Skip to content

US-China Relations - 110. page

Foreign Ministry Tells U.S. to “Watch Your Step and Mind Your Words” on Hong Kong

Recently the spokesperson for the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) answered a question from a journalist regarding U.S. Vice President Biden’s meeting with two heavyweight pan-democrats from Hong Kong and the New York Times’ Editorial "Protecting Hong Kong’s Autonomy."

"Since Hong Kong SAR’s reunification 17 years ago, the system of ‘one country two systems’ has been successfully implemented. The economic, social, and democratic developments in Hong Kong have exceeded expectations. The Hong Kong people enjoy unprecedented democratic rights and freedoms, which has won widespread international acclaim."

The spokesperson continued that Hong Kong affairs are China’s internal affairs. They firmly oppose any country intervening in any way and interfering with its internal affairs. The current political reform in Hong Kong is at a sensitive time. It is hoped that the United States will "watch your steps and mind your words" and not let the issue of Hong Kong interfere with Sino-US relations.

Source: China News, April 6, 2014
http://www.chinanews.com/ga/2014/04-06/6035011.shtml

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

Huanqiu: Lesson from Ukraine: China Must Strengthen Cyber War Capability to Counter the West

Huanqiu (Global Times) published an article explaining that China should learn a lesson from the Ukraine crisis and improve its ability to conduct both cyber-attacks and defense. Yang Chengjun, a senior fellow of the national security policy committee, and Jiang Zheng, an engineer at a government department, co-authored the article. 

The article stated, “In the Ukraine crisis, Internet public opinion was a factor that influenced the political landscape. The West particularly spent a lot of effort on it. This gave us a lot of warnings.” 
The article asserted that the West caused the Ukraine’s crisis, as it controlled the Internet. 
“After Ukraine suspended the preparatory work of the ‘Association Agreement’ [a treaty between the European Union (EU) and Ukraine that establishes a political association between the two parties], the U.S. and the European countries were extremely dissatisfied and then stepped up their Internet monitoring and efforts to control the Ukrainian authorities. The following is a description of some of their acts.
“1) They guided and manipulated public opinion. In the upheaval in Ukraine, the U.S. and European countries emphatically used the Internet to create and disseminate political rumors. By applying a variety of hacking techniques such as theft, interception, and attack, they made the opinions of Ukraine mainstream media websites seem to be almost one-sided; the media were full of attacks and criticism of the government. People’s discontent spread rapidly.
 
“2) They implemented Internet monitoring and information attacks; strengthened the monitoring of the websites of the Ukrainian government and military; and carried out several large-scale virus attacks. 
“3) They provided significant financial support and related Internet information to the Ukrainian opposition, thus enabling those who opposed the authorities; they were well aware of the trends and weaknesses. Eventually, this caused the complete paralysis of the official websites and laid the foundation for the overthrow of the regime.” 
The article also warned that China’s cyber security is facing a grim situation and China should step up its efforts to counter the West’s attacks. 
“With the support and connivance of Western powers, some hostile forces established dedicated websites and hired online writers to spread rumors and attack [China’s] social system.” “We can learn from the practices and experiences of developed countries and how they stepped up the development of Internet forces and the training of high-level Internet talent.　　 

“Our goal is to create strong offensive and defensive capabilities in cyber space as soon as possible. First, we should improve our capabilities in order to fight back. We must have the ability to interfere up to the point of being able to paralyze the enemy’s important network, the key nodes, and the key links. We should have the ability to erase the data and its traces after an attack. Second, we must improve our Internet defensive capability. Third, we must improve our Internet reconnaissance capabilities. Finally, we must strengthen the exercises of cyber-attacks and defense.” 

Source: Huanqiu (Global Times), March, 21, 2013 
http://mil.huanqiu.com/observation/2014-03/4920443.html

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

Huanqiu: How Can the U.S. Have the Cheek to Blame Others When It Leads the Stealing

Shen Dingli, Vice Dean of the Institute of International Affairs, Fudan University, published an article on Huanqiu (Global Times) commenting on the U.S.’s Internet Invasion of Chinese entities as exposed by Edward Snowden. Below are some excerpts from the article: 

"Whether it involves official communications from China’s state leaders or inside information from the departments of the Chinese government, they are all China’s secrets protected by Chinese law. Even in the information age, they belong to the scope of China’s information sovereignty. There is no chance that the U.S. does not understand this point. The U.S. used the same grounds in its accusation that China hacks the U.S. information network." 
"Then, are China’s state secrets not worth protecting? If U.S. secrets are secret and if China cannot touch them, then how can the U.S. wantonly touch China’s confidential information? Obviously, with regard to Internet security issues, the United States pursues a policy of imperialism. That is, other countries have to respect the information sovereignty of the United States, while the United States does not need to respect other countries’ information frontier." 

