Imagine if a political party announced a new system of control over Hollywood that banned any negative portrayals of that party, and any negative portrayals of its police force or military. Imagine if it also banned positive portrayals of religion or any depiction of the supernatural, and if it banned any films that showed people violating its laws.

Hollywood is actually already following all of these requirements. But it’s not doing this on behalf of any U.S. political party. Liever, it is censoring movies to appease the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in hopes of getting films into the Chinese market. And these films altered to appease the Chinese regime are often the same ones being shown in U.S. theaters.

Chinese companies are now buying key businesses in the American film industry, while many American filmmakers are partnering directly with Chinese companies and working directly with CCP offices to censor and alter their films. The CCP is now gaining control over what Hollywood can and cannot produce.

The stated interest of Chinese leaders in influencing Hollywood goes far beyond mere censorship and profit. They are waging a cultural war, and their victims are American viewers and the creative freedom of an American icon.

Hollywood is America’s dream factory. More than any other cultural form, it shapes the American imagination. It gives us common ground for a national conversation, en, to a significant degree, our national character is formed through the medium of popular film. And now the CCP is inserting itself directly into the making of the stories we use to understand ourselves.

Perception Management

According to an Oct. 28, 2015, rapport from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), “China views film as a component of social control,” and notes that when it comes to Chinese policies for regulating content in films, “the CCP’s concerns are positioned above all other interests.”

This position can be seen clearly in some of the films that have been censored or blocked due to the CCP’s systems of control.

[‘Men in Black 3′ was] forced to cut a scene in which civilians’ memories are erased, a scene that a Chinese newspaper wrote may have been perceived as a commentary on China’s internet censorship policies.

— US-China Economic and Security Review Commission

De 2013 film “Captain Phillips” features Tom Hanks as an American cargo ship captain who is rescued from Somali pirates by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs. The report states the CCP blocked it from being shown in China “because of the film’s positive portrayal of the United States and U.S. military.”

Tom Hanks (L) and Barkhad Abdi promote the film “Captain Phillips” in Los Angeles in September 2013. The movie was unable to appear in China, because it portrayed the U.S. military in a positive light. (Araya Diaz/Getty Images for Sony)

A scene in the 2006 film “Mission: Impossible 3,” starring Tom Cruise, showed clothes drying on a clothesline in Shanghai. It was removed from Chinese screenings, the report states, “because it was not a positive portrayal of Shanghai, despite the fact that the film was partially shot in Shanghai, where many people do not own dryers.”

The report notes the 2012 film “Men in Black 3” was “forced to cut a scene in which civilians’ memories are erased, a scene that a Chinese newspaper wrote may have been perceived as a commentary on China’s internet censorship policies.”

A list of similar cases could go on for some time, and could include the 2010 film “Karate Kid,” which, despite being made with heavy CCP oversight, ran into trouble because its villain was Chinese; and a 3-D release of the 1985 film “Top Gun,” which was rejected, the report states, “because it portrayed U.S. military dominance.”

According to Amar Manzoor, author of “The Art of Industrial Warfare,” the CCP’s use of films can be understood as similar to the way a company promotes its brand while attacking that of its key rival.

Manzoor used the 2014 film “Transformers: Age of Extinction” as an example. The action film featured at least 10 Chinese product placements—from real estate companies to computers to wine. Hij zei, “From the media side they were looking for a Chinese presence within the American film industry, because they can get better penetration with American films than they can with just Chinese films.”

It plays into the broader idea, Manzoor zei, that if you infiltrate a high-class culture, and place yourself in a perceived favorable position alongside it, it has the effect of improving the image of your own brand.

The CCP’s “brand” is one of human rights abuses, censuur, shoddy products, espionage, and authoritarian rule, but through censoring film, the Party aims at skewing international perceptions in its favor. It forces Hollywood not to show any of these negative elements and instead to give China a false, positive image. And it also forbids Hollywood films from giving a positive portrayal of the United States, the Chinese regime’s main competitor.

