​       
    In the era when human beings have developed into a ‘global village’, the relationship between people in countries should not be restricted by national borders. Free trade and liberal cultural interaction are the common interests and aspirations of the people of all nations. National borders should only be marks or traces left by history, signs for defining geographical characteristics, and information documenting real estate ownership of people and sovereignty of nations. Of course, human beings have had many wars in the evolution of history, and only wars will leave traces or marks of national borders after disputes are settled. Therefore, in the era of the modern ‘global village’, people should understand the cruel facts of war, make efforts to resolve the origin factors causing war, and diligently eliminate the dangerous crisis triggering war.

    Any war between two countries is usually originated from the improper handling of any national crisis or dispute by the government leaders; and the more fundamental factor or critical reason is that the incompetent government had launched national hatred against another nation, which eventually led to war. The people of both countries would be harmed, resulting in tragedy and long-lasting hatred. In this article, this author focuses on the subject, 'Only an incompetent government would promote people (national) hatred against another people (nation)’ ,and discusses the everlasting tragedies it may cause.

     First of all, we can learn from history that the cause of war is nothing more than two factors. One is hatred. The source of hatred is wide, but it can be broadly classified into 1. Different religious beliefs, 2. Inter-ethnic discrimination, 3. Regrets of historical accidents or events, and 4. Ideological conflicts; especially promoted through media influence and education. These factors can be resolved and tolerated, but when incited or promoted, hatred will deepen, lead to war, and have lasting effects. The second factor is the conflict of interest; and the conflict of interest can arise due to inequality of sharing the available natural resources, such as water sources (rivers running through the two countries), or man-made factors, such as unfair trade agreements, excessive tariffs or damaging economic and trade sanctions. Regardless of natural factors or man-made factors, nations with competent governments should find ways to solve the problems, instead of deepening conflicts and hatred, leading to wars. Governments naturally need capable leaders to handle national conflicts properly.

   Of course, politicians would always claim that they are safeguarding the welfare of their people. But the welfare of the people might not be defined and measured from a long-term perspective or considered in a comprehensive manner. If national hatred would be developed and deepened for the sake of a quick gain or an ideological argument, it would eventually lead to disasters brought on by war. Even a big country should not use hegemony against a small country to seek quick benefits without considering any impact on their long-term relationship. The consequences would be worse or more dangerous between big countries. If small benefits gained would cause big losses in the long run and worse would destroy peace and lead to a war of killing and disaster, then it would be a crime committed by the government leaders. Today, under the principles of democracy, whether the leaders (however selected by the people) could really make benefits for the people or actually deceive the people in order to maintain their political power is a serious problem faced by many countries. Some nations would have frequent changes of government leadership, a remedy only produces inefficient government with difficulty in completing long-term solutions. In other countries, people are frustrated by not being able to expect government leaders or constrain them to take correct long-term measures for the benefit of the people.

   People-to-people relations between countries are nothing more than a host of positive activities such as free trade, cultural exchange, intermarriage, tourism, overseas residence, and study abroad. These positive exchanges are the essential culture of the global village; and also are necessary factors for human beings to move towards world harmony. On the contrary, if hatred were developing between countries and among their people, hatred could easily grow and would be difficult to get resolved. National hatred could be passed down from generation to generation if not curtailed. The author would not like to name countries hating each other in this article, although plenty of examples do exist. Political scholars know that the so-called feud between two countries is never beneficial to the people of the two countries. After World War II, China did not demand reparation or compensation from defeated Japan because China practiced diplomacy based on the traditional Chinese philosophy of maintaining amity and neighborliness. This is a peaceful and win-win diplomacy against hegemony. It is a policy that truly benefits the people in the long run.

   Unfortunately, many governments in the world today have political systems that produce incompetent leaders and governments. In terms of economic development, the quality of life of the people cannot be improved year after year, and the incompetent government leaders would shrug off their responsibilities and blame the fault on other countries. What is even more intolerable is that some politicians would promote hatred between people and countries in order to hold power. This is a heinous act that will harm others and never benefit oneself. Because people intrinsically do not hate each other, they desire and pursue the same goals discussed above, such as free trade, cultural exchanges, intermarriage, tourism, overseas residence, and study abroad. People do hope that governments can develop agreements with simple regulations and resolve disputes. Only an incompetent government and its leaders would promote national hatred among the people to cover up their incompetence. This kind of incompetent government exists in both small countries and large countries, but the disasters that may arise between large countries may be more serious. Again, the author does not need to name evidence, everyone with a little understanding of international relations can cite their own examples by simply analyzing some of the statements made by political leaders. What ordinary citizens should do is question their own political leaders on foreign policies not giving them blind trust. Why are they making hostile statements to incite hatred? Do the political leaders really work for the benefit of their people? You must ask these questions before you cast your vote for a leader.
 
Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District.
 

 
The Taiwan issue is a complex issue that has been unresolved for more than 74 years, causing China to split with the two sides of the Taiwan Strait in confrontation. Although the Taiwan issue is an internal problem of China, it has become an international concern due to foreign interference. China is the founding country of the United Nations and a member of its Security Council, so China’s status is important. Hence, which Chinese government can represent the whole of China is naturally a critical matter, which must be approved by the general assembly of the United Nations. Therefore, when the U.S. and Russia respectively support the government of the Republic of China (ROC) that governs Taiwan, Penghu, and Jinma islands, and the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) that governs the mainland, it creates a problem of China's identity. It was not until 1979 that the U.S. officially recognized the PRC (eight years after the UN recognized PRC) as the sole representation of China and broke off diplomatic relations with the ROC, allowing the PRC to fully assume all China's status and functions in the UN (and world). However, in the name of maintaining peace, the U.S. passed the Taiwan Relations Act in Congress to support or encourage a peaceful reunification of Taiwan and the mainland. As a result, the governments on both sides of the strait have been stalemated, leaving reunification unsettled to avoid war. In reality, the U.S. would rather see Taiwan remaining separated from the mainland than see their reunification from the U.S. national strategy point of view. Therefore, diplomatically and politically, the U.S. has tried its best to prevent Taiwan from reunifying with the mainland, and the U.S. has been unwilling and afraid to let Taiwan declare independence, which will trigger the mainland to unify Taiwan by force. The U.S. motive has become more apparent today as U.S.-China relations get more tense.
 
During more than 70 years of division, the giant wheel of history has rolled track marks of economic, diplomatic, and political changes in the world as well as on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Internationally, the U.S. fought against the Soviet Union in the name of anti-communism, launched the Cold War, and finally successfully disintegrated the Soviet Union in 1991, and for once became the world's most powerful country. The two sides of the strait had also undergone tremendous changes. Taiwan had successfully built itself into an Asian dragon through self-reliance and overcoming difficulties to rejuvenate the country. Politically, it has gone from an authoritarian rule to an experimental democratic system. Diplomatically, in comparison with the mainland, ROC fared poorly, retaining only a few small countries in diplomatic relations. The evolution of the mainland is even more remarkable. After WW II, the mainland was in a state of devastation, and it naturally started slower than Taiwan Island in terms of economic reconstruction. China impressively lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty and had become the world's largest manufacturing export power. Moreover, economically, it is already the world's second-largest economy, with faster growth rate soon to surpass the U.S. So economically, Taiwan has become dependent on the mainland today. Entering the 21st century, the rapid development of the mainland's technology and military strength has made the U.S. nervous. The U.S. pursued a hegemony strategy, and it naturally thought that China would inevitably copy the same strategy as the U.S. adopted when she did whatever she pleased to do. Therefore, presently, the U.S. does all it can to form an alliance against China as well as play the ‘Taiwan card’ to make the Taiwan Strait the most dangerous place on earth, all for the purpose of hindering the rise of China.
 
At the root of the Taiwan issue are “three identity issues”. The first is whether or not the Taiwanese people recognize that they are Chinese. This is a domestic problem in China (no more different than California is a state in the U.S.), and the influence of foreign countries should be small. Even Japan with 50 years of occupation of Taiwan could not affect the small number of ‘Japanese Taiwanese’ who were related to Japanese descent. The current government orchestrated brainwashing of young people through the education system is not difficult to correct. Just imagine: How can the Taiwanese accept the abolition of Chinese surnames? Chinese language and characters, Chinese New Year, Mid-Autumn, Dragon Boat Festivals and celebrations in Mazu Temples? Not to mention the denial of genetic (DNA) linkage between the people across the Taiwan Strait. The second identity issue is the support of unification versus independence. This issue was created by political hype with external interference, and the common people were fooled. But as long as the cause and effect of reunification and independence are clearly analyzed and debated, this issue can be resolved. Talking about independence first, the U.S. even opposes it because the ending will be a failure, harmful rather than beneficial to the U.S., Japan would independently think the same way. The current state of Taiwan's diplomatic relations essentially has predicted the death of Taiwan's independence. On the contrary, if Taiwan moves towards reunification, not only will Taiwan enjoy trade dividends, but it will also be able to solve many livelihood problems such as electricity shortage, lack of medicines, eggs, and beneficial service trade agreements with Mainland China. The saved defense budget can be used for infrastructure construction to raise the quality of life of Taiwanese people in the long run.
 
