Maria Magdalena – die reuige Büßerin – vielfach, allseitig im LOUVRE

Wer meint, in Paris die Bekanntschaft mit der Heiligen Maria Magdalena in der Kirche La Madeleine beginnen zu können, liegt eindeutig falsch.

Hat nur den Namen gemeinsam mit der Heiligen La Madeleine

Erfolgreicher verläuft die Suche aber im Louvre, in seinen großen Häusern, auf den verschiedenen Ebenen und in den weiträumigen Sälen, wenn man sich nur abseits vom MONA LISA orientierten Strom hält.
Da ist es ein Detail, das mich fesselt:

*Die „Sünderin“ Maria Magdalena bei der „Kreuzabnahme“ des Leichnams Jesu*

Der anonyme Maler aus dem Kölner Raum, genannt „Meister des Heiligen Bartholomäus“, greift bedenkenlos in die Kiste der spätgotischen Attribute der Heiligen Maria Magdalena – und verwendet die Prostitution, die Darbietung der Fleischeslust, als allgemein verständliches malerisches Mittel der Beschreibung der Heiligen. (um 1480-1510)

Hier die Gesamtdarstellung:

Mit dieser Darstellung sind wir schon mitten in der ästhetischen, aber auch religionsgeschichtlichen Debatte um die „wirkliche, echte“ Maria Magdalena: war es die aktive Teilnehmerin (aus gutem Hause) der Gruppe des jüdischen Wanderpredigers Jesus, aus deren Körper er die Dämonen in einer öffentlichen Vorführung vertrieb? Kaum ein Sujet für bildende Künstler !
Oder war es jene Anhängerin des Erlösers Jesu, die während seiner Kreuzigung und der Abnahme des leblosen Körpers in tiefer Trauer am Fuße des Kreuze kniet?
Oder war es jene Frau, erkennbar am Attribut des Salbengefäßes, mehrfach in vielfältigen Varianten gemalt und in Stein oder Holz geformt, die am Ostersonntag-Morgen mit den anderen beiden Marien zur steinernen Grabhöhle kommt, um die Leiche mit duftenden Essenzen zu salben und die den Erlöser am leeren Grab als Erste entdeckte und seine Weisung NOLI ME TANGERE ! erschreckt entgegennehme musste?

Beginnen wir den Rundgang mit ihr: „Sainte Marie-Madeleine, tenant un vase à parfum, Lorraine, 1400-1430“ („Pierre calcaire, traces de polychromie et de dorure“) Diese Skulptur gehörte vermutlich zu einer Gruppe trauernder Frauen aus den neutestamentalischen Szenen der Grablegung und der Auferstehung, ein Theam in jener Periode des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts weit verbreitet.

Das Ölbild „La Pietà de Villeneuve-lès-Avignon“ des Malers Enguerrand Quarton, vermutlich aus dem Jahre 1455 besticht durch seine üppige Verwendung von Gold und – als Altarbild – auf Holz des in der Provence heimischen Walnussbaumes präsentiert.

*Die heilige Madeleine als Trauernde wird nicht nur durch das Attribut des Salbengefäßes, sondern zusätzlich durch den Namenszug im Heiligenschein den Gläubigen vorgestellt.*

Diese Madeleine – ebenfalls auf Holz – stammt aus der Region von Antwerpen, repräsentiert den Übergang von der Spätgotik zur Frührenaissance in Nordeuropa (um 1520 – 1525). Die Heilige zeigt durch Kleidung und Schmuck, dass sie zur bürgerlichen Oberschicht gehört anmutig, Sympathie ausstrahlend lädt sie die Betrachter ein, sich den Inhalt der geöffneten Salbenbüchse anzusehen.

Eine historisch späte „Sünderin“, bereuend, verklärten Blickes – kirchengeschichtlich „beschwert“ durch die zusätzlichen Attribute des Totenschädels und des Buches, Hinweise auf die in die Biographie eingefügten Jahre des daseisn als Eremitin.

*Guy Francois, Sainte Marie Madeleine pénitente, um 1620-1630*

Dazwischen eine Renaissance-Darstellung aus Norditