Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

China threatens U.S. Congress for crossing its ‘red line’ on Taiwan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aussies got some figures. Wonder what the Indian one looks like

    Nearly 80 per cent of foreign political donations come from China, data shows | The New Daily | Dec 10 2017

    Nearly 80 per cent of the foreign donations made to Australia’s political parties since the year 2000 were linked to China, a study of electoral commission data has revealed.
    Unlike Russia that holds a country's foreign debt, the China trick here is lobbying. Everybody does that but the Chinese are the most generous.

    Chinese donors poured just over $12.6 million into the Australian political process between 2000 and 2016, which represented 79.3 per cent of all foreign donations, according to the analysis by the Melbourne Law School Dollars and Democracy Database.
    Only $12.6 mn AUD ?

    China lodges official complaint after Malcolm Turnbull’s comments about foreign interference | The New Daily | Dec 09 2017

    China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said he was shocked Mr Turnbull cited media reports about Communist Party interference when introducing new anti-espionage laws in Parliament.

    Mr Geng said Mr Turnbull’s remarks were prejudiced against China and had poisoned the atmosphere of China-Australia relations.

    “We are astounded by the relevant remarks of the Australian leader. Such remarks simply cater to the irresponsible reports by some Australian media that are without principle and full of bias against China,” Mr Geng said at a regularly scheduled briefing.

    “It poisons the atmosphere of the China-Australia relationship and undermines the foundation of mutual trust and bilateral cooperation.

    “We express strong dissatisfaction with that and have made a serious complaint with the Australian side.

    “China strongly urges relevant Australian individuals to discard their Cold War mentality and bias towards China, stop at once publishing wrong remarks that can damage mutual political trust and mutually beneficial cooperation between China and Australia.”

    Beijing said the reports of Chinese interference in Australia’s democracy were wrong.

    Earlier this week China blasted the Australian Government after it unveiled the biggest overhaul of espionage and intelligence laws in decades, amid the growing concerns of international interference.

    The Chinese embassy in Canberra released a statement that said Beijing “has no intention to interfere in Australia’s internal affairs or exert influence on its political process through political donations”.

    “Some Australian politicians and government officials also made irresponsible remarks to the detriment of political mutual trust between China and Australia,” the statement said.

    “We categorically reject these allegations.”

    The Chinese embassy in Australia accused Australian media of fabricating stories about the Chinese Government and meddling and vilifying Chinese students and the Chinese community in Australia.
    Cold war mentality ? China became the good guy in the latter half of the cold war

    As China gets increasingly involved in the domestic politics of various countries it will eventually be able to successfully influence electoral outcomes in those countries.

    in this way democracies can be made more orderly

    Have to say there is a little contradiction here. China usually doesn't want to meddle in the politics of other countries because they got enough crap to deal with in their own country. Any country that grants the Dalai lama an audience is going to have to deal with the fallout. The number of world leaders talking to the Dali Lama has dwindled quite a bit in the last few years. So how then can China expect to get away doing this in other countries

    The same could be said of Russia as well. Russia, China or India for that matter can always be counted on to oppose the latest unilateral western intervention somewhere in the world.

    But there must be something up for a Prof from NZ to publish a paper like this

    Magic weapons : Political influence activities under Xi Jinping (pdf) | Wilson Center | Sept 2017

    Conference paper presented at the conference on “The corrosion of democracy under China’s global influence,” supported by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, and
    hosted in Arlington, Virginia, USA, September 16-17, 2017


    Taiwan supported eh ? China's influence operations must have gone disastrously wrong then given Tsai ing Wen won : D

    If china can't get it right in a chinese speaking country, what chance do they have in non chinese speaking countries. Its all well and good to be talking about soft power backed up by hard currency. Where are the results ?
    Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Dec 17,, 15:45.

    Comment


    • Anti-dote, use our own

      Resisting China’s magic weapon | Interpreter | Sept 27 2017

      For nations like New Zealand and Australia, it can often be a challenge to defend against foreign political interference. Unless they result in treason, bribery, or some other form of corruption, most political influence activities are not illegal. They are instead matters of propriety and national security, which are much more subjective. But foreign influence activities (of any state) can only thrive if public opinion in the state being influenced tolerates them.

      The 1956 adaptation of Invasion of the Body Snatchers had two endings, one pessimistic, one optimistic. Most subsequent versions of the film feature the pessimistic ending – all the humans end up subsumed into pod people. In the novel, the aliens voluntarily left as a result of resistance from the human population.