The third identification problem lies in the political system. The U.S. has advocated democracy for nearly a century, but in reality it is actually a pretense of hegemony and self- serving-interest. Judging from the war launched by the U.S., they were more for American interests than for honoring democracy. The turmoil of democracy has been exposed through wars and the disasters they created. The inefficiency of the US government caused by internal fighting has accentuated social injustice with a huge wealth gap. On the contrary, some of the socialist systems have demonstrated the ability to reform and innovate. The ultimate successful watchdog of government is wise and knowledgeable citizens. The Chinese Communist Party seems to be more afraid of (or show more respect to) its people than the DPP and the Kuomintang Party in Taiwan ever do. Think about it, the quality of any political system lies in the knowledge and supervisory ability of the citizens. People across the Taiwan Strait together will likely make a better governing system.
 
From the above analysis, an objective person can clearly see that the future of the people of Taiwan depends on solving the three identity issues of Taiwan. International interference driven by external interest cannot work against sane citizens. Look at the populist movements promoted by the American Endowment for Democracy, did they yield peaceful transition and progression or chaos and wars? We should ask: Why did the Russo-Ukrainian war happen in Ukraine, which is corrupt and obsessed with oppressing Russian Speaking citizens? Why a war does not breakout in a multi-racial Singapore? Is it due to the difference between the democratic government and the nature of the people? In a small Singapore, its citizens can see the international situation clearly and dare to stand up (and make their government) to warn the U.S. not to provoke China unreasonably, not to force other nations to take sides, and not to create chaos in the world. Why can’t Taiwanese people resolve the Taiwan identity issues and turn the world’s most dangerous Taiwan created by the U.S. and called by Britain's Economist magazine into a treasured island of China that everyone admires? The U.S. citizens with their wisdom wlll likely correct its China policy hopefully much sooner than they did in ending the Vietnam and Iraq wars.



​

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken canceled his trip to China in February when a Chinese balloon drifted off course into the U.S. and was shot down for suspicion of spy activity. It turned out the balloon was a weather balloon showing no evidence of spy action. Then Blinken sought another chance to visit Beijing to have a dialogue to lessen the U.S.-China tension. Finally, China agreed to receive Blinken on June 18-19 to have a diplomatic dialogue. There are many commentary articles appeared after Blinken's China trip all focusing on diagnosing the real significance of Blinken's 7.5 hours of meeting with his counter part, Chinese Foreign Minister Qing Gang, and subsequent short meetings with Wang Yi, politburo member in charge of foreign affairs, and President Xi Jinping. In general, the analysts concluded that the trip did not produce any significant results beyond a chance for both sides to voice their concerns and agreed to maintain channels of communication except in military affairs. Post Blinken's trip, President Biden in a campaign speech called President Xi a dictator which erased any warm feelings Blinken cultivated in Beijing. Queried by a reporter, Biden defended his remark and commented that China will be as eager as the U.S. to keep a dialogue. This author does not know how Biden acquired his confidence that the Chinese leaders would continue to accept the U.S. behavior: “say one thing and do another or vice versa”. But based on the readouts released from both sides after Blinken's China trip, one could clearly see the fundamental problems between the two great nations. China had repeatedly expressed its principles in conducting its foreign policies and sought the understanding and cooperation from the U.S. But the U.S. seemed to prefer taking a vague (two-faced) position and conducting an ambiguous (double-standard) policy in dealing with China. In fact, the Blinken trip has revealed the fundamental problems which led to the current U.S.-China relations. In this article, this author shall make a sincere attempt to explain how U.S.China relations had evolved to the present state and what the future may be.

