their sacred war to undo the injustice that heaven had unfairly given the land and resources to inferior races rather than to the deserving Da He race. Indeed, the Japanese is a hard working race, diligent and persistent turning from copy maniac to innovator, thus Japan has risen in economic size and in manufacturing power including military manufacturing despite of her limited resources. However, the world surrounding Japan has advanced too. China and Korea have not been standing still since the 19th century especially post WW II. So Abe's chance of carrying out his grandfather's will is very slim except one wishful thinking that is to drag the U.S. into a war conflict with China. This is the Japan side of ‘evil goal’ of the ‘Pivot’. The U.S. may or may not be fully aware of this Japanese tenacious 'will' power and the Nubuske's ‘will’, but the recent development in the US-Japan relations do suggest that Abe Shinzo has been so far successful in hijacking the US 'Pivot' policy to serve his long-term objective playing a ‘China Threat’ strategy to create a US-China conflict.

However, China is no longer a closed society under an ignorant Qing Emperor nor is China a Soviet-style communist government with hegemony ambition to expand military bases throughout the world. China has been cautious and worrisome about Japan's imperial ghost while she is quietly developing. Now China has risen and is fully capable of acting like a great country dealing with some of her not so peaceful minded neighbors. So long China is not carrying out a hegemony policy, the Asian countries are realists and eventually they will be smart enough to accept China as a beneficial trading partner, even as a collaborative infrastructure developer, and see through Japan's military ambition. So the Asian countries do welcome a genuine peace-oriented US 'balancing' strategy in Asia, but the objective is stability (China has the same objective) However, the fact that the U.S. is encouraging Japan to rise militarily against a rising China and encouraging and creating many military alliances with and among Asian countries inducing arms race does give arguments to the ‘evil thesis’ to interpret the US ‘pivot’ policy having an evil goal, that is to pit Japan against China leading to war for mutual destruction, careless about its consequences to Asia. This is the US side of ‘evil goal’ in the ‘evil thesis’.

Which thesis should we believe? As matter of fact, it is not important what we believe, it is important that American citizens can influence the direction the US ‘Pivot’ policy is heading toward and what desired result we would like to see. At this moment, the evidence seems to point the ‘pivot’ to an evil path.

In the next column, we shall continue our analysis and further examine the consequences of the two theses and discuss how an American citizen should help influence the US ‘Pivot’ policy.

(To be continued on issue #97.)

0 Comments

The Significance of Xi JinPing's Speech at Boao Forum for Asia

What is the Real Goal of the US AP Policy? Logical Path (III)

What is the Real Goal of the US AP Policy? Evil Pivot (II)

Categories

Archives