The best arts cause us to question, to think. They motivate us to consider new options, and the communists don’t want that.

— Ronald J. Rychlak, professor, University of Mississippi School of Law

According to Ronald J. Rychlak, a law professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law, authoritarian regimes have been using films for political gain since the early 20th century.

“The entertainment industry is tremendously influential—go back and look at how the Soviets controlled movie theaters and ballet. The Nazis did the same thing,” Rychlak said.

Rychlak is well versed in the topic. He co-wrote the book “Disinformation” with Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence official to ever defect to the West, and details tactics used by communist regimes to create false narratives and alter perspectives.

“The best arts cause us to question, to think,” Rychlak said. “They motivate us to consider new options, and the communists don’t want that.

“Artists may talk about the power of art, but totalitarians really understand the power of art, because they abuse it.”

A System for Control

The filmmakers of “Iron Man 3” took many steps to appease the Chinese regime, which included them creating additional scenes and locations in the Chinese version, which featured Chinese actors and Chinese locations. (WANG ZHAO/AFP/Getty Images)

Hollywood has been open to the CCP’s censorship because it believes there is a golden opportunity in the China market.

The CCP manipulates Hollywood’s desire to cooperate by limiting how many foreign films are allowed in, a quota system that violates the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Alleen 34 Western films may be shown in China each year, and so the Western studios are made to compete with one another for the CCP’s favor.

While SAPPRFT’s authority is intentionally broad, its mandate specifically includes provisions protecting the interests of the CCP.

— US-China Economic and Security Review Commission

The terms of entrance are strict. Hollywood must choose between getting a 25 percent cut of box office sales or selling their films to the CCP at a set price. The films are chosen by the Chinese state agency in charge of film censorship known as the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT).

“While SAPPRFT’s authority is intentionally broad, its mandate specifically includes provisions protecting the interests of the CCP,"Stelt het rapport, noting that the agency’s director, “like all SAPPRFT officials,” is a member of the CCP “with a long career as a propagandist.”

Eligibility for one of these 34 film slots, ondertussen, is a bit like Russian roulette, since the CCP isn’t consistent about what film content it allows and what it rejects. This leads filmmakers to go beyond the CCP’s surface-level standards and make more direct attempts to appease Chinese censors.

Leaked emails from Sony Pictures Entertainment exposed some of the thinking behind studios’ alterations to fit the CCP’s liking. According to a July 2015 report from Reuters, Sony executives removed a scene of the Great Wall being damaged and of a “Communist-conspiracy brother” hacker in the 2015 film “Pixels” because they feared the scenes would impact the film’s eligibility for the Chinese market. Scenes showing the Washington Monument, the Taj Mahal, and parts of Manhattan being destroyed were left in.

Chinese actor Wang Xueqi, who stars in the Chinese release of “Iron Man 3”, with an actor posing as Iron Man in front of Beijing’s old city gate during the promotion of the film. (DMG Entertainment)

“Even though breaking a hole in the Great Wall may not be a problem as long as it is part of a worldwide phenomenon, it is actually unnecessary because it will not benefit the China release at all. I would, dan, recommend not to do it,” wrote Li Chow, chief representative of Sony Pictures in China, in a December 2013 email to senior Sony executives, volgens Reuters.

Other films have taken similar measures. De 2012 film “Red Dawn” originally featured Chinese communists invading the United States, but this was changed to North Koreans.

Hollywood has another path to the China market besides self-censorship: working directly with Chinese companies on the films and granting CCP officials with SAPPRFT more direct oversight of the filmmaking process. Taking this approach means the films aren’t classified as foreign films.

The coproductions come with additional requirements, echter. According to the USCC report, these can include “having at least one scene shot in China, casting at least one Chinese actor, receiving a minimum one-third of the movie’s total investment from Chinese companies, en, in general, illustrating ‘positive Chinese elements.’”

