A senior Communist China analysts warns that it may be impossible to avoid war with Beijing and that dialogue with Chinese Communist Party will only worsen the situation of the West.


OPINION

Communist China is aggressive and militant due to the nature of its communist regime, which is rapidly driving the country back to one-man rule and totalitarianism. Xi Jinping, the only man in China's system, is now propagating the bold concept of "tianxia," which means "everything under heaven" owes allegiance to Beijing.

Gordon G. Chang, author of “The Coming Collapse of China,” and a distinguished senior fellow of the Institute and its Advisory Council, puts these concepts together and describes how in recent years the Beijing regime's behavior has become dangerous.

Mr. Chang points out that, unfortunately, there are some moments in history when dialogue makes things worse because hardliners perceive the desire of others to speak as a sign of weakness.

On the other hand, it refutes the theory that today Communist China is threatened by some country that leads it to act in this aggressive manner.

No country threatens China today. China, in fact, has not faced any credible external threat to its unit for more than seven decades, emphasised Mr. Chang.

Communist China is aggressive and militant due to the nature of its communist regime

The Communist Party focuses on history, and refers to the so-called “century of humiliation”, used by Xi Jinping in his speech commemorating National Day last October, because such narrative addresses the needs of the regime insecure Chinese.

Communist China's turbulent past, in short, is an excuse. After all, Chang points out, what is there in history that justifies the current Chinese aggression against India, Bhutan and Nepal, or its designs against Tajikistan, the Philippines and Malaysia?

Last year, in May, Chinese Communist Party declared
people's war against the United States

Furthermore, what can justify the declaration of a people's war ’against the United States? made by the Communist Party in May last year?

The author points out that dialogue often worsens the situation and assumes that Chinese leaders can reach a compromise, which at this point is a dubious proposition. He cites as an example when Beijing took over Tajikistan's territory and last committed to a territorial claim in 2011. However, it is now trying to reopen the arrangement to take even more territory. Since then, Beijing has added new claims to the South China Sea and laid the groundwork for additional claims, especially on Japan's Ryukyu island chain.

The absence of Chinese goodwill leaves the United States with one last resort: deterrence.

According to Mr. Chang, given what might be happening within the political circles of the Communist Party, it is possible that now there is no way to avoid war with militant Chinese state. However, whether or not peace is possible, it must be made clear that the approach taken by all American presidents since President Nixon traveled to China in 1972 has contributed to Chinese aggressiveness. The conciliation with Beijing has led to the current dire situation.

The United States is much stronger than the Chinese regime and has several powerful allies.

 

He emphasizes that the United States is much stronger than the Chinese regime and has allies. While Beijing only has North Korea. In addition, the United States is weaving a formidable coalition, the “Quad,” with Australia, India and Japan, giving Washington the ability to continue to confront Beijing in different areas. Chang believes that while the Chinese state is no match for nations, both near and far, it seems determined to antagonize.

Beijing is currently conducting a concerted propaganda campaign to promote its views as widely as possible. Mr. Chang highlights the concept that when your enemy wants you to do something, it is almost always not in your interest.

Mr. Chang concludes by saying that countries can choose between confrontation and deterrence. But they must not forget that World War II in Europe started because Britain and France chose not to confront the Third Reich. Had it done so in 1936, during the attempt to re-militarize Germany, this would have ended the German military threat.

---