      In real (not reel) life, the ending is up to us. How can we use democracy's own magic weapons to defend ourselves against foreign influence activities? We have many options at our disposal. We have the right to select our governments; checks and balances on power through the courts; regulatory bodies that manage the media and other aspects of society; the legally-supported role of the academic as critic and conscience; freedom of speech and association; and the media as our fourth estate.

      As former colonies of the UK and close partners with the US, both New Zealand and Australia are proud to espouse an independent foreign policy. But an independent foreign policy should not mean falling into the arms of another dominant power. Now is the time to use democracy's magic weapons to protect our societies against foreign influence and interference in our politics, from all states. Australia is tightening its laws around this issue and has engaged in in-depth investigations into the extent of China's influence activities. So too should New Zealand, and many other nations.
      When Aussies & Kiwis talk about 'independent' foreign policy it sounds familiar. Though a bit hollow given both are US treaty partners

      Comment


      • China is taking the quad seriously

        Will Xi Jinping’s charm offensive win over China’s wary neighbours? | SCMP | Dec 11 2017

        Douglas H. Paal says Beijing is softening its diplomatic approach to head off the possibility of an anti-China coalition forming on its doorstep, even as America’s influence and interest in the region wanes
        China’s Xi is in a stronger position, newly emerged from his coronation at the 19th Communist Party congress, presiding over a strong economy with new global ambitions and a reforming and strengthening military. So how does this all fit into China’s broader vision? Earlier this year, a number of my Chinese contacts urged me to watch China’s foreign policy in the aftermath of the 19th party congress. They argued that Xi would launch a charm offensive around China’s periphery.

        Xi has tried this before. In 2013, a year after taking the leadership, he summoned the country’s top diplomats for a conference on China’s foreign policy towards its periphery. It was purportedly to correct the mistakes in China’s foreign policy behaviour after 2008. From the time of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, Chinese foreign policy appeared increasingly benign and beneficial to its neighbours. Diplomats were skilful and the economic opportunity was burgeoning.

        But with the Olympics and concurrent global financial crisis, hubris seemed to consume many in China. The US was widely viewed as in decline.

        Beijing behaved haughtily. Arguments erupted in virtually all directions around China: with Japan over islands in the East China Sea, with Vietnam in the South China Sea, with India on their disputed border, with Myanmar over corrupt Chinese investment, and so on.

        The October 2013 work conference was intended to refocus Chinese diplomacy and resources on improving China’s relationships with its neighbours. The objective was realistic, in the sense that China knew it would not turn its neighbours into allies. Rather, the goal was to deny the US, Japan, and possibly India, the capacity to forge a coalition with China’s neighbours to counterbalance growing Chinese power and influence. By offering trade and infrastructure (the “Belt and Road Initiative”) and restraining conflicts, Beijing could pre-empt any such effort.

        Xi’s early ambitions fell apart. The belt and road failed to materialise beyond being a slogan. Xi oversaw the declaration of an unanticipated and unwelcome air defence identification zone over the East China Sea. He waged hybrid warfare in the South China Sea, laying claim to a vast area of the sea within a nine-dash line, but that claim was declared illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague.

        Now, it appears Xi wants to start his charm offensive again. The strategic goal of preventing a coalition of anti-China neighbours remains unchanged. His motivation has probably been enhanced by Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, now largely judged to have been an unsuccessful challenge to China’s rise, and by Trump’s new “Indo-Pacific strategy”, which is clearly intended to compete with China, though it remains mostly unarticulated. The Trump administration’s national security strategy is expected to be unveiled in the coming days.

        The early evidence for this Chinese charm offensive is rather compelling. Within days of the completion of the 19th party congress,

        - Beijing announced a new agreement and mechanism with Hanoi to manage their disputes in the South China Sea.

        - Agreement was also reached between the Chinese and South Korean foreign ministers to limit THAAD deployments in exchange for normalising relations.

        - Meanwhile, Tokyo and Beijing also revealed intentions for Xi to make a state visit next year to Japan, and agreed to a long-delayed mechanism to manage tensions in the East China Sea.

        - In Southeast Asia, China continues to woo Rodrigo Duterte’s government in the Philippines

        - while Myanmar’s military and civilian leaders recently made back-to-back visits to China.

        Being the self-referential behemoth that it is, China could fail again with the latest charm offensive. The issues that have infected China’s relations with its neighbours for decades will not disappear. It will behove observers to watch how China manages those issues and disputes, as well as how Washington, Tokyo, and perhaps New Delhi provide leadership and resources to counter or exploit Beijing’s blandishments.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Dec 17,, 00:50.