De 2013 film “Iron Man 3,” for which Disney partnered with China’s DMG Entertainment Group, took this approach. The filmmakers took heavy steps to appease the CCP, such as creating additional scenes and locations in the Chinese version that featured Chinese actors and Chinese locations. They also cast British actor Ben Kingsley as the villain named The Mandarin, a character that is Chinese in the comic books the film is based on.

If you’ve started to notice that Hollywood films are increasingly showing the United States in a negative light, as well as opposing religion and praising the Chinese regime, you’re not imagining things—these are requirements that the CCP has placed on Hollywood, and most major studios are following these requirements in order to get a spot in Chinese theaters.

And with Chinese companies on a spree of buying or partnering with foreign film assets, these forms of censorship could soon become even more prevalent.

China’s Shopping Spree

AMC Empire 25 in New York on Aug. 23, 2016. The Chinese company Dalian Wanda Group purchased AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. in 2012 for $2.6 miljard. (Samira Bouaou/Epoch Times)

An AMC movie theater near Times Square on Aug. 23, 2016. The Chinese company Dalian Wanda Group purchased AMC Entertainment Holdings in 2012 for $2.6 miljard. (Samira Bouaou/Epoch Times)

While Hollywood has been busy seeking out Chinese companies for partnerships to get an easier ticket to China, Chinese companies have been settings their sights on film assets abroad, deepening the CCP’s influence over the global film industry.

Dalian Wanda Group became the first Chinese firm to own a major Hollywood studio in January when it purchased Legendary Entertainment for $3.5 billion in cash. This followed its purchase of AMC Entertainment Holdings, which operates AMC Theaters—the second largest cinema chain in the United States—in 2012 for $2.6 miljard.

It also owns Australian movie theater company Hoyts Group, leading European cinema operator Odeon & UCI Cinemas Group, and China-based Wanda Cinema Line, and there are reports of it trying to buy a 49-percent stake in Paramount Pictures.

Other major Chinese companies involved in targeting Western assets include Tencent, DMG Entertainment (DMG Yinji), Baidu, and the state-owned television outlet CCTV.

Many of these companies have opaque connections to the CCP, but regardless of how deep their ties do or do not go, most companies in China are required to have a CCP liaison. The state-run Chinese news outlet Xinhua recently published a report that stated this requirement, noting that “the Party constitution stipulates that organizations of more than three members” should have a CCP branch. This requirement also includes foreign companies with offices in China.

Regardless of whether or not the companies themselves have motives to promote the CCP, being based in China means they are held to the CCP’s laws—including its laws on censorship. And at the higher levels of the Chinese regime, the CCP has clearly stated its interest in using films and other forms of information and entertainment to strategically push its own agenda.

‘Culture Warfare’

Tom Cruise in “Top Gun.” The recent release of the 3-D version of “Top Gun” was banned in China because it “portrayed U.S. military dominance.” (Paramount Pictures)

In oktober 2012, former CCP leader Hu Jintao gave a speech at a party plenum that “some foreign media saw … as a declaration of war against Western culture,” as Asia Times noted.

Hu said that as a matter of strategy, many countries “strengthen their cultural soft power.” He went on to claim that “international hostile forces are stepping up their strategic attempts to Westernize and divide our country, and ideological and cultural fields are a focus of their long-term infiltration.”

He accused Western “spiritual pollution” and “bourgeois liberalization” as the cause of pro-democracy movements and called on the CCP to “heighten our vigilance” and to “take effective countermeasures.”

Culture Warfare was just one of 12 strategies they laid out in what they called war with ‘no limits’ and ‘without morality.’

The speech coincided closely with Dalian Wanda Group’s 2012 purchase of AMC Theaters.

In a March 2012 report on Hu’s speech, Huffington Post noted: “One thing we can count on is a revamped effort at censorship, Big Brother surveillance, and thought control. This may sound like hyperbole, but it isn’t; President Hu Jintao has, eigenlijk, been very blunt on these points.”