First, let's have a brief review of the U.S. readout about the Blinken China trip: “The two sides had candid, substantive, and constructive discussions on key priorities in the bilateral relationship and on a range of global and regional issues. The Secretary emphasized the importance of maintaining open channels of communication across the full range of issues to reduce the risk of miscalculation. Both sides welcomed strengthening people-to-people exchanges between students, scholars, and businesses. This includes a commitment to working to increase the number of direct flights between the two countries. He discussed U.S. de-risking policies and the historic domestic investments the Administration has made. The Secretary raised concerns about PRC human rights violations in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong,and individual cases of concern.  He emphasized that the United States will always stand up for our values. The Secretary underscored the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and reiterated there has been no change to the U.S. one China policy, based on the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. The two sides discussed a range of global and regional security issues, including Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the DPRK’s provocative actions, and U.S. concerns with PRC intelligence activities in Cuba. The Secretary made clear that the United States will work with its allies and partners to advance our vision for a world that is free, open, and upholds the rules-based international order.” The above readout essentially repeats what the Biden Administration has been persistently saying, which, in essence, means whatever actions we do against China are to advance our vision whether they harm China or not.

Next, let's make a brief review of the Chinese readout after Blinken's China trip: According to the Chinese readout, Xi lectured Blinken that competition “does not represent the trend of the times” and that it would not help “solve America’s own problems or the challenges facing the world.” The Chinese president also expressed that China does not seek to challenge or displace the United States and called on Washington to respect China’s “legitimate rights and interests” in turn. Wang is quoted listing Washington’s transgressions, including hyping up the “China threat,” “suppressing China’s scientific and technological advances” through “illegal unilateral sanctions,” and “interfering in China’s internal affairs,” particularly around Taiwan. The Blinken-Qin meeting is in a more business-like tone. The Chinese press release did include a list of agreements between the two sides such as a follow-up visit to the U.S. by Qin, the resumption of issue-specific working groups (although military communication was excluded), and the expansion of people-to-people exchanges and passenger flights between the two countries. China's position is clear and precise, consistent with its three principles, “mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation.” for guiding the U.S.-China relationship. Both Xi and Wang conveyed the notion that while Beijing is willing to live harmoniously with the U.S., Washington is rejecting a rational and pragmatic approach towards China causing a tense U.S.-China relationship. From the Chinese readout, one can see that China has been patiently reiterating China's diplomatic principles and its sincerity in pursuing a friendly relationship with the U.S. but the U.S is to blame for the deterioration of bilateral relations. This view is widely shared among Chinese people but unfortunately many Americans hold the opposite view.

It is obvious that the Blinken China trip failed in resolving any difference between the U.S. and China as seen from the above readouts. However, it did provide one more chance for both sides to express frankly the viewpoints of each other. The agreements to have further dialogue and exchanges are better than no interaction. China appears to be more resolved after experiencing many flip-flops of the U.S.-China policy. Unable to convince the U.S. to accept China's three principles, China apparently has decided to accept the U.S. as a hostile competitor preparing for the worst. China will act firmly in defending its interests just as firmly as the U.S. does for itself. China is preparing to counter the U.S. sanctions with self-reliance and cooperation with friendly partners. The change from 'de-coupling' to 'de-risking' would only send another untrustworthy flip-flop message to China. China with its shear population, market size, and resolution would most likely out run its competition. Ultimately, the competition depends on people, diligent, productive and talented people. China has at least twice as many bachelor's degree graduates each year (2020) as the U.S. produces. In engineering degrees, China produces 600,000 and the U.S. produces only 70,000 per year. It is not difficult to expect that China will win in the technology race eventually. However, Blinken's trip did open a door for further dialogue, U.S. Treasurer Yellen may make the next trip. We hope with more officials visiting China, the U.S. will understand sooner that a collaborative relationship with China will be a win-win relationship!
















Compose

Labels
Inbox5,344


Starred


Snoozed


Important


Sent


Drafts27



Categories



Social13



Updates999



Forums



Promotions4,001

More 

Labels
Labels

01TW GAS/other Bill



北美作協網站



美食會



旅遊



cool



grace ma



health



HostGator



Ifay survey



info



Jokes



knowledge



Lily Lee Chen



Lu Ad



Notes



Pingtung



QBASIC

More 











23 of 6,618








518期付印版及所有的文章的word files

Inbox
Search for all messages with label Inbox

Remove label Inbox from this conversation






[email protected]Jul 12, 2023, 4:33 AM (1 day ago)


to Betty, me






Chinese (Traditional)


English

   Translate message
Turn off for: Chinese (Traditional)



 
臧蓓，
 
寄上518期付印版,兩篇中文稿及一篇英文稿。
                                                                                                                                                         
文基
 



4 Attachments • Scanned by Gmail

 


 




ReplyReply allForward