Scholars, or Trouble Makers?--People's Observation

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Friday, July 11, 2003

Scholars, or Trouble Makers?--People's Observation

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

This seems having become a law--when Sino-US relations pick up and undergo smooth development, a bunch of anti-China forces in the United States would jump out and make some noises. Now, when the relations between the two countries are entering a period of steady development, a few US "scholars" began to write articles of negative influence on Sino-US relations.

Regrettably, as one reads these articles carefully, one finds the expositions there do not tally with their scholarly identity: these articles lack a realistic approach, instead, they are full of insidious words designed to ferment trouble. It is suspicious about whether they are scholars engaging in research, or agitators anxious to see the world plunged into chaos.

A ready example is Thomas Donnelly, a senior fellow at the PNAC (Project for the New American Century), who published an article on the latest issue of US AEI National Security Outlook, saying that the real problem now facing the United States is how the country uses its victory in the Iraq War to keep and enlarge the "peace under US rule" and to further institutionalize it. His recipe for American hegemony is, on the one hand, to "wipe out" Islamism and on the other hand , to"contain" the People's Republic of China, i.e., to prevent it from rising to become a power. His conclusion is to prevent the conduction of "formal or actual cooperation between terrorist countries or organizations of the Islamic world and Beijing", for the "alliance would finally become a real power against the United States".

It can easily be seen that the scholar's view is nearly a copy from The Clash of Civilizations by Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington in the early 1990s. But more than 10 years have passed since then and the alliance between Islamism and the Confucian cultures fancied by some people never appeared. On the contrary, what is true is that China and the United States are conducting unprecedented and fruitful cooperation in the fields such as anti-terrorism and prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Today, Mr. Donnelly acts the part of fanning up flames and making trouble out of nothing, with the evil intention of plunging the world into chaos, as expressed in his article: "if we must make a turbulence, then let's make a disturbance that creates a greater freedom"!

Another brilliant author is Richard Fisher, chief editor of China Brief, a publication of the Jamestown Foundation. Fisher in his recent article vented his dissatisfaction at the report titled Chinese Military Power published by the Council on Foreign Relations on May 22, for the report is of relatively objective estimations and corrects the US over reaction to China's military power. The report concludes, "The Chinese military is at least two decades behind the United States in terms of military technology and capability," and the advantage will "remain decisively in America's favor beyond the next 20 years" if US military-acquisition and spending trends continue. While Fisher criticized the report for underestimating the role of foreign technology in helping China to catch up rapidly with the United States and much accelerating the space combating capacity of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Yet it is known to all that a big developing country like China could never rely solely on limited import of military equipment to realize its whole military modernization. Mr. Fisher probably ignored a fact that China is a country always resolutely standing for non-military space, while it is his own country that has been seeking for space arms.

Even more abnormal is the article titled "U.S. Policy Change Toward Beijing" written by senior writer J. Michael Waller and published in the latest issue of Insight, in which he openly sowed discord between China and its neighbors. It is known to all that China is always sticking to its policy of good neighborliness, and has recently established friendly, mutually beneficial cooperative relations with Russia and five central Asian countries, with 10 ASEAN members and even with India. Maybe it is precisely these world-noticeable diplomatic achievements that have made these anti-China scholars feel discomfort and lose their psychological balance.

A few examples from Waller's article will suffice to show how farfetched and ridiculous are his charges against China. The author, regardless of China's consistent stand against nuclear proliferation, groundlessly blamed Beijing for the development of nuclear weapons on the South Asia sub-continent and the DPRK nuclear issue; and held China responsible for Japan's consideration of revising peace constitution and its attempt to build up an independent nuclear force. It is well known that China's efforts to solve the DPRK nuclear issue have won worldwide positive comments, including those from American President Bush, yet it is needless to say Japan's attempts to re-arm itself are the result of US repeated pressure and drive.

The article also raised doubts about and criticism of China for China's military exchanges with Cambodia, Singapore's declared withdrawal of its military training facilities from Taiwan and the Philippines' intention to cooperate with China in anti-terrorism operations in the region. Aren't they sovereign states, or can they only choose to cooperate with America?

What's more, the article even took China's good-willed loan aid and debt forgiveness to its neighbors as "controlling their economies" and China's oil exploitation cooperation with other countries as "supporting Islamic regime". One cannot help wondering whether the oil producers all over the world are exclusively possessed by the United States. The article even went so far as to blame China for the growth of so-called "anti-America" sentiments in Thailand and Venezuela, and its accusations are so farfetched that they raise suspicion about the author's intention.

A thorough view of the articles mentioned above clearly shows that this bunch of so-called new conservative scholars are used to viewing China's foreign policy through colored, hostile glasses. Their intention is no more than trying to influence the Bush administration's policy toward Beijing and destroy the constructive Sino-US relations of cooperation that is entering a period of steady development, in a vain attempt to pull the ties between the two countries back into frictions and confrontations. In this sense the chief culprits who stir up "fear and instability" are no other than the authors themselves. Suspicions created between China and the United States are unfavorable to the sound and steady development of Sino-US ties, or to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region or even the whole world, therefore not in the fundamental and long-term interests of the two countries. So the Chinese and American governments and peoples should guard against these trouble-making "advises and proposals".

By PD Online Staff Member Li Heng

Questions?Comments? Click here

Chinese Vice-president on Sino-US Relations

US Interference in China's Internal Affairs Doomed: FM Spokeswoman

China Hopes Sino-US Summit Meeting Will Boost Bilateral Relations

China Urges US to Stop Upgrading Relations with Taiwan ( 14 Messages)

Scientific Theory, Great Banner: Commentary ( 2 Messages)

Will Lawmaking on Sexual Harassment Upset Normal Social Life? ( 9 Messages)

Why Renminbi Not to Be Revalued, Chief Economist of Morgan Stanley ( 3 Messages)

DPRK Refutes South Korea's "Principal Enemy" Rhetoric ( 16 Messages)