When I was working as a reporter in DC I used to call the Heritage Foundation whenever I needed to balance my story with a quote from the conservative side. Extremely well heeled and to the right, the Heritage Foundation may be one of my least favorite think tanks. Yet its new position paper on the various rosy myths that have sprung up about the “new China” is certainly worth looking at. As the best funded and most vocal think tank in the country, you can bet a lot of Republicans in and around the beltway will be reading this.
It’s a long piece, summed up in a single paragraph toward the end:
A dispassionate examination of how China has approached key foreign policy, trade, and national security issues over the past two years suggests that, far more often than not, China has opposed U.S. interests or, at the very least, has remained neutral or aloof. China has provided little support in the war on terrorism, did not simply “stand by” during the Iraq War, has hampered efforts to ease the reconstruction of Iraq, and has not helped to bring North Korea around to dismantling its nuclear weapons programs.
I always take the HF’s reports with a big grain of sea salt, but the arguments here are pretty rational and well backed up. It is especially outspoken on Bush’s recent betrayal of Taiwan and China’s continuing to export WMDs to the DPRK, Iran, Pakistan, etc. It’s definitely worth scanning whether you agree with its conclusions or not.
1
By Anonymous
bitch!, you only think of US’s benefits, so why should china support US while losing it’s own benefits, US is never the friend of China, actually US is the enemy of china, stupid and absurd comments!
December 24, 2003 @ 2:07 pm | Comment
2
By zhuuu
Troll above?
Anyway, the paper is hardly related to how just a government China has, but a running list of where China has not towed the US line. Whatever, organizations like HF are always going to have things to say unless the country backs the US explicitly, completely, and unconditionally.
December 24, 2003 @ 2:35 pm | Comment
3
By Jane China
Yes, YOU, how dare you, you know China is a nation of laws. It doesn’t matter how much millions of dollars in trade the US does with China each year; it doesn’t matter how many foreign teachers come to China from the US; it doesn’t matter how much millions of dollars are donated by “overseas Chinese” living in the US through such uncorrupted programs like Project Hope; it doesn’t matter how many abandoned Chinese children are adopted by well meaning American couples; it doesn’t matter, oh god, it just doesn’t matter. You are an outsider, and you don’t like China. I hate you, yes hate you. US never friend of China. Instead, everytime, you send money, people, and products to our country we will hate you American. Hate you so bitterly that we will look like the BIGGEST GODDAMN FOOLS to ever walk the planet because we are Chinese, you are not. Bitch! You Policeman of the world. I think Santa looks like our Chairman. You stole Santa from us. Damn you. Without the US around, China could have conquered the world.
December 24, 2003 @ 3:42 pm | Comment
4
By rixchard
Zhuu, as I said, I take whatever the HF says with a huge grain of salt! What is interesting is how critical it is of Bush’s policies toward China (implicitly and ex). It’s a good barometer of those on the far right are thinking, especially the “true conservatives” from the Ronald Reagan camp who still refer to it as “Red China.” (Not that that’s altogether unjustified….)
December 24, 2003 @ 4:32 pm | Comment
5
By Michael
Richard:
Tell the truth.
Is “Jane China” real or did you find some wacky tabacci and go digital, just for fun?
Ask her back!
Please, sir. I want more.
December 25, 2003 @ 5:35 am | Comment
6
By Adam Morris
Thanks for that fisking material. Too bad I’m in Seoul now. You’ll hear more from me on this for sure.
Trolls always seem to appear out of nowhere, it seems.
December 25, 2003 @ 9:48 am | Comment
7
By richard
No, Jane Doe is 100 percent real — or at least 100 percent not created by me. And totally undecipherable, I’m afraid, or I’d try to respond to her/its rantings.
Adam, have fun in Seoul, and Fisk away whenever you want.
December 25, 2003 @ 3:15 pm | Comment
8
By Stan Abrams
Not such an outrageous conclusion, and cogently written. I am not a fan of the HF, the far right “China Scare” people, or the Blue Team. The fact that the Bush administration is employing/working with noted China hawks like John Bolton, Michael Ledeen and the whole group over at the Project for a New American Century, which includes most of the political appointees at the Penatagon, says it all. Crap, these are some of the same people that whipped Congress up into a lather because they thought “Red China” was taking over the Panama Canal when Hutchison won the contracts.
December 26, 2003 @ 4:33 pm | Comment
9
By Daniel
Heritage might have some credibility if it didn’t sound so “American”. So what if China doesn’t go along with the US? Can it really be argued that China is doing anything but protectively serving it’s own self-interests? Why should China play fair with the US considering the US’s own self-serving behaviour over the last 50 years? Even Australians – whose government still is, and has been one of the US’s most reliable allies – are generally really sus about the US these days, especially after yet more self-serving tarrifs were imposed in the US against Australians. Why should anyone play fair with the US?
January 4, 2004 @ 3:30 am | Comment
10
By Thomas
What is unique about China is that it does not have a trusting relationship with any other nation. Chinese are always angry with all foreigners, and respects no one but themselves. They continuously insult all others but are quick to anger themselves. Without help from no one but themselves, they are unintentionally providing otherwise antagonizing nations grounds for anti-China agreements.
October 10, 2004 @ 7:42 pm | Comment