- Monday, November 25, 2024

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s delivery of his “four red lines” to President Biden at the 2024 APEC summit this month underscores the staggering hypocrisy and insecurity in the Chinese Communist Party.

These nonnegotiables purportedly delineate areas where China seeks to shield itself from external interference: Taiwan, democracy and human rights, its political system and its development rights. Yet beneath the veneer of sovereign dignity lies a web of fear, contradictions and brazen disregard for global norms.

Mr. Xi’s insistence that Taiwan is a “core interest” tied to China’s sovereignty is a calculated distortion and a fallacy. Taiwan’s status as an independent and democratic nation, formally the Republic of China, predates the Chinese Communist Party’s rise to power.

Moreover, the party’s history of ceding vast territory to ideological allies such as the Soviet Union and North Korea exposes its selective application of sovereignty. This double standard reveals that Taiwan’s importance to the Chinese Communist Party is not rooted in territorial integrity but in ideological desperation.

Taiwan is a living repudiation of Beijing’s governance. Its democratic success and economic vibrancy starkly contrast with the authoritarian stagnation on the mainland. For Mr. Xi, Taiwan’s freedom is an existential threat — a beacon inspiring mainland citizens yearning for democracy.

By framing Taiwan’s independence as a “red line,” Mr. Xi masks his fear of the Chinese government’s crumbling legitimacy and the erosion of his narrative of China’s invincibility.

Mr. Xi’s demand for noninterference in democracy and human rights issues reflects the regime’s deepest fear. It is not a defense of sovereignty but an indictment of his regime’s repression. From the Tiananmen Square massacre to the silencing of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement and the internment of millions of Uyghurs, the Communist Party’s record is one of systematic oppression.

Mr. Xi’s paranoia stems from a well-founded fear of his own people. The party knows it governs a nation brimming with discontent, from the stifling censorship of the internet to the absence of basic freedoms. By branding democracy and human rights as foreign impositions, Mr. Xi seeks to delegitimize these universal principles, ensuring that his regime’s iron grip remains unchallenged.

This tactic, however, is failing. The world increasingly sees China not as a sovereign defender but as a regime desperate to silence the voices of its own people.

Mr. Xi’s third “red line” — protecting the Chinese Communist Party’s political system — exposes the regime’s underlying fragility. The regime thrives on control, yet its authoritarian model is crumbling under its own contradictions. Despite its propaganda, the party cannot hide the growing unrest among its citizens, who resent being treated as mere state tools. The party’s Achilles’ heel is its inability to offer legitimacy through consent. Its governance relies not on popular support but on surveillance, coercion and fear.

Mr. Xi’s demand for respect for China’s political system is a plea for the world to turn a blind eye to these abuses. This strategy is doomed to fail as global scrutiny of the ruling party’s repression intensifies. From Mike Pompeo’s declaration that the Chinese Communist Party does not represent the Chinese people to the steady erosion of China’s global soft power, the party’s authoritarianism is increasingly viewed as a relic rather than a model for the future.

Mr. Xi’s rhetoric around “development rights,” the fourth “red line,” is an Orwellian attempt to justify China’s predatory economic practices. For decades, the government has exploited global free trade systems while refusing to abide by the same rules. Intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers and economic coercion are hallmarks of its model. Under the guise of development, China seeks to entrench a planned economy within a global system it fundamentally undermines.

This hypocrisy is laid bare as nations awaken to the dangers of Beijing’s economic imperialism. From the Belt and Road Initiative’s debt traps to its blatant currency manipulation, China’s economic strategy is increasingly viewed as a threat to global prosperity. Mr. Xi’s insistence on protecting these practices is less about development and more about preserving a system of exploitation.

There is a broader context about Xi’s four “red lines,” particularly about Taiwan. They are not merely about China’s internal affairs but represent a dangerous global dominance vision. Taiwan is not an isolated target; it is the first domino in a broader campaign of territorial aggression, akin to Nazi Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland. Mr. Xi’s alignment with Russia, Iran and North Korea underscores a chilling pattern: The Chinese government is part of a coalition seeking to dismantle the world order.

If the world permits China to conquer Taiwan, it sets a precedent for unchecked aggression. The stakes are Taiwan’s future and preserving a global system based on sovereignty, democracy and human rights.

The world cannot afford to ignore the implications of Mr. Xi’s ambitions. His “four red lines” are not the dictates of a strong leader; they are the desperate pleas of a regime afraid of its own people and the global tide of freedom.

The U.S. and its allies must reject Mr. Xi’s narrative and stand firm against Chinese aggression. This is not merely about opposing China’s overreach but about safeguarding the principles underpinning peace and prosperity worldwide.

With a new American administration poised to take a tougher stance, Mr. Xi will face his greatest challenge yet. The free world must seize this moment to expose the phoniness of Mr. Xi’s red lines and recommit to defending democracy, human rights and the sovereignty of nations. The stakes could not be higher, and failure is not an option.

• Miles Yu is a senior fellow, director of the China Center at the Hudson Institute, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow at the Institute of Project 2049.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.