By China Watcher
The screening of a movie by a Western glorified anti-China dissident in the city of Kaoshiung in Taiwan recently is clearly a move to antagonize China and also, to gain political mileage from the clusters of independence leaning supporters, mainly from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party.
The film which Beijing criticized is a distorted movie that supports separatism and will not help to reunite the various ethnic races on the mainland. Westerners who viewed the documentary will also have a negative perception of the dominant Han Chinese.
A pro-independence singer of a Taiwan's metal rock band invited the self nominated exiled dissident from Xinjiang to visit Taiwan in December 2009, is another move to counter the warming of relations between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, which is strongly promoted by the ruling Kuomintang Party.
Even the pro-business and tourist association are against the moves to show the movie and to invite a controversial figure to the self-ruled island, which historically has been accepted to be a part of China. Of course, the West which has a hidden agenda was non committal on the issue as against the majority of the nations which evidently supported China’s claim.
The Chinese authorities have indicated that the snubbed on China will not in any way help to promote Taiwan as a priority travel destination for Han Chinese.
Being a politically influential and economically powerful country presently, China should leverage on this position to ensure that only persons who are friendly to the China cause would benefit the most from the enhanced activities between mainland China and Taiwan. The majority of Taiwanese should not be made to suffer by the actions from these pro-dissidents and anti-Chinese supporters.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
China will be able to reduce US dominance in the Asia Pacific in the next decade
By China Watcher
I completely agree with US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, that China would be able to reduce US complete dominance in the high seas, in space and in cyberspace probably in a decade from now.
Further, I am quite confident that as China military power continues to make progressive advancement towards 2050, the challenges to US supremacy in terms of symmetrically head to head in numbers and quality should be not be discounted so openly by the US military think-tank.
It is always a right of a sovereign nation (truly independent and not US subservient Asian countries like Japan and South Korea) to develop its own stable of arsenal to meet its requirements reflective of its size and importance. Historically, the Chinese were at one time a peaceful sea-faring nation in the 14th Century when the US was not even born.
The repeated warnings by Gates are viewed more for lobbying of additional funds from the Congress to develop highly advanced weapons and machines to counter any Chinese upgrade of its weaponry, to keep it one to two steps ahead of its rival.
The US residents realized that it is impossible to continue to keep abreast of the latest in high technology development to maintain its no.1 status throughout the world (given its self appointed role as the “policemen” of the world) if the economy keeps stumbling. In fact, the huge debt owed by the US can only be repaid in the medium to longer term by the sale of its territories like Alaska, Hawaii or perhaps, a portion of New Mexico, as one of the critics pointed out in a seminar on US’s role in Asia.
I would not put it as a threat which was used willingly and aggressively by the US media but the closing of technological gap between the military of the two powerful nations. Even the Russians were making advancement in the weapons and ballistics section of the military recently.
What does Gates actually meant when he said the progress by other nations, namely China, would undermine US power in the Asia Pacific? In the first place, should US be allowed in Asia since most countries have more or less stabilized and why should independent nations in Asia allowed the US to continue establishing military bases in its territories? And why must the US be the only country allowed to set up bases around the world?
We are currently moving towards a world order which must not only be controlled solely by only one power, namely the US. I believe the future order would be transformed to one which is influenced by – US, China, Russia and perhaps, EU (mainly Germany, UK and France).
On another aspect, he said that long range military aircraft would take greater significance in the next decade since the development of new short term Chinese arsenals can counter its short range fighters. China military growth and its development not only focus on short term measures but also long term. I am of the opinion that the Chinese has also extended its long range capability especially in its nuclear submarines and warships which would indirectly reduce the effectiveness of the US long range military aircraft as well.
The US would definitely lose its dominance in the future, It is just a matter of time and the faster the US can come to accept it as a reality, the better it is for the world.
I am waiting anxiously on October 1 on China’s 60th Anniversary of the CPC rule, to review the vast array of its new military warfare on parade to ascertain whether China can truly take its rightful place as a superpower in this century.
I completely agree with US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, that China would be able to reduce US complete dominance in the high seas, in space and in cyberspace probably in a decade from now.
Further, I am quite confident that as China military power continues to make progressive advancement towards 2050, the challenges to US supremacy in terms of symmetrically head to head in numbers and quality should be not be discounted so openly by the US military think-tank.
It is always a right of a sovereign nation (truly independent and not US subservient Asian countries like Japan and South Korea) to develop its own stable of arsenal to meet its requirements reflective of its size and importance. Historically, the Chinese were at one time a peaceful sea-faring nation in the 14th Century when the US was not even born.
The repeated warnings by Gates are viewed more for lobbying of additional funds from the Congress to develop highly advanced weapons and machines to counter any Chinese upgrade of its weaponry, to keep it one to two steps ahead of its rival.
The US residents realized that it is impossible to continue to keep abreast of the latest in high technology development to maintain its no.1 status throughout the world (given its self appointed role as the “policemen” of the world) if the economy keeps stumbling. In fact, the huge debt owed by the US can only be repaid in the medium to longer term by the sale of its territories like Alaska, Hawaii or perhaps, a portion of New Mexico, as one of the critics pointed out in a seminar on US’s role in Asia.