While such a strategy from the CCP may sound secretive and dubious, the CCP has actually been fairly loud with its rhetoric against U.S. entertainment and with its own strategies to counter this with “culture warfare.”

David Major, founder and president of the CI Centre, a U.S.-based company offering training in counter-intelligence, explained the nature of the CCP’s ideas behind culture warfare during a June 9, 2016, testimony to the USCC. He said culture warfare “means influencing the cultural biases of a targeted country by imposing your own cultural viewpoints.”

Major noted the strategy ties to a broader Chinese unconventional warfare system known as Unrestricted Warfare, detailed in 1999 by two Air Force colonels and political officers in the People’s Liberation Army. Culture Warfare was just one of 12 strategies they laid out in what they called war with “no limits” and “without morality.”

One of the CCP’s more recent strategies along these lines, known as the Three Warfares, pulls directly from the Unrestricted Warfare doctrine and focuses more specifically on perception management. The CCP’s Central Committee and the Central Military Commission approved the Three Warfares for use by the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army in 2003.

The Three Warfares are Psychological Warfare, Media Warfare, and Legal Warfare. In a March 2015 rapport, ONS. Special Operations Command explained the CCP’s use of these warfare concepts—as well as similar concepts used by Iran and Russia—and called on the United States to begin countering them.

The two parts of the Three Warfares strategy directly relevant to culture warfare are Psychological Warfare and Media Warfare. Volgens het rapport, Psychological Warfare “seeks to undermine an enemy’s operational ability by demoralizing enemy military and civilian populations” using systems including television, radio broadcasts, rumors, and other means. Media Warfare “seeks to influence domestic and international public opinion to build support for military actions and dissuade adversaries from actions contrary to China’s interests.”

It must be recognized we are in a full state of competition with American films. … This is about defending and fighting for cultural territory.

— Zhang Hongsen, head, Chinese agency in charge of film censorship

Legal Warfare, the third tier of the system, can be seen playing out in the CCP’s manipulation of international law by restricting imports on films, in violation of WTO rules.

Many public remarks by CCP leaders and military officers demonstrate how the Chinese regime views the strategic use of entertainment under the doctrine of Culture Warfare.

In december 2013, the Chinese military newspaper Zhongguo Guofangbao slammed a video game, “Battlefield 4,” for portraying a Chinese general as its villain. It accused the game of being “a new form of cultural penetration and aggression” that aimed “to discredit one country’s image in the eyes of other countries.” It also claimed that featuring a Chinese general as an enemy in the game would cause Western audiences to see China as the “common enemy.”

When the above statements are taken in context along with the CCP’s banning of films like “Captain Phillips” and the 3-D version of “Top Gun” for showing the U.S. military in a positive light, the strategic thinking becomes more clear.

In augustus 2014, the CCP began restoring 1930s films for what South China Morning Post called a “culture war” and “soft power push.” It noted the CCP said in June 2014 it would invest 100 miljoen yuan (over $15 miljoen) to fund 5–10 “influential films.”

Zhang Hongsen, the head of SAPPRFT, zei, according to South China Morning Post: “It must be recognized we are in a full state of competition with American films. … This is about defending and fighting for cultural territory.”

Lees het volledige artikel hier

Chinese baggerschepen werken aan de aanleg van kunstmatige eilanden op en rond Michief Reef in de Spratly-eilanden van de Zuid-Chinese Zee op mei 2. de U.S.. Navy stuurde onlangs een oorlogsschip patrouilleren in de buurt van kunstmatige eilanden van het Chinese regime. (ONS. Marine)Chinese baggerschepen werken aan de aanleg van kunstmatige eilanden op en rond Michief Reef in de Spratly-eilanden van de Zuid-Chinese Zee op mei 2. de U.S.. Navy stuurde onlangs een oorlogsschip patrouilleren in de buurt van kunstmatige eilanden van het Chinese regime. (ONS. Marine)

De basis van rechtszaak en de strategie voor de exploitatie van de Zuid-Chinese Zee van het Chinese regime rustte op een vermeende historische ownership-en juli 12, een arbitrage rechtbank in Den Haag verklaard dat deze stichting is vals.

De Chinese Communistische Partij (CCP) snel geschoten terug. Een verklaring van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken zegt dat het besluit van het tribunaal beschouwt als “nietig en heeft geen bindende kracht,”En zegt dat‘noch aanvaardt noch erkent het.’

In weerwil van de bluster die uit Beijing, de CCP heeft haar belangrijkste lijn voor propaganda en zijn beste kans verloren aan een morele grond vast te stellen voor haar positie op de Zuid-Chinese Zee.

Nog, volgens Dean Cheng, een senior research fellow bij het Asian Studies Centre aan de Heritage Foundation, “Het is belangrijk om te herkennen dit probleem is nog niet voorbij.”

Een Battle of Deception

Een van de belangrijkste strategieën van de CCP heeft gebruikt in de Zuid-Chinese Zee is wat zij noemt de “Drie Warfares;”Die zijn legaal warfare, psychologische oorlogsvoering, en media warfare.

De strategie werkt door de productie van “legale” argumenten, het creëren van psychologische druk op de tegenstanders, en het manipuleren van berichtgeving. Het Office of Net Assessment, een Pentagon denktank, beschreven strategie in een mei 2013 verslag als een “oorlogvoering proces dat oorlog vormt met andere middelen,”En dat gebruik maakt van misleiding als een manier om‘alter de strategische omgeving op een manier die kinetische betrokkenheid irrationeel maakt.’

Cheng zei dat de CCP gebruik van legale warfare “was niet echt een kwestie van wat andere juridische autoriteiten zeggen.” Hij merkte op dat er al zijn Chinese wet professoren en anderen proberen om het Tribunaal in diskrediet, en zegt dat het is bezoedeld of heeft geen gezag.

Op haar hart, de CCP Drie Warfares is een strategie voor desinformatie-vorm van propaganda die functioneert door de productie van een lie met een kern van waarheid, vervolgens met behulp van deze leugen als een basis om ogenschijnlijk legitieme argumenten maken. Een belangrijk doel van desinformatie is om dekking te krijgen in anderszins geloofwaardige nieuws verkooppunten en denktanks, die vervolgens kunnen worden gebruikt om extra argumenten te maken.

In de Zuid-Chinese Zee, Deze strategie heeft gemanifesteerd in de vorderingen van de CCP dat het historische eigendom over bijna de hele regio; waarop zij het recht om eilanden te vervaardigen geeft, verklaren defensieve perimeters rond zijn kunstmatige eilanden, en aan schepen uit andere landen uit te jagen de regio.

De weg voor ons

De website van het Tribunaal ging offline kort na de aankondiging, maar een archief van het persbericht is nog steeds beschikbaar.

Volgens het persbericht, de CCP geboycot het Tribunaal, maar ook in afwezigheid van China, het Tribunaal heeft maatregelen genomen om “de juistheid van de conclusies van de Filippijnen te testen," er staat. Dit omvatte vraagtekens bij de Filippijnen, benoeming van onafhankelijke deskundigen “rapporteren aan het Tribunaal over technische zaken,”En‘het verkrijgen van historisch bewijs met betrekking tot functies in de Zuid-Chinese Zee en het verstrekken van het aan de partijen voor commentaar.’

Uiteindelijk, de rechtbank overweldigend vond conclusies de CCP vals te zijn. Het zei in het persbericht dat “vond dat China's aanspraak op historische rechten op middelen onverenigbaar was met de gedetailleerde toekenning van rechten en maritieme zones” in het Verdrag van de Verenigde Naties inzake het recht van de zee, en dat eventuele historische rechten van de CCP moesten middelen in de Zuid-Chinese Zee werd “gedoofd door de inwerkingtreding van het Verdrag voor zover zij onverenigbaar met het systeem van de maritieme zones van de Conventie waren.”