"No country will accept such extreme arrogance and selfish behavior." "Our government has asked the U.S. to explain why the U.S. invades China’s information territory. We can expect that the United States will not explain and apologize to our country. Neither will it offer compensation for the losses that their invasion caused or guarantee that they will no longer engage in such activities in the future. If so, the United States has no grounds for blaming other countries that carry out those same activities on the United States or for expecting other countries not to retaliate against the U.S.’s Internet violations." 

"In the name of fighting terrorism, The United States wantonly invades the Information territory of other countries to steal information. What it does is completely beyond the legitimacy of counter-terrorism cooperation. … That the United States conducts such large-scale, high-level surveillance in the world only tells us that the United States has a strong desire to control the entire world. In its eyes, there is no such concept as country equality and mutual respect for sovereignty. What the U.S. wants is to maintain its long-term dominance of the world and prevent the development and rise of other countries." 

“The U.S. government should know that, in the Internet world, America’s leading technology may not be absolute; nor is it ever-lasting. If today the United States takes the lead to steal, tomorrow it may find out that it is itself that will undergo even worse suffering when others steal from the United States.” 

Source: Huanqiu, March 25, 2014 
http://military.people.com.cn/n/2014/0325/c1011-24727361.html http://mil.huanqiu.com/observation/2014-03/4928199.html

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

Chinese Expert: The United States Must Give China an Explanation for Its Attack on Huawei

China’s State media started a fresh round of media attacks on U.S. Internet monitoring following Snowden’s recent disclosure that the U.S. National Security Agency invaded the headquarters of the Chinese company Huawei’s server and monitored the communications of Huawei’s senior management. One of the articles demanded that the U.S. give China an explanation of the [Internet] invasion and suggested that the Chinese government use its national power to counter the U.S. Internet infiltration activity. Below are some quotes from the article:

"This event is an alarming signal for China. The American [Internet] invasion of China, its monitoring capabilities, and the depth and scope of their infiltration are far beyond what we could imagine. Huawei is just the tip of the iceberg, just one of the victims of China’s information system penetrated by the United States. If even China’s powerful high-tech enterprises get hacked, how could China’s Party, the government, the military departments, communications, finance, transportation, energy, broadcasting, and other critical infrastructure prevent the penetration?" 

"The United States made various allegations to Huawei in the past. Now it is clear that it is the thief crying out to stop the thief." 

"The United States has repeatedly argued that its behavior was only to ensure national security. However, it is far beyond the scope of anti-terrorism and security. Its hypocrisy has been fully exposed. The U.S. National Security Bureau’s action against Huawei is code-named ‘attacking the Giants’ (Shotgiant). Its purpose is therefore not defensive, but offensive. It is to ‘shoot and kill’ the Chinese rapidly rising technology giant Huawei." 

"Without the backing of a state’s power … Huawei and other companies would only survive in an extremely unfair development environment. This would severely restrict China’s advance to become a nation of Internet power. " 

"The Chinese government should, through diplomatic, legal, public opinion, and other means, demand that the United States put an immediate stop to its intrusive actions into Chinese enterprises and infrastructures; the government should unite other countries and international organizations at different levels to exert pressure on the United States, prompting the United States to correct its behavior of breaching international norms." 

Source: People’s Daily, March 14, 2014 
http://military.people.com.cn/n/2014/0324/c1011-24719497.html

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

Huanqiu: U.S. May Be Forced to “Return” to Europe

Hong Kong Tianda Institute researcher Wu Junfei wrote a commentary article that Huanqiu published about how China should make use of the strategic opportunity of the U.S.-Russian conflict over the Ukraine. Below is an excerpt from the article: 

The rapid evolution of the situation in Ukraine has given a heavy blow to Washington’s foreign policy. Since the Obama administration took office, the U.S. has changed from a strategic expansion to a strategic contraction due to the divisions among international powers and economic reality. Being unable to handle both East Asia and Europe simultaneously, the U.S. has loosened its restraint on Russia and has returned to Asia with major energy to deal with the impact of China’s rise. 
After the Crimea voted to join Russia, although the U.S. and Russia may not directly go to war, Washington will have to revive the U.S. deterrence in Europe and adopt a tough policy on Russia. It will do so in order to rebuild the balance of power and avoid the quick collapse of its superpower status. 
If the United States “returns to Europe” and is forced to institute a tough policy against Russia, China will have the opportunity to gain a brief period for diplomatic strategic opportunities. Facing the restructuring of the world strategy game, China should focus on dissolving Washington’s aggressive "returning to Asia" strategy in order to win more time for its peaceful rise. Therefore, China should, under the grand principle of neutrality, support Russia’s strategic offensive posture in Europe, forcing Washington to reduce its military presence in Asia, thus reducing the strategic pressure China faces in the western Pacific.　 