        Comment


        • This statement has been making the rounds, what do you guys think? Credible? Bluff? seems to be backed by the Chinese government.


          Likely Washington reaction?

          Chinese diplomat in U.S. threatens Taiwan with military attack
          If U.S. Navy vessel docks in Kaohsiung, China will attack: PRC embassy minister

          By Matthew Strong,Taiwan News, Staff Writer
          2017/12/09 15:04
          Chinese embassy to the U.S. Minister Li Kexin.
          Chinese embassy to the U.S. Minister Li Kexin. (By Central News Agency)
          TAIPEI (Taiwan News) – The day a United States Navy ship docks in Kaohsiung is the day China will launch a military attack against Taiwan, a Chinese diplomat in the U.S. reportedly said Friday.

          Chinese embassy Minister Li Kexin (李克新) was referring to the recent passage by the U.S. Congress of a measure which will allow visits by Navy vessels and military officials from the U.S. and Taiwan to each other’s territory.

          He was speaking at an embassy event where more than 200 Chinese students in the U.S. but also Taiwanese residents and media had been invited, the Chinese-language Liberty Times reported.

          If the U.S. Navy visited Taiwan, it would violate China’s Anti-Secession Law (反分裂國家法), which had not yet been used before, Li said. The law was passed in 2005 at a time of tension with the Taiwan government of President Chen Shui-bian (高雄) and for the first time formalized Beijing’s threats of military intervention should the island declare independence.

          A decision for mutual visits by Navy ships between the U.S. and Taiwan would violate the basic spirit of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Beijing and Washington, Li continued.

          “The day that a U.S. Navy vessel arrives in Kaohsiung, is the day that our People’s Liberation Army unites Taiwan with military force,” the Liberty Times quoted Li as saying.

          The diplomat emphasized that China’s main policy principle on Taiwan was still peaceful unification, but that it would not rule out the extreme possibility of unification by military force.

          In Taipei, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said it had no way of saying how the U.S. government would interpret the new law, but the threatening way in which a Chinese official had commented on it had hurt the feelings of people on both sides and was not helpful to the positive development of relations between Taiwan and China.

          MOFA said the government would continue to promote the peaceful and stable development of cross-straits ties and use dialogue to defuse differences.

          Tamkang University international affairs expert Alexander Huang saw Li’s statement as destined for internal Chinese consumption. In addition, since China had no way of overcoming the support for Taiwan in Congress, it used strong language against the work of the Taiwan sympathizers instead, Huang commented.

          The expert also found Li’s mention of Kaohsiung strange, since it seemed to imply that if U.S. Navy vessels docked at other Taiwanese ports, it would not matter that much.
          https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3316709

          Comment


          • Would China go to war over U.S. Navy port calls in Taiwan? | Taiwan sentinel | Dec 11 2017

            The blunt messaging delivered on U.S. soil was ostensibly in response to the passage, on November 30th, of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act by Congress, which contains language authorizing the U.S. to evaluate the possibility of re-establishing “regular ports of call by the U.S. Navy at Kaohsiung or any other suitable ports in Taiwan” and allowing Taiwanese vessels to make port calls at U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) yards.

            Though alarming, Minister Li’s remarks should be understood in their proper context. For one thing, we do not know if Li, whose curriculum vitae does not suggest any military experience, was speaking on behalf of the Central Military Commission (CMC) — or President Xi Jinping himself — or that he was being hyperbolic, as many Chinese diplomats abroad have become in recent years. What we do know is that it is not the remit of a Chinese envoy to make decisions on how and when to activate the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

            It was a warning, one that should be taken seriously and prepared against. But we should avoid inflating its significance or allowing such headline-grabbing bluster to affect how two democracies and longstanding allies conduct their affairs. Chinese envoys have gotten into the unfortunate habit of issuing threats on foreign soil. The reason they do so is that far too often we have allowed them to succeed by backing off whenever they raise their voice, without first asking ourselves if Beijing would indeed act on such a threat (provided it gave permission to an envoy to issue such a threat to begin with).

            As with most of the vitriol that has been spewed by Chinese officials regarding Taiwan, the principal audience of this outburst was largely domestic. For years now the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has reinforced the idea that it is succeeding in pushing the U.S. military out from the Taiwan Strait. Renewed port calls by U.S. Navy vessels (and presumably not just at Zuoying) would be an embarrassment for the CCP. They would also punch holes in Beijing’s claim that the U.S. should “abandon” (or is abandoning) Taiwan, a notion that it has tirelessly sought to reinforce through propaganda and political warfare.