De vorderingen van de verschillende landen in de Zuid-Chinese Zee. (VOA)

De vorderingen van de verschillende landen in de Zuid-Chinese Zee. (VOA)

Ongeacht de beslissing, echter, de CCP heeft herhaaldelijk verklaard dat het “niet accepteren, noch deelnemen aan de arbitrage eenzijdig initiatief van de Filippijnen,”Volgens de persmededeling.

Volgens Cheng, het Chinese regime niet de hoorzittingen om de eenvoudige reden dat bij te wonen “ze wisten dat hun zaak was niet van plan om op te staan ​​aan de huidige principes van het internationaal recht.”
Maar volgens Cheng, “De Chinezen waren niet van plan om geen concessies in de Zuid-Chinese Zee te maken voordat deze, en ze zijn niet van plan om nu.”

Hij voegde toe dat “er waren niet veel landen die de Chinese positie om te beginnen met geloven.”

Vooruit gaan, Het is waarschijnlijk de CCP zal een nieuwe propaganda push aan het Tribunaal in diskrediet te maken, en kan proberen om een ​​nieuwe lijn desinformatie fabriceren volgens de conclusies baseren. Het is ook waarschijnlijk de CCP zal een sterkere druk te maken, hetzij met militaire kracht of door het starten van meer civiele ventures in de Zuid-Chinese Zee.

De CCP heeft vier maskers kan dragen in het conflict in Zuid-Chinese Zee: één voor militaire intimidatie, één voor vreedzame civiele ventures, één voor financieel gewin, en een andere voor de strategische misleiding.

De uitspraak is een deuk in de CCP masker voor strategische misleiding, maar zijn andere fronten blijven grotendeels ongedeerd.

“Ik denk dat de Chinezen gaan naar de toeristische kaart te spelen,"Cheng zei, merkt op dat al deze toeristische vluchten gedaan om de Zuid-Chinese Zee. Hij zei dat de CCP zal ook waarschijnlijk maak nieuwe pushes met militaire macht en kunnen op zoek naar een economische component alsook om de onrechtmatige ventures in de regio te rechtvaardigen.

Hij merkte op dat de CCP ook kunnen proberen een diplomatieke aanpak, en het opbouwen van een eigen alliantie, waaronder eventueel Laos, Cambodja, en Brunei. Hij zei dat kunnen deze landen een overeenkomst “te zeggen bieden, werken met ons krijg je zoiets, tegen ons zult u niets.”

