Skip to content

On the U.S. Anti-China Sentiment

Bernard Sanders is a non-partisan Representative from Vermont. He
is liberal, eccentric and unpopular in Congress; resolutions or bills
sponsored by Sanders have rarely been passed.

Why Does U.S. Congressmen’s “Anti-China Syndrome” Relapse Frequently?

Source: People’s Daily, March 2, 2005

Bernard Sanders is a non-partisan Representative from Vermont. He is liberal, eccentric and unpopular in Congress; resolutions or bills sponsored by Sanders have rarely been passed. Many representatives immediately express objections as soon as they realize Sanders has sponsored the resolution.

Sanders’s fortune, however, immediately takes a favorable turn, when it comes to China. On February 9, Sanders and 61 other representatives co-sponsored a bill to suspend the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. In just a few hours after the announcement of the bill, many House representatives warmly extended their hands to Sanders to show their support.

"In Congress, regardless of whether they are Republicans or Democrats, or regardless of their political views, one thing is in common: they are becoming more and more anti-China," John Schwedler told reporters at a symposium sponsored by the China’s Reporters Association. Schwedler is the CEO of Schwedler Company, and an activist with more than 35 years of experience in the United States Congress.

There Are More Anti-China Bills Recently

In the past 3 months, there have been quite a number of bills regarding China in the United States Congress.

China’s "Two Conferences" (National People’s Congress and People’s Political Consultative Conference) will begin soon. The "Anti-Secession Law" will be discussed in the conferences. On February 18, several U.S. Congressmen co-sponsored a resolution, asking the Bush Administration to strongly oppose the "Anti-Secession Law." In a forum on February 22, an assistant to Congressman Henry Hyde, Chairman of the International Relations Committee of the U. S. Congress, indicated that the "Anti-Secession Law" could exacerbate the tension of the Taiwan Straits issue.

On February 2, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.RES.57.EH, by 411 votes to 3. The resolution urges the European Union (EU) to maintain its arms embargo on China. The resolution also requests that President Bush express the stance of the United States to the EU when he visits Europe, and that the President inform Congress of the outcome of his discussions with European leaders. Mr. Schwedler said that, "This resolution has no legal binding power. However, most representatives do not understand international affairs. The resolution can influence other representatives’ view of China."
In fact, it is not new for the U.S. Congress to propose anti-China bills. The anti-China voice of Congress has never abated, since China and the United States established diplomatic relations. The U.S. Congress’s "schemes" and promotion are behind many conflicts between China and the United States, including the "Taiwan Relations Act," denial of the "Most Favored-Nation" status to China, Li Denghui’s U.S. visit, the nuclear espionage case and the Cox report, and so on.

In his book "Entering Capital Hill" (published in July 2004), Ding Xiaowen wrote: "In the last 5 years, the U.S. Congress introduced an average of 80 resolutions and bills on China, exceeding any other country. 95% of them criticize and denounce China, or express dissatisfaction with the White House’s China policy." (Ding is an official of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of China. He once worked in the Chinese Embassy in the United States for several years, and has conducted in-depth research about the U.S. Congress.)

Mr. Schwedler also said: "Of all the countries in the world, China is analyzed and watched the most by the U.S. Congress." He stated that in the U.S. Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and the Congressional Executive Commission on China publish annual reports on China every year.

The U.S. Congress’s Anti-China Voice Is Strident

The members of the U.S. Congress represent and speak for the interests of their states and voters. Why are these individuals so enthusiastically anti-China?

Mr. Schwedler explained first to reporters that Congress has many committees, which examine China from different perspectives, such as military, economic or national security. Many lobbyists, for their own interests, request their Congressmen to introduce anti-China bills.

Second, while the unemployment rate remains high in many regions, House representatives reflecting their constituents’ attitudes often make the rapidly-growing China a scapegoat. Schwedler said that China will build a Disney park, host the Olympic Games, purchase lots of Boeing airplanes—all of which will bring economic benefits to the United States, but also diminish its political influence, because Congressmen and CEOs of corporations have a certain mindset. "Someone may ask, since the China-U.S. relations benefit both countries, why are they unhappy? I tell them, Congressmen care about those who influence the votes, especially those who are angry for having lost their jobs," said Schwedler.

Third, "external factors" such as the issues of Taiwan, human rights, democracy, Tibet, and Falun Gong have influenced Congressmen.
How to Treat and Respond to the Anti-China Waves?

Regarding the U.S. Congress’s anti-China tradition, a senior reporter in Washington D.C. said the fundamental factor is the difference in ideology of the two countries, which represents "structural conflicts." He believes that China doesn’t need to take the U.S. criticisms too seriously.

However, regarding the anti-China forces in the U.S. Congress, China should take actions in diplomatic relations.

As a senior researcher of the U.S. Congress, when asked what China should do, Schwedler smiled and said: "I do not have a solution." However, when giving a lecture at Zhongshan University, he tactfully answered this question. He remarked that Japan also once encountered opposition from the U.S. Congress. Their solution was to build factories in the United States to solve U.S. unemployment problems. However, he indicated that he did not think this would work in China’s case.