            It is difficult to imagine that the People’s Liberation Army would be called upon to invade Taiwan over a development whose significance would, it must be said, be largely symbolic.

            Even if regular port calls by the U.S. Navy occurred, it would not have a major direct impact on Taiwan’s security or the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait. At most their presence at Taiwanese ports would act as a deterrent against Chinese attack, lest the (accidental) sinking of a U.S. vessel draw a retaliatory response by the 7th Fleet based in Japan.

            Symbolically, this would normalize Taiwan as a logical transit route for American vessels conducting patrols in the first island chain and a staging point between the East China Sea and South China Sea, two areas where the People’s Liberation Army Navy has been very active in recent years in asserting Beijing’s territorial ambitions. (I would argue that U.S. Navy port calls in Taiwan should be presented by the U.S. not so much as a measure to benefit Taiwan than as a necessary response to the increasingly aggressive behavior of the PLA in the region.)

            Nevertheless, while it is unlikely President Xi would order a hugely risky PLA invasion of Taiwan over a decision that amounts to little more than symbolism, there is no doubt that Beijing would retaliate, in one form or another, against the move. In such an event, the likely target would be Taiwan, not the United States. Thus, as Taipei and Washington discuss the possibility of resuming port visits, the pros of doing so will have to be weighed against the negative repercussions that will inevitably occur. In other words, Taipei will need to ask itself whether symbolic gains are important enough that it can afford to suffer non-symbolic acts of retaliation by Beijing (e.g., the loss of an official diplomatic ally or other measures meant to further isolate Taiwan).

            Though this would be a welcome development, the resumption of U.S. Navy port calls should be calibrated in a such a way that the benefits to Taiwan, symbolic and tangible, outweigh the expected costs.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Dec 17,, 23:04.

            Comment


            • The port visit thing is one of those idiotic feel good things that crops up in the NDAA process every other year or so.

              A major problem is that China has a lot of tools to make it so embarrassing, emasculating and inconvenient that Taipei doesn't every try it again.

              For example, Beijing could send several PLAN warships (or even Coast Guard ships, for the matter) to closely shadow any USN ship going to Taiwan, and then camp said PRC taskforce a mile or so outside of whatever host harbor or port.

              Bonus points if the PRC taskforce flies a helo or drone around, and launches a RHIB to do donuts.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                The port visit thing is one of those idiotic feel good things that crops up in the NDAA process every other year or so.

                A major problem is that China has a lot of tools to make it so embarrassing, emasculating and inconvenient that Taipei doesn't every try it again.

                For example, Beijing could send several PLAN warships (or even Coast Guard ships, for the matter) to closely shadow any USN ship going to Taiwan, and then camp said PRC taskforce a mile or so outside of whatever host harbor or port.

                Bonus points if the PRC taskforce flies a helo or drone around, and launches a RHIB to do donuts.
                If the PLAN can sit 1 mile outside of a Taiwanese Harbour then, Taiwan should be invaded.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                  The port visit thing is one of those idiotic feel good things that crops up in the NDAA process every other year or so.

                  A major problem is that China has a lot of tools to make it so embarrassing, emasculating and inconvenient that Taipei doesn't every try it again.

                  For example, Beijing could send several PLAN warships (or even Coast Guard ships, for the matter) to closely shadow any USN ship going to Taiwan, and then camp said PRC taskforce a mile or so outside of whatever host harbor or port.

                  Bonus points if the PRC taskforce flies a helo or drone around, and launches a RHIB to do donuts.

                  Those dumbasses in Washington seem to have forgotten one thing.

                  "In the joint communique, the US recognized the Government of the Peoples Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and also acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" In making an unsanctioned visit by a U.S. warship to Taiwan. they would be violating Chinas territorial waters.

                  Futhermore if Beijing wants to park a couple of navy ships a mile off a Taiwan port than legitimately it can.
                  Last edited by Funtastic; 15 Dec 17,, 05:41.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                    Those dumbasses in Washington seem to have forgotten one thing.

                    "In the joint communique, the US recognized the Government of the Peoples Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and also acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" In making an unsanctioned visit by a U.S. warship to Taiwan. they would be violating Chinas territorial waters.

                    Futhermore if Beijing wants to park a couple of navy ships a mile off a Taiwan port than legitimately it can.
                    I see the word re-establish which implies they used to make port calls in the past. The US recognised one china in the 70s.