Lees het volledige artikel hier

Dit nieuws analyse werd oorspronkelijk verzonden als onderdeel van de Epoch Times China e-mail nieuwsbrieven. Abonneer je op de nieuwsbrief door het invullen van uw e-mail in de “China D-kort” box in dit artikel.
If you were to go by what’s being broadly reported in the press, you’d likely get the impression that the United States was violating some international code in its upcoming $1.83 billion arms sale to Taiwan, and that the move is somehow tied to U.S. warmongering over Chinese politics.
Deze, natuurlijk, couldn’t be further from the truth, but given the proliferation of propaganda from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that has found influence in the Western press, it’s necessary to clear things up.
NBC News reported on Dec. 17 that “China summoned a senior U.S. diplomat and threatened to impose sanctionsafter the United States announced the arms sale. It quotes the Chinese vice-foreign minister saying the U.S. move “severely damaged China’s sovereignty and security interests.
It picks up a line that was commonly used in news reports on the arms sale, stating the CCP views Taiwan as a “breakaway province.It says that while the United States does not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, it has continued arms sales to Taiwan as part of an agreement that started in the 1970s.
Natuurlijk, anyone familiar with Chinese history knows the situation is a bit more complicated.
The government in Taiwan used to be broadly recognized as the the official government of China, while the CCP was viewed as a rogue regime.
The United Nations only switched its stance on Taiwan in October 1971 with UN Resolution 2758, which took the “Chinaseat from Taiwan and passed it to the CCP.
It wasn’t until Jan. 1, 1979, that the United States changed its recognition of the official government of “Chinafrom Taiwan to the CCP.
Met andere woorden, the history of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, now being pitched as U.S. hostilities towards China, was actually the exact oppositeit began as arms sales to the official, democratic China, which was (and still is) being threatened by a hostile, totalitarian regime.
Many U.S. news outlets picked up the CCP’s line on the Taiwan arms dealand if you were to go by the CCP’s state-run news outlets, the deal would look pretty bad. The general line, reported in Xinhua, was that the deal exposes a sort of “mentalitythat acts in defiance of international law and regulations, and holds a hostile attitude.
Other CCP sources weighed how it could respond. A report from the CCP’s American Diplomacy Department, Institute of American Studies, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, suggested the CCP could use economic sanctions against the defense industries involved in the arms sale.
The Wall Street Journal picked up a similar analysis as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The angle of its Dec. 17 piece stated the CCP’s “options for punishing U.S. companies involved in the sales are limited.
The piece also suggests a political agenda on the U.S. side, noting the sale was announced just ahead of Taiwan’s presidential elections, and on the heels of a rare dialogue between CCP leader Xi Jinping and Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou.
The actual context of the sale was quite different. What the piece fails to mention is that the CCP has been threatening Taiwan over its upcoming presidential electionswhich I detailed in a Sept. 1 newsletter.
Between May and June, the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was holding military exercises openly aimed at Taiwan. In an image of the drills released by Chinese state media, PLA officers gave military briefings in front of a map of Taiwan.
IHS Jane’s reported the military exercises coincided with the May 29 visit of Tsai Ing-wen, the candidate for Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party, to the United States.
The CCP has been particularly worried about the upcoming Taiwanese elections, since the Democratic Progressive Party favors Taiwanese independence, and is leading in the polls. Eigenlijk, if the polls prove true, Tsai Ing-wen will be Taiwan’s next president, and her political party will also hold a legislative majority.
The CCP soon held another military exercise in Inner Mongolia, this time with a clearer message warning Taiwan.
CCTV, one of the CCP’s official mouthpieces, aired a video on July 5 showing military exercises where Chinese soldiers attacked a building modeled after the Taiwanese presidential office.
Quartz reported on the video on July 23, stating “some suggest that the simulated attack is China’s way of reminding Taiwan that it will make good on its promise of invading if Taiwan declares independence.
The National Interest wrote on July 16 that the CCP’s military was practicing to invade Taiwan.
In light of these incidents, the Taiwanese military released a report on Oct. 27, stating its belief that by 2020 the CCP may invade Taiwan.
Taiwanese news outlet Today, reported “China has completed its planned build-up of joint forces for military engagement against Taiwan and is on its way to ensure victory in a decisive battle by 2020, Taiwan’s Defence Ministry said in its National Defence Reportreleased today (oktober 27).”
It wasn’t until after these incidents that the renewed U.S. arms sales to Taiwan came into play.
op november. 19, Senate Armed Services Committee chair Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) issued a letter to the White House questioning why the United States had not continued arms sales to Taiwan under the Obama administration, and requested that the United States continues these sales.
“We are troubled that it has now been over four yearsthe longest period since the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979since the administration has notified Congress of a new arms sale package,” the letter states.
The letter also notes that “we remain concerned that China’s ongoing military modernization, and the threat it poses to peace and security in the Taiwan Strait, is not being adequately addressed
Zo, taken in full context, het U.S.. arms sales to Taiwan were quite different from what is being broadly reportedbut you wouldn’t know this history if you were to just go by the CCP’s channels for disinformation.
Additional research by Jenny Li.

Lees het volledige artikel hier