Yuan Peng told the reporter, China has made progress working with the U.S. Congress. The Chinese Embassy has established the Congress Group, and the National People’s Congress has also established exchange mechanisms with the U.S. Congress.

An official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had also disclosed that China has put emphasis on working with the U.S. Congress. The official stated that in the 1990s, the China Communist Party Central Committee started the work to strengthen relations with U.S. Congress.

This official summarized the policy on working with the U.S. Congress with the words "invite (them) in, (we) go out (to visit)." The exchange between China’s National People’s Congress and the United States Congress is such an example. In the last few years, an average of over a dozen groups and about 10 individuals in each group visited China every year. Although they may not change their opinion simply by visiting China, they have at least been friendly during the visit, and had a better chance to understand the situation in China.

The interviewed official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China believes that two points are critical when working with U.S. Congress. One is national power—the influence is strong only when China is strong; Second is to continue to explore—in hopes of making greater achievements in the future.

Don’t Forget The United States, Hiding Behind The Scene

Source: Xinhuanet, December 22, 2004

In 2004, Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi’s cabinet took actions rarely seen in recent years, causing enormous indignation among the Chinese people. Activities by Taiwan Independence forces have also reached its peak in recent years, which has caused enormous resentment among the Mainland Chinese. Reviewing public opinion over the past year, these two issues have been the focal points that provoke the anger of Chinese people. However, the friction between China and the United States has eased, and the area for both countries to cooperate has been expanded. The U.S. attitude toward China now appears to be more rational. The United States has repeatedly stressed that a strong, prosperous and stable China is in the best interests of the United States, and even stated that China-U.S. relations are the best they have been in 20 years. We therefore rarely trace the real problem of Japan and "Taiwan Independence" issues to the United States.

Japan’s performances in the past year have really overstepped the limits. The Japanese Prime Minister’s insisting on visiting the Yasukuni Shrine is just one example. Japan also established a wartime legislative system, which contradicts the previous prohibition practice of dispatching troops abroad to a war zone. Japan has also been expanding its armament, and even publicly acknowledged China and North Korea as hypothetical enemies. Japan’s leaning toward a nation with strong political and military power is in fact a strategic alignment by the United States, which is also Japan’s dream. Richard L. Armitage, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, expressed in July of this past year that Japan cannot become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council if it cannot dispatch troops abroad. He added that Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution had become a factor hindering the development of the Japan-U.S. alliance.

The United States has dreamed about dominating the world for generations. It will deter and constrain any potential threat to realizing the dream. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia in the Yeltsin era was so close to the western world and wanted to become a member of western countries. Still the United States does not feel comfortable, and Western countries have not accepted it. Nowadays, Putin is also trying to maintain a good relationship with the Bush Administration. That hasn’t worked out either. The United States still strongly disagrees with Russia on the presidential election in Ukraine. In the eyes of the American people, a fast-growing China could also pose a threat to their dream of domination. At the beginning of his presidency four years ago, Bush declared China to be a potential competitor to the United States. Now he does not say so anymore, but it does not necessarily mean that he does not think so. He does not mention it, simply because circumstances do not allow him to do so. The détente of China-U.S. relations has occurred because both sides need it. China needs to stabilize the relationship with the United States to establish a favorable international environment, so that it can focus on domestic development. The United States has to stabilize China-U.S. relations in order to deal with international terrorism, and to control the energy resources in the Middle East. However, while the United States concentrates its efforts on dealing with the issue of terrorism and the Middle East, it has not changed its strategic goal in Asia. The United States has encouraged Japan to become a nation with great political and military power so that it can act as a U.S. representative, assistant and chess game piece in the Western Pacific region. This strategy just fits in with the dream of the Japanese right wing faction. Therefore, they take actions willfully and recklessly. The latest example for their conspiracy was that they both opposed lifting the arms embargo against China by the European Union. Despite China’s having stressed its sincerity in growth in peace, the two countries continue their covert efforts to block China. These two countries have also been the loudest about the theory of the "China threat." These facts have revealed their true nature.
"Taiwan Independence" groups have stepped up their actions, because they think the United States is behind them. But they have bumped against a wall and got an unfavorable response, only because they were impatient. The "Taiwan Independence" issue is a chess piece of the United States. Although Americans have repeatedly stated that they adhere to the "one China" policy, but in their hearts they would like to see China to split into many small states. That is why, after the normalization of China-U.S. relations, the United States immediately enacted the "Taiwan Relations Act," and still tightly upholds it.

Then, why did we care about and appreciate the fact that the United States took a stand several times on the Taiwan issue this year? It was for no other reason than the important role that the United States has in international affairs. Its position to restrain those who are anxious to declare Taiwan Independence is favorable to us and effective. We are not and cannot place our hope on the United States to resolve the Taiwan issue. We should rely on our own efforts. The United States’ current position was the result of the importance of China. On the other hand, however, the United States is unwilling to abolish the "Taiwan Relations Act," because China’s power is not strong enough yet.

