China plays the hypocrite, again Taipei Times 011010
By Paul Lin 林保華
Following the Sept. 11 attacks, apart from trying every
possible means to distance itself from the terrorists, Beijing has
also adopted anti-terrorist slogans, slapping the label of
"terrorist" on all the targets it intends to attack. This is
another example of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) hypocritical
trickery.
The clearest indication of this was when the CCP
established an "anti-terrorist, anti-splittist and anti-extremist"
task force. Grouping "splittism" and "extremism" together with
terrorism is just a means for the CCP to suppress (as "terrorists")
dissidents and others unwilling to accept the CCP's authoritarian
rule. Beijing further intends to use this method to avoid criticism
by the West, and to manipulate Western nations' perceptions of the
CCP's suppression of dissidents. The CCP's mixing together of these
three "isms" shows that anti-terrorism is mainly internally, and
not externally, directed. It shows moreover that Beijing's anti-
terrorism is bogus, and is actually a means of dealing with
dissidents.
Towards the end of September, Beijing circulated rumors
that an intelligence delegation would provide details to the US
about how Taiwan's military intelligence has, for the last six
years, maintained contacts with, and given financial support to
Islamic military organizations. The Taiwanese government has yet
to issue a response.
Taiwan has contacts with the Tibetan government in
exile, and the Dalai Lama maintains an office in Taipei. I am not
sure whether Xinjiang separatist organizations have any contacts
with Taiwan, but even if such ties do exist, separatist groups
aren't necessarily equivalent to terrorist groups. By the same
token, Islamic separatists are not necessarily equivalent to
Islamic terrorists.
Some separatist organizations around the world engage
in terrorist activities, but some don't -- one example being the
Quebec separatist organizations in Canada.
Given the destruction of ethnic minority religions
and cultures that has occurred under the one-party authoritarian
rule of the CCP, the appearance of a separatist movement (from
inside China) is completely understandable. The emergence of a
violent resistance movement is also understandable when people
are violently suppressed. As long as the violent resistance isn't
intentionally directed at civilians, it can't be called
"terrorism."
Moreover, if an organization as a whole doesn't adopt
terrorist means, and only individuals and/or small groups within
it use extreme methods of resistance in the wake of massacres
perpetrated by the CCP, that organization should not be considered
a terrorist organization. Actually, in Xinjiang, rumors about
executions of members of separatist organizations massively
outnumber reports of violent resistance by separatists.
In fact, the CCP is the true terrorist group. During
the Chinese communist revolution, the CCP used terrorist methods
to deal with traitors. The most famous example was the CCP's
"Traitor-elimination Squad" (鋤奸隊). Led personally by Zhou
Enlai (周恩來), this squad killed the entire family of Gu
Shunzhang (顧順章) -- chief of the CCP's secret service who
defected to the KMT -- as well as all others present at the scene.
Not even individuals who had previously helped save Zhou's life
were spared in the massacre. The "red-terror rule" that followed
the CCP's rise to power -- culminating in the Cultural Revolution
(文革) -- resulted in the unnatural deaths of tens of millions of
civilians.
Currently, the CCP is still engaged in the wanton
killing of innocent people. This includes the suppression of Falun
Gong, the kidnapping of dissidents and their use as bargaining
chips to blackmail Western nations. All of this constitutes "state
terrorism."
The CCP's military threats against Taiwan also
constitute state terrorism. Perhaps the most representative
examples would be the blatant military exercises and threats made
by Beijing in 1996 -- and in the run-up to last year's presidential
election -- as well as the call sounded by government-sponsored
scholars for the "destruction and reconstruction" of Taiwan.
Further, in order to prevent the US from giving Taiwan
military support, the Chinese military published the book Unlimited
War (超限戰). The book, which trumpeted the need to adopt a new
military strategy towards hostile nations in which "anything goes,"
has become a set of guiding principles for some terrorists. The
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are evidence of that. Thus, it is very
natural for Taiwan -- which must deal with Beijing's military
threats -- to have contacts with and support dissidents from across
the Taiwan Strait, and to collectively resist the militarily
superior China.
The Xinjiang separatist organizations aren't based in
Afghanistan (a nation that borders China). Formerly located in
Turkey (a member state of NATO), the camps were later moved to
Germany. This shows that the Xinjiang separatist groups aren't in
collusion with any of those places considered rogue nations by the
US, particularly Afghanistan and the Taliban government. The CCP
however, set up a telecommunications network for the Taliban, and
laid underground fiber-optic cable for another rogue nation, Iraq.
And the nuclear and missile technology that China exported to
Pakistan could end up in terrorists' hands. On the very day of the
Sept. 11 attacks, Beijing even signed a memorandum for cooperation
with the Taliban.
So which country is actually aiding and abetting
terrorism ? Isn't it obvious?!
The purpose behind the CCP's current display of
hypocrisy is to shift the focus of anti-terrorism.
In the name of cooperating with the US to combat
terrorism, Beijing will engage in obstruction, serving the cause of
its "anti-US united front." The CCP will further block potentially
threatening Western concepts of freedom and democracy from
appearing in Chinese broadcasts. US media and some officials are
aware of these intentions, but there are also some people
encouraging the US to use this opportunity to form an alliance with
China. Such an alliance,
however, would be an extremely dangerous move.
The US can seek the cooperation of the CCP in order to
reduce its ability to hamper the anti-terrorist campaign. But the
US needs to be careful not to let itself be exploited by the CCP.
The CCP can deceive some people temporarily, but it won't be able
to do so over the long term. Only by attacking state terrorism at
the appropriate time will the US be able to truly restrict
terrorist activities.
