Policy Impacts from Attack on Chinese Embassy

Henry C.K. Liu hliu at mindspring.com
Sat May 8 10:00:37 PDT 1999


China's opposition to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia up to now had been based on abstract principles of the sanctity of national sovereignty and the inviolability of territorial integrity and non-interference of national internal affairs. The bombing of the Chinese embassy brought the NATO aggression directly on Chinese territory and brought deaths and casualty to Chinese diplomats. It gives China a concrete basis to be a participant in the European dispute. The battle will be shaped into a global struggle between anti-spearatist forces of the existing world order and post Cold War Western exploitation of separatist movements for global geopolitical advantage.

Domestic Chinese politics in reaction to the embassy bombing will force a new review of Chinese foreign policy, already under pressure to readjust to broad front hostile US attitude arising from a failure in bipartisanship in US foreign policy and a gravely weakened presidency and presidential personal leadership.

In the background is Chinese history of Western imperial aggression having been launched during the 19th century under the pretext of allegedly "uncivilized" Chinese popular attacks of hated Western diplomatic facilities and personnel inside China.

Already, Premier Zhu's disastrous summit with Clinton was viewed by the Chinese side as the result of Clinton's failure to deliver firm understandings in trade negotiations after pushing China to make politically risky concessions. Conclusion: no good can come from trusting an inherently hostile US. Zhu has already been, more than once, accused at high level policy deliberations of having been a "traitor" for agreeing to outrageous American trade demands. At best, he was a fool for believing in Clinton. (Having lied to everyone else, why should Clinton exempt Zhu?) Zhu's WTO concessions have been compared to the infamous "21 demands" that Chinese diplomats conceded to Japan in the League of Nations in 1919. Student protests of that diplomatic blunder launched the famous May 4 Student Movement, which became the revolutionary fountainhead of the Chinese Communist revolution. With the economic reform and "open to the outside" policies grinding to a halt, Chinese leaders are already on the defensive about the wisdom of participating in American dominated globalization. The embassy bombing will ignite powerful anti-US arguments in the Chinese foreign policy establishment and anti-market sentiments in economic policy deliberation. Some Western analysts are already predicting US concession on WTO, but such predictions underestimate the symbolic significance of the embassy attack. The fundamental behind the Chinese Communist Party's claim to legitimacy is its role in protecting China from Western bullying. Chinese are prepared to sacrifice domestically if their government can deliver international dignity and equality for China. If the CPC fails in the foreign policy arena, its vulnerability increases with fatal implications. For this reason, China will take an uncompromising stance on Kosovo. At risk for the US are Chinese cooperation on a whole range of US desired geopolitical issues, such as Korea, nonproliferation, arms supply to US labeled "rouge" states, etc., etc. Already China vetoed an US initiative in a UN plan on Bosnia over Macedonian recognition of Taiwan last year. The only concession the US can make that can defuse the domestic pressure on Chinese leaders is a fundamental shift of US policy of supporting separatist movements from Taiwan to Tibet and Xinjiang.

Henry C.K. Liu



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list