Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts

Monday, 5 March 2012

HAPPY RETURNS TO THE FIRST PREMIER OF MODERN INDEPENDENT AND SOCIALIST CHINA - ZHOU EN LAI







The Chinese people absolutely will not tolerate foreign aggression, nor will they supinely tolerate seeing their neighbours being savagely invaded by imperialists. Whoever attempt to exclude the nearly 500 million Chinese people from the U.N. and whoever set at nought and violate the interests of this one-fourth of mankind in the world ... will certainly break their skulls.
- Zhou En Lai


Chinese People Will not Tolerate Aggression
Zhou En Lai
Oct 1950
[source]



A YEAR HAS ELAPSED since the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. This has been a year of great victories and swift advance for the Chinese people.

We have traversed the past year under conditions of continuous victories in the people's liberation war. The Chinese people's war of liberation, which began in July 1946, had already achieved fundamental victory on the eve of the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. But, at that time, the remnant of Kuomintang brigands still occupied the South China area, with Canton as its centre, the South-West China area, with Chungking as its centre, and some islands.

During the past year, the People's Liberation Army liberated all South China and Fukien Province. It later liberated all South-West China—with the exception of Tibet, the Choushan Islands, the Tungshan Islands, and other islands. Our army wiped out 203 entire enemy divisions, consisting of about 2,180,000 men.

The Chinese people have annihilated the American- equipped Kuomintang brigand armies throughout China's mainland and won this enormous victory. What lesson can we learn from this? The most important lesson is: such a big victory can never be an accidental phenomenon of history, but is the necessary outcome of the many revolutionary struggles of the Chinese people during the past century. Such an enormous, swift and thorough victory cannot be conceived apart from the selfless support of millions of people.

China United

This victory of the Chinese people is entirely different from all the "unifications" in China's history. Formerly, there was this and that sort of "unification", but the unifiers were either the oppressors of the people from the start or else became so afterwards. Therefore, they could not achieve real unification, and such unifications could not but collapse after a little while.

Today the first unification of the Chinese people has emerged. The people themselves have become the masters of Chinese soil, and the rule of the reactionaries in China has been irrevocably overthrown.

Since the enemy annihilated by the Chinese people was armed by the U.S. Government, then we can completely affirm that the Chinese people have not only won victory over the enemy at home, but also over the enemy abroad—that is, the imperialist interventionists of the United States. If the American imperialists still want to intervene in and invade China with whatever new means and in whatever new forms, they will then meet with the same defeat that befell the Kuomintang.

The struggle between the Chinese people and the remnant of Kuomintang reactionaries has not yet come to an end. This is because Taiwan, which is occupied by the reactionary remnants, is now under the direct control of the American Navy and Air Force.

The People's Liberation Army is determined to liberate Taiwan from the grip of the American aggressors, and to clear out the lairs of the reactionary brigands of China once and for all. It will be seen that, in the war for the liberation of Taiwan, our strategic position is much better than any enemy's. On our side stands inspired righteousness; our rear is close, vast and consolidated and we are now redoubling our efforts for the final victory. The People's Liberation Army is also determined to march westward to liberate the Tibetan people and defend the frontiers of China. We are willing to undertake peaceful negotiations to bring about this step, which is necessary to the security of our motherland. The patriots in Tibet have expressly welcomed this, and we hope that the local authorities in Tibet will not hesitate in bringing about a peaceful solution to the question. .

Foreign Policy of People's China

The foreign policy of the People's Republic of China has been clearly laid down in the Common Programme passed by the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The Common Programme Stipulates: "The principle of the foreign policy of the People's Republic of China is protection of the independence, freedom, integrity and sovereignty of the country, upholding of lasting international peace and friendly cooperation between the peoples of all countries, and opposition to the imperialist policy of aggression and war."

On the question of establishing diplomatic and trade relations with foreign countries, the Common Programme stipulates: "The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China may, on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territory and sovereignty, negotiate with foreign governments which have severed relations with the Kuomintang reactionary clique and which adopt a friendly attitude towards the peoples of China, and may establish diplomatic relations with them." "The People's Republic of China may restore and develop commercial relations with foreign governments and peoples on a basis of equality and mutual benefit." The foreign affairs of the Central People's Government in the past year were conducted in accordance with these basic principles.

Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, seventeen countries have established formal diplomatic relations with our country. They are the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, Korea, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Mongolia, Germany, Albania, Burma, India, Viet Nam, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Indonesia. Eight other countries—Pakistan, Britain, Ceylon, Norway, Israel, Afghanistan, Finland and the Netherlands—have also expressed willingness to establish diplomatic relations with our country. Among them, four countries—Britain, Norway, the Netherlands and Finland—are still conducting talks for the establishment of diplomatic relations with our country.

Friendship With U.S.S.R.

The People's Republic of China resolutely sides with the world camp of peace and democracy headed by the Soviet Union and has established the closest fraternal relations with the Soviet Union. During Chairman Mao Tse-tung's visit to the Soviet Union, China and the Soviet Union signed the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, which is of great world historic significance. Because of this treaty, great peoples of the European and Asiatic continents to the number of nearly 700 million have united in close alliance militarily, economically and culturally, and have thus greatly strengthened the power of the two countries to safeguard themselves against aggression in the east.