I would not put it as a threat which was used willingly and aggressively by the US media but the closing of technological gap between the military of the two powerful nations. Even the Russians were making advancement in the weapons and ballistics section of the military recently.
What does Gates actually meant when he said the progress by other nations, namely China, would undermine US power in the Asia Pacific? In the first place, should US be allowed in Asia since most countries have more or less stabilized and why should independent nations in Asia allowed the US to continue establishing military bases in its territories? And why must the US be the only country allowed to set up bases around the world?
We are currently moving towards a world order which must not only be controlled solely by only one power, namely the US. I believe the future order would be transformed to one which is influenced by – US, China, Russia and perhaps, EU (mainly Germany, UK and France).
On another aspect, he said that long range military aircraft would take greater significance in the next decade since the development of new short term Chinese arsenals can counter its short range fighters. China military growth and its development not only focus on short term measures but also long term. I am of the opinion that the Chinese has also extended its long range capability especially in its nuclear submarines and warships which would indirectly reduce the effectiveness of the US long range military aircraft as well.
The US would definitely lose its dominance in the future, It is just a matter of time and the faster the US can come to accept it as a reality, the better it is for the world.
I am waiting anxiously on October 1 on China’s 60th Anniversary of the CPC rule, to review the vast array of its new military warfare on parade to ascertain whether China can truly take its rightful place as a superpower in this century.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
What is the rationale calling for the release of ex-Taiwanese leader?
By China Watcher
On Saturday, the Democratic Progressive Party which is now in Opposition called for the immediate release of ex-Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian while he appeals against his conviction on graft charges. Last Friday, he was sentenced to prison for life for being convicted of embezzling state funds, laundering money and accepting bribes of around US$28 million.
What is the justification for the release of a rogue President?
Just because he was a former President or that he truly fought for Taiwanese independence. He was actually pandering to the Western agenda to “break up” China to create a position in which a convergence of Chinese conglomerate would be less threatening to Western continued dominance. It is also obvious that the hordes of WESTERN human right activists and the bunch of supporters are behind the charade.
US$28 million is not a small amount in Asian societies. Maybe, in the West the amount is considered insignificant.
Most WESTERN so called experts are now questioning the fairness of the legal system in Taiwan. These people are not stakeholders in the prosperity and unity of the Chinese people. They are merely outsiders who will have no bearing if the Taiwanese political or economic system did not meet up to the expectation of the Western judicial standards.
To these people or the West “white-based” societies, the legal system in non-Western countries are subjected to many irregularities and inadequate “check and balances” that would cast suspicion on the fairness of the trial. That is why historically in circumstance where a foreign national from the so-called advanced nation was passed judgment in an Asian Court, you can almost tell from the faces of its relatives, friends that it is not fair even after so many witnesses were called to testify. In the mind of a Western person, a judge of Asian origin is just not capable to adjudge a person who comes from a place where there is democracy and there is respect for individual freedom.
The case demonstrated to the world that nobody is above the law and that the conviction indicated that there is progress in a civil society dictated strongly by law. The fact that he was not charged while he was a President for two terms even though there were evidences pointing to many wrongdoings was because of his immunity status for being the most powerful person in Taiwan during that time.
I am very sure that the government’s prosecutor would have double checked all the facts of the case, which is subjected to questioning by the legal team of the ex-President if it is not proper or irregular during the trial.
Most Asian commentators were of the view that the Taiwan's judicial system is undergoing a transformation which had already reached a respectable standard as compared to most emerging Asian countries and personally, I think that there is already a certain measure of fairness. The above suspicion appearances without political bias as proclaimed by the West do not even exist in the true sense in Western societies.
Taiwanese legal system allows a convicted person an automatic appeal if it is a life sentence. If the opposition and their Western supporters think the process is unfair then the appeal avenue is a viable platform for them to seek redress but it must be devoid of any Western interference and pressures.
But the system is such that he must be detained and not release as called upon by the opposition and their independence seeking supporters.
From a survey of the Taiwanese public, 50 percent said the verdict proved Taiwan's judicial independence and only 25 percent considered it a political persecution.
I fully disagree with the Western perception that the verdict has divided the island 23 million people which to the contrary has strengthened the people’s resolve to ensure that the Taiwanese legal process takes it full course for person who breaks Taiwanese regulations and statutes.
On Saturday, the Democratic Progressive Party which is now in Opposition called for the immediate release of ex-Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian while he appeals against his conviction on graft charges. Last Friday, he was sentenced to prison for life for being convicted of embezzling state funds, laundering money and accepting bribes of around US$28 million.
What is the justification for the release of a rogue President?
Just because he was a former President or that he truly fought for Taiwanese independence. He was actually pandering to the Western agenda to “break up” China to create a position in which a convergence of Chinese conglomerate would be less threatening to Western continued dominance. It is also obvious that the hordes of WESTERN human right activists and the bunch of supporters are behind the charade.