In today’s world, almost every major event has the United States behind it. The United States thought of itself as the "capable official to administrate the world," but others have considered it as "villain of the tumultuous times." The United States has extended its power too far and too wide, which has brought about dissatisfaction and caution. It is considered the biggest unstable factor in the world. Nevertheless, the world cannot get rid of it, and needs it from time to time. The world is repeating the history of the late Chinese Zhou Dynasty, where six states tried to enter into an alliance against the powerful Qin, and the Qin asked each member of the alliance to serve it, thus causing the alliance to split. We highly regard France’s strong power strategy established by De Gaulle—dare to say "no" to the United States. Condoleezza Rice, who will soon take the post of U.S. Secretary of State, believes that multi-polarization cannot guarantee the peace and stability of the world, only single-polarization is good for the world. We think, however, the world of single-polarization is dangerous, and only multi-polarization can guarantee the peace of the world. Qin Shihuang, the first emperor of the Qin Dynasty, unified China and established the Qin Empire, which represented progress in Chinese history, but the world does not need a U.S. empire.

To stand firm and to grow stronger in this chaotic world, China must deal with the United States. The United States is the key to many problems that China is facing. From this point of view, maintaining a good relation with the United States is the most important thing in China’s diplomacy. The build-up of a sound relationship with the United States does not mean being humble or fighting without concern for the consequences—it should come from wisdom and skills. In the end, our power will speak for itself and protect our rights and interests.

Rice Openly Instigates Revolt By Belarus’s Opposition: Lukashenka’s Power in Jeopardy

Source: Xinhuanet, April 23, 2005

Rice Meets With Belarus’s Opposition and Openly Instigates Civil Revolt

Russia was greatly concerned because its "backyard" caught "fire" one after another. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Russia, which ended on April 20, was considered a trip of consolation. However, as soon as she left Russia on April 21, Rice immediately entered into a meeting with Belarus’s opposition delegations, publicly supporting their efforts aimed at overthrowing the government. Contrary to the U.S. attitude of hiding and categorically denying involvement in the several previous "color revolutions," this time the U. S. move was rather "open."

Rice Openly Instigates Belarusian Revolt; Calls Lukashenka the "Last Dictator" In Europe

On April 21, Rice arrived in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. Under the pretext of attending the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting, she "dropped by" the meeting room of Belarusian opposition representatives, meeting with seven opposition delegations against Belarusian President Lukashenko.

According to Reuters, as soon as she entered the meeting room, Rice acted like a host, pointing out a "bright path" for the Belarusian oppositions. She remarked: "As always, the United States will continue to promote the development of democracy. We have always been observing you, and we admire your courage and dedication. Although a democratic endeavor may seem difficult and far away, there will be a road to democracy in Belarus."

Rice has also openly supported opposition attempts to overthrow Lukashenko. She said: "The 2006 presidential election in Belarus offers a very good opportunity. The election last year left a negative image for international society. But I believe that, with your efforts, a fair election will be very well conducted." Rice added that over the past year or so, "revolution" has swept across Georgia and Ukraine. Today, in such a "repressive country" as Belarus, the opposing parties know their "responsibilities." They are asking for help from the international community, and hope other countries recognize them and give them room to act.
What Does The United States Really Want to Do?

From Georgia to Ukraine and from Kyrgyzstan to Belarus, it seems that the "Domino effect" of opposition parties overthrowing ruling governments is sweeping across countries that were part of the former Soviet Union. This wave has now spread out from the mid-Asian region to Western Russia. Amidst America’s calls to "overthrow Lukashenko," the antenna of the "color revolution" has quietly reached Belarus. Compared with its attitude of hiding and categorically denying in several previous "color revolutions," this time America’s attitude to Belarus is rather "clear." Loudly shouting the slogan "democracy," Rice not only branded Lukashenka’s regime the "last true dictatorship" in central Europe, but also named six countries as "tyrannical," with Belarus at the top of the list. The hardliner Lukashenka has refused to side with the West. Instead, he has "treacherously" expressed that he wanted to be an ally of Russia, which hit the U.S. "point blank."

The reason that the United States promoted the "color revolution" was, to a large extent, to deter Russia’s geopolitical need for resurgence. For Russia, Belarus is its important strategic partner, and its last strategic barrier against NATO’s expansion in the East. If the United States cannot control Belarus, it won’t be able to deter Russia’s rise.

Moreover, if Lukashenka does not fall from power, the United States will not be able to implement the "American style of democracy." Since Lukashenka dared to risk universal condemnation to cooperate with Russia, the United States is of course eager to "take this nail out of its eye."

Other relevant reports under the same topic

1. Rice: consoling Russia, then just turning around and inciting the Belarus opposition to instigate a "revolution"

2. Rice publicly expressed support for the Belarusian opposition’s attempt to overthrow the government

3. To incite Belarus to instigate a revolution immediately after leaving Russia-Rice acted boisterously in Russia’s controlled area

4. Rice agitates the Belarusian people to rebel; Russia and Belarus establish a joint defense system