EDITORIAL: For
Beijing, mutual trust is one-way
While calling on the international community to respect China¡¦s ¡§right¡¨ to
peaceful development, Beijing has yet to abandon its tendency to make requests
that are diametrically opposed to that goal.
Again this week, Beijing called on Washington to facilitate mutual understanding
and respect its core interests, which include its claim of sovereignty over
Taiwan. The problem with such assertions is that Beijing¡¦s definition of mutual
understanding is often irreconcilable with reality, or at least morality.
It is very difficult, for one, to increase mutual understanding when one side¡¦s
position is underscored by the deployment of 1,600 ballistic missiles. Surely,
mutual understanding cannot include the other party¡¦s acknowledgement that the
Chinese military has a right to threaten Taiwan¡¦s 23 million peace-loving
people, let alone ignore their own preferences regarding their identity and the
destiny of their nation.
Bowing to such calls for mutual understanding, with the threat of force as one
of the main elements of that understanding, would be tantamount to moral
capitulation on Washington¡¦s part, whether as a country that perceives itself as
a beacon of democracy or as Taiwan¡¦s sole security guarantor.
The other, equally fatal, flaw in Beijing¡¦s plea for mutual understanding is
that on core issues, the understanding in fact is not mutual: It expects its
counterparts to absorb, and if possible abide by, its own idiosyncratic view of
the world, while categorically refusing to compromise. Taiwan again serves as a
perfect example.
It is therefore anxiety-provoking when supposedly seasoned diplomats and
strategists, such as former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski,
argue that at some point, the US will have to address the Taiwan ¡§question¡¨ and
¡§be sensitive to the meaning of this issue to China,¡¨ which in effect represents
abdicating to calls by Chinese of Minister Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi (·¨¼äêÁ) to
increase mutual trust.
Never mind that Brzezinski was once again exhibiting his utter inability to
understand Taiwan or that mutual trust should also include input from the 23
million people in Taiwan who would be most affected by a decision ¡X which he
only vaguely hints at ¡X to abandon Taiwan.
The same applies to the argument, repeated by Brzezinski, that the desired ¡§one
China¡¨ could, through a peaceful process, exist in the form of several political
systems. Here ¡X and we have Hong Kong¡¦s and Tibet¡¦s experience as models ¡X what
we have is not mutual understanding, but wishful thinking, if not downright
naivety. Beijing does not brook the existence of different political systems
under ¡§one China.¡¨ Since 1950, when the People¡¦s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded
Tibet, Tibetan customs and religion have become shadows of their former glory.
The same applies to the tottering democratic system in Hong Kong, which little
by little is being chopped away at the edges by Beijing and its minions inside
the territory.
Beijing is not exactly receptive to the need for reciprocity that underscores
mutual trust and understanding. Tibetans, Uighurs and Hong Kongers know full
well from their own, for the most part painful, experience that, by Chinese
definition, mutual understanding is a one-way street, and one that leads
straight to Zhongnanhai.
So now Brzezinski and other China apologists would have Taiwanese show
understanding for the PLA forcing them to live under the shadow of war? No sane
person would understand, let alone accept, such a threat. That Beijing continues
to aim those missiles at its ¡§own blood¡¨ and ¡§compatriots¡¨ only proves the point
that the Chinese leadership could not care less about the opinions of others.
|