US$28 million is not a small amount in Asian societies. Maybe, in the West the amount is considered insignificant.
Most WESTERN so called experts are now questioning the fairness of the legal system in Taiwan. These people are not stakeholders in the prosperity and unity of the Chinese people. They are merely outsiders who will have no bearing if the Taiwanese political or economic system did not meet up to the expectation of the Western judicial standards.
To these people or the West “white-based” societies, the legal system in non-Western countries are subjected to many irregularities and inadequate “check and balances” that would cast suspicion on the fairness of the trial. That is why historically in circumstance where a foreign national from the so-called advanced nation was passed judgment in an Asian Court, you can almost tell from the faces of its relatives, friends that it is not fair even after so many witnesses were called to testify. In the mind of a Western person, a judge of Asian origin is just not capable to adjudge a person who comes from a place where there is democracy and there is respect for individual freedom.
The case demonstrated to the world that nobody is above the law and that the conviction indicated that there is progress in a civil society dictated strongly by law. The fact that he was not charged while he was a President for two terms even though there were evidences pointing to many wrongdoings was because of his immunity status for being the most powerful person in Taiwan during that time.
I am very sure that the government’s prosecutor would have double checked all the facts of the case, which is subjected to questioning by the legal team of the ex-President if it is not proper or irregular during the trial.
Most Asian commentators were of the view that the Taiwan's judicial system is undergoing a transformation which had already reached a respectable standard as compared to most emerging Asian countries and personally, I think that there is already a certain measure of fairness. The above suspicion appearances without political bias as proclaimed by the West do not even exist in the true sense in Western societies.
Taiwanese legal system allows a convicted person an automatic appeal if it is a life sentence. If the opposition and their Western supporters think the process is unfair then the appeal avenue is a viable platform for them to seek redress but it must be devoid of any Western interference and pressures.
But the system is such that he must be detained and not release as called upon by the opposition and their independence seeking supporters.
From a survey of the Taiwanese public, 50 percent said the verdict proved Taiwan's judicial independence and only 25 percent considered it a political persecution.
I fully disagree with the Western perception that the verdict has divided the island 23 million people which to the contrary has strengthened the people’s resolve to ensure that the Taiwanese legal process takes it full course for person who breaks Taiwanese regulations and statutes.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Nephew of Dalai Lama tried to seek world’s sympathy of an imposed “gag order” by the Taiwanese authorities
By
By allowing the visit of this despise religious figure to
His nephew told the nosy Western media that there was a "gag order" on his uncle out of fears of
First, his visitation rights are confined to spiritual “comfort” for the victims of the Typhoon Morakot and nothing more. Secondly, this is an island whereby traditional Asian values are still practiced in which the guest will need to respect the wishes of the host. Perhaps a western country may allow you to criticize a “friend” of yours in their house but not in an Asian country.
The host “nation” has every right to set conditions for its visitors in its territory. If the Dalai Lama and his entourage do not like the imposed conditions, they can just hop on the next flight back to
As one demonstrator aptly put it, “the Chinese are here to help (economically), the Dalai Lama comes to make trouble.
This is
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Turkey mends ties with China
By China Watcher
Turkish special envoy to the Prime Minister, Zafer Caglayan has conveyed a very eventful and bonding message which states that Turkey understands the measures which China took to deal with the Xinjiang unrest on July 5 2009. This means that China’s decision to send its paramilitary forces to ensure stability and prevent further bloodshed between two ethnic races in China is the correct move. The West reportedly called this action as “a suppression act” which I totally disagree.
The extended warm friendship is without doubt came about after the Turkish government truly understood the actual situation in Xinjiang on that day and NOT from the twisted and highly spun news coming from the West, where its sources are readily and conveniently taken from the Uighur International Council, a body with a publicized aim at seeking independence from China.
The Turkish’s envoy also stressed its country’s opposition to any form of separatism in China and said that the two countries should expand trade and diplomatic ties. This is a blow to the supporters of Rebiya Kadeer, a self proclaimed dissident and her hordes of so-called “supporters’ mainly from Western agencies and organization. The main objective of the independence group is to disrupt the stability in the autonomous region in order to garner world’s sympathy to its plight and to secure a meeting with the Chinese authorities.
The Uighurs were being instigated and manipulated by the external-based separatist movement and there were evidences confirming this matter, supported by the few non coercive statements made by Rebiya’s own family members. I am of the view that the Uighurs are being told to target the country’s dominant Han Chinese in its mission to create instability among the various races. I strongly believe every Chinese – whether it is in China or overseas - should take note of this unhealthy trend.
The Chinese government must stand firm and continue with its development plan for Xinjiang, which has brought a certain measure of success economically over the past decade, though further improvement is needed to bring the status of the Uighurs on par with the local Han Chinese.
I wish the Chinese people of Uighur descent would boldly accept this promising challenge and contribute to the overall well being of a united Chinese society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)