                    You mean to tell me there never has been a USN port call to Taiwan since ?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                      "In the joint communique, the US recognized the Government of the Peoples Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and also acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" In making an unsanctioned visit by a U.S. warship to Taiwan. they would be violating Chinas territorial waters.
                      It's a communique, not a treaty obligation. It does not have the weight of law either US domestic nor International.
                      Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                      Futhermore if Beijing wants to park a couple of navy ships a mile off a Taiwan port than legitimately it can.
                      The more important point, however, is that the ROCN is able, willing, and obliged to sink those ships a mile off a Taiwanese port and there's nothing Beijing can do to stop them.
                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 15 Dec 17,, 16:50.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                        Futhermore if Beijing wants to park a couple of navy ships a mile off a Taiwan port than legitimately it can.
                        you might have misunderstood what OOE said.

                        What i understood is if China can get away with parking a couple of ships a mile off Taiwan then the door is wide open. What is China waiting for. Go and integrate Taiwan. China has won. Game over for Taiwan.

                        But that is not the situation right now

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          you might have misunderstood what OOE said.

                          What i understood is if China can get away with parking a couple of ships a mile off Taiwan then the door is wide open. What is China waiting for. Go and integrate Taiwan. China has won. Game over for Taiwan.

                          But that is not the situation right now
                          In the first instance 99.9% of the countries recognise China and that Taiwan is part of China which means all the waters around Taiwan are consided to be Chinese sovereign waters.Now if Taiwan wants to attack a PRC naval ship on peaceful transit through those waters a mile off taiwans coast or temporarily stopped for a valid reason outside iits port, lets say technical engineering prolems and taiwan sinks it, then it should be roundly condemed by the rest of the world.

                          by the way the Western countries and its allies that are condenming China for her SCS island building, are noticelibly quient on Vietnams island buildind.Why arent the the U.S running FON OPS against Vietnam. Double standards abounds with the whole issue IMO.

                          In answer to your question, there has been no US naval visit to Taiwan since America recognised China in 1979 and Taiwan ibeing Chinas Sovereign territory
                          Last edited by Funtastic; 16 Dec 17,, 00:35.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                            It's a communique, not a treaty obligation. It does not have the weight of law either US domestic nor International.The more important point, however, is that the ROCN is able, willing, and obliged to sink those ships a mile off a Taiwanese port and there's nothing Beijing can do to stop them.
                            I think I more or less answere your post when answering Double Edge #132

                            I have a question for you in relation to specuclation on how a Taiwan China war would play out.

                            Firstly what makes people think that China would be facing the full might of Taiwans armed forces.Given that at lthe very least 40% 0f the people are opposed to ideclaring indepence and the realisation by more that its a lost so bugger dying for,it, a considerable number with like minded generals will not front up to fight the PRC forces.
                            The troops that are opposed to PRC landings can be taken out with a continuous barage thermobaric bombs until the few that remain arent capable of putting up a credible fight.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                              Firstly what makes people think that China would be facing the full might of Taiwans armed forces.Given that at lthe very least 40% 0f the people are opposed to ideclaring indepence and the realisation by more that its a lost so bugger dying for,it, a considerable number with like minded generals will not front up to fight the PRC forces.
                              1) Count on the enemy to be the best he can be.

                              2) Count on the enemy to be as smart, if not smarter than you.

                              3) The enemy's limitations are physical, not determination and not lack of thinking.

                              4) There is no more furious enemy than one defending his home.

                              Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                              The troops that are opposed to PRC landings can be taken out with a continuous barage thermobaric bombs until the few that remain arent capable of putting up a credible fight.
                              Too many targets and not enough bombs and certainly, not enough delivery vehicles. I can think of a lot more high priority targets that needed to be taken out before trying to reduce the immediate resistance.

                              However, thermobarics are a poor choice for an ocean beach bombardment. That surf creates wind which blows the chemicals away from the ignition point and the air is very moist, making it difficult to achieve a proper flash.
                              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 16 Dec 17,, 02:41.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                                In the first instance 99.9% of the countries recognise China and that Taiwan is part of China which means all the waters around Taiwan are consided to be Chinese sovereign waters.Now if Taiwan wants to attack a PRC naval ship on peaceful transit through those waters a mile off taiwans coast or temporarily stopped for a valid reason outside iits port, lets say technical engineering prolems and taiwan sinks it, then it should be roundly condemed by the rest of the world.
                                You know the ROCN can and are detaining Mainland vessels for illegal fishing. For your premis to play out, a SOS must be broadcast in which case, the Taiwanese are legally obliged to tow the Mainland vessel into port "for repairs."
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X