Simultaneously with the signing of this treaty, or a little later, China and the Soviet Union further signed the agreements on the Chinese Changchun Railway, Port Arthur and Dairen, the agreement on the granting of credit to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, and five other economic and trade agreements.

In these agreements, our great neighbour extends Much generous assistance to China in the period when she is recovering from her war wounds. The whole Chinese people are greatly elated with the signing and implementation of the treaty and agreements between China and the Soviet Union and express their boundless thanks for the friendship extended to them by the leader of the Soviet Union, Generalissimo Stalin, and the Government and people of the Soviet Union.

China has also signed trade contracts and agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Korea. Trade negotiations are under way with Germany and Hungary.

Trade relations have also developed between China and certain capitalist countries. The total amount of China's foreign trade is estimated not only to reach, but to surpass the original plans.

Relations With Capitalist States

The problem of the establishment of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries is more complicated than that of establishing trade relations. Here 1 may mention, especially, our long-drawn-out negotiations with Britain, out of which nothing has yet come. The reason for the fruitlessness of the negotiations is that the British Government has made known its recognition of the People's Republic of China on the one hand, while on the other it agrees to permit the so-called "representatives" of the reactionary rump of the Chinese Kuomintang clique to continue its illegal occupation of China's seat in the United Nations. This makes it difficult to commence formal diplomatic relations between China and Britain. And Britain's extremely unjustifiable and unfriendly attitude toward Chinese residents in Hong Kong and other places cannot fail to draw the serious attention of the Central People's Government.

Throughout the Chinese people's war of liberation, the U.S. Government sided with the enemy of the Chinese people, assisting the Kuomintang reactionaries with all its might in their attacks on the Chinese people. The enmity that the U.S. Government harbours towards the Chinese people has increased since the founding of the People's Republic of China.

Despite the just criticisms of the Soviet Union, India, and other countries, the U.S. stubbornly obstructs the representatives of the People's Republic of China from attending the United Nations and its various organs, and shamelessly protects the seat of the so-called "representatives" of the Kuomintang reactionary rump. Similarly, the U.S. debars the Chinese representatives from attending the Allied Council for Japan and plots to exclude China and the Soviet Union in concluding a peace treaty with Japan, in order to rearm Japan and retain America's occupation troops and military bases in Japan.

The U.S. deliberately concocted the assault of the Syngman Rhee gang against the Korean Democratic People's Republic in order to expand its aggression in the East and then, on the pretext of the situation in Korea, despatched its naval and air forces to invade Taiwan, a province of China, and announced that the so-called problem of Taiwan's status should be solved by the American-controlled United Nations. Moreover, time after time, it sent its air force, which is invading Korea, to intrude into the air over the Liaotung Province of China, strafing and bombing, and sent its naval forces which are invading Korea to bombard Chinese merchant shipping on the high seas.

By these frenzied and violent acts of imperialist aggression, the U.S. Government has displayed itself as the most dangerous foe to the People's Republic of China. The U.S. aggressive forces have invaded China's borders and may at any time expand their aggression. MacArthur, Commander-in-Chief of the American aggression against Taiwan and Korea, long ago disclosed the aggressive design of the U.S. Government, and is continuing to invent new excuses for extending its aggression.

Against American Aggression

The Chinese people firmly oppose the aggressive brutalities of America and are determined to liberate Taiwan and other Chinese territory from the clutches of the U.S. aggressors.

The Chinese people have closely followed the situation in Korea since she was invaded by the U.S.A. The Korean people and their People's Army are resolute and valorous. Led by Premier Kim Jr Sen, they have scored remarkable achievements in resisting the American invaders and have won the sympathy and support of people throughout the world. The Korean people can surely overcome their many difficulties and obtain final victory on the principle of persistent, long-term resistance.

The Chinese are peace-loving people. One hundred and twenty million Chinese have already signed their names to the solemn Stockholm Appeal and this signature movement is continuing to develop among the Chinese people. It is obvious that the Chinese people, after liberating the whole territory of their own country, want to rehabilitate and develop their industrial and agricultural production and cultural and educational work in a peaceful environment, free from threats. But if the American aggressors take this as a sign of the weakness of the Chinese people, they will commit the same fatal blunder as the Kuomintang reactionaries.

The Chinese people enthusiastically love peace, but in order to defend peace they never have been and never will be afraid to oppose aggressive war. The Chinese people absolutely will not tolerate foreign aggression, nor will they supinely tolerate seeing their neighbours being savagely invaded by imperialists. Whoever attempt to exclude the nearly 500 million Chinese people from the U.N. and whoever set at nought and violate the interests of this one-fourth of mankind in the world and fancy vainly to solve any Eastern problem directly concerned with China arbitrarily, will certainly break their skulls.