After the Ukraine crisis, China had better stay on the sidelines watching United States and Russia fight against each other. If Washington is busy with other regional conflicts, it is a rare ideal situation for the rise of China. China can actively induce conflict, thus shifting the U.S.’s military delivery and attention on China. At the same time, China may provide a helping hand to Russia for its challenge to U.S. hegemony. This is the internal logic of the quasi-alliance between China and Russia. China’s handling of the Snowden event reflected Chinese decision-makers recognition of this strategy. 

Source: Huanqiu, March 20, 2014 
http://mil.huanqiu.com/observation/2014-03/4917631.html

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

IHL: Why Does the U.S. Maintain a Weak Army?

The International Herald Leader published a commentary on U.S. Secretary of Defense Hagel’s announcement about a reduction of forces that would cut Army personnel by over 70,000 starting in 2015. 

“First, the U.S. Army cut shows that, for a long period of time, the U.S. military will give up massive ground wars outside of its territory.” 

"For China, the U.S. Army’s cuts raise more concerns.” A reduction or giving up a massive ground war in the Asia Pacific region means that “the U.S. will not hesitate to adopt Air Sea warfare as well as other more subversive forms of combat. Instead of combat that would involve a large number of troops, it will adopt air raids, sea and air strangulation, cyber-attacks, propaganda, diplomatic alliances, economic sanctions, and other ‘combined’ means to weaken the opponent’s combat capability; it will try to achieve maximum advances quickly, with minimum or even ‘zero’ casualties.”

“While reduced in forces, the U.S. military will, on the other hand, tighten its fists. China cannot take it lightly and should remain vigilant.” 

Source: International Herald Leader, March 3, 2014                                                       http://ihl.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2014/0303/354514.shtml

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

People’s Daily: The U.S.’s Human Rights Trick Is Weak and Feeble

People’s Daily published a commentary on the United States release of the 2014 "Country Reports on Human Rights." The article said, “Once a year, the U.S. State Department releases its "Country Reports on Human Rights" to the world. This is a routine action of the United States in the field of international human rights. It recklessly finds faults and makes comments on the human rights situations of nearly 200 countries and territories, but if it covered all possibilities, (it would find) it is its own human rights situations, that have been widely criticized.” 

The article indicated that America’s approach is not to promote the exchange and development of international human rights, but to use the "human rights stick" to dictate the world.　　 

The article declared, “Year after year, the U.S.’s selective blindness and even groundless accusations in its ‘Country Reports on Human Rights’ has repeatedly exposed its political bias and motives.” “The United States holds the ‘Country Reports on Human Rights,’ which has no credibility, to act as a ‘human rights master’ and interfere in other countries’ internal affairs. No country finds this practice acceptable.” 

Source: People’s Daily, March 1, 2014 
http://world.people.com.cn/n/2014/0301/c1002-24498043.html

Briefings | | |   US-China Relations

People’s Daily: Huawei Again Attempting to Expand Its U.S. Market Share

People’s Daily recently reported that Eric Xu, one of Huawei’s three chief executives, delivered a speech at the Mobile World Congress, which is the largest international conference in the mobile industry. Xu suggested that Huawei is planning to introduce a series of new Huawei-branded mobile phones to the U.S. market. Huawei expects to sell 80 million to 100 million mobile phones globally in 2014. This figure represents eight percent of the global mobile phone market. Xu expressed interest in shifting the company’s focus to high-end smart phones. The United States still excludes Huawei from the list of permitted suppliers for the U.S. communications infrastructure. Xu admitted that his company suffered a tough time last year in the U.S. market due to the lack of new products. He promised to deliver more new products to U.S. customers. However, Huawei will not “actively seek” infrastructure deals in the U.S. 
[Editor’s note: Huawei is the second largest communications equipment manufacturer in the world. Due to its close historic ties to the Chinese military, Huawei’s products have been banned from communications infrastructure level bids in many industrialized countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. Huawei is not a publicly traded company.]
Source: People’s Daily, February 28, 2014
http://world.people.com.cn/n/2014/0228/c157278-24488876.html
Briefings | | |   US-China Relations