Thursday, 28 May 2009

MORE ON CHINA'S AVERSION TO 'G-2' AND HEGEMONIC ASPIRATIONS

China says 'no thanks' to G-2

By Jian Junbo
Asia Times Online

SHANGHAI - At the Sino-European Union (EU) summit in Prague
last week, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao rejected the
concept of a Group of Two (G-2) comprising China and the
United States, saying "it is totally ungrounded and wrong
to talk about the dominance of two countries in
international affairs".

It was the first time a Chinese leader has publicly
commented on the notion of a G-2, though Wen and a number
of Chinese officials and think-tanks had cast doubt on the
practicability of past notions of a "Chimerica".

The idea of a G-2 was first forwarded by US academic
circles in 2006, but it was raised again by Zbigniew
Brzezinski, an influential specialist in international
relations and national security advisor to former US
president Jimmy Carter, in Beijing in January as the two
countries celebrated the 30th anniversary of establishing
formal diplomatic ties.

Similar to "Chimerica", which would put the US and China at
the forefront of international affairs, the idea of a G-2
grouping has attracted wide attention, especially as
Brzezinski was an advisor to President Barack Obama during
the presidential elections.

In the Group of 20 (G-20) summit in London last month, the
G-2 was floated again in the Western media and academic
circles. Then after several weeks, on the eve of this
month's just-concluded 11th Sino-EU summit, British Foreign
Secretary David Miliband predicted that over the next few
decades, China would become one of the two "powers that
count".

He said, "China was becoming an indispensable power in the
21st century in the way [former US secretary of state]
Madeleine Albright said the US was an indispensable power
at the end of the last century". He also argued it would be
up to Europe if it wanted to change the G-2 into a G-3.

While widely discussed, the concept of a G-2 has not been
clearly defined. According to Brzezinski, G-2 described the
current reality, yet for Miliband, G-2 was a possibility in
the foreseeable future.

The exact structure of the proposed G-2 is also unclear. A
G-2 would seem to imply that the group would have the
strength, capability and will to set the agenda for
international affairs. It could be argued, as only two
countries are involved, that this would resemble world
hegemony.

China has neither the capacity nor the desire to become a
member of a G-2. It is true that China has the world's
third-largest economy, is the biggest creditor to the
world's sole superpower - the United States, and is one of
the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
council, and China indeed seems a big power.

However, with its huge population and wealth and
development gaps, China can also be seen as a poor,
underdeveloped country - its per capita GDP was ranked
104th globally last year by the World Bank. China is still
a developing country, and by comparison the US is far more
advanced in almost all economic sectors and in soft power
and military strength. At this stage and in the foreseeable
future, there is no match between China and the US in terms
of overall strength.

The responsibility of a G-2 member to jointly shape the
world's economy and international affairs is too far beyond
China's ability and ambitions. It is unwise for a country,
like a person, to commit itself to something beyond its
ability. That is why when Western commentators discuss the
G-2, China is inevitably suspicious of their intentions.
Many Chinese scholars fear that under a G-2, China could be
enmeshed into a structure built by the US, and required to
make more contributions to world economic and social
development than it can afford.

A G-2 would also imply a need for China to overhaul
domestic governance. As a member of G-2, China would need
to be a leader in both foreign and internal affairs, and
this has raised fears of Western intervention in China's
domestic affairs.

The grouping also goes against core principles of China's
foreign policy such as multilateralism and the desire for a
multipolar world order. For example, Wen stressed on at the
Prague Sino-EU summit the importance of China's relations
with the EU.

Another major reason for China to reject a G-2 is that it
is would not be legitimate international structure. If G-2
was built with the help of the US, then the question is who
can empower or authorize the US to do that? We can imagine
the G-2 would be refused by most countries if taken to a
global referendum. No other country, except for US, wants
to see the emergence of "pax-Chimericana". The rejection of
a G-2 does not mean China will shirk its global
responsibilities. China has welcomed the increased role it
and other big developing countries enjoy through the G-20
framework.

Even if a G-2 became a reality, it could never replace the
power, function and authority of the UN as the sole
international organization recognized by the majority of
states in the world. Although there are many problems that
the UN faces in regard to its effectiveness and
accountability, it is still the best platform for the
international community to peacefully deal with issues of
common interest.

As the US became the target of anti-Americanism in the
world after former president George W Bush started the Iraq
war in 2003, G-2 one day could also be the target of
anti-hegemony or anti-imperialist movements, affecting
China's global image.

Another reason is related to the rise of civil society as
an increasingly important factor in international
governance, especially since the end of the Cold War.
Without the participation of transnational non-government
organizations (NGOs), many international issues can not be
resolved successfully. Yet if G-2 was accountable for
international governance it could be a threat to global
civil society because as a hegemonic structure it could
limit the function and ability of other actors including
other countries, the UN and lots of NGOs.

It is self evident that a G-2 would not be good for other
countries and powers, especially rising industrial stars
like India, Russia and Brazil. All of these nations have
the ambition to compete for influence and power with both
US and China in the international arena. The idea of a G-2
is based neither upon the realities of international
politics nor on the willingness of China and the rest of
the world.

Dr Jian Junbo is assistant professor of the Institute of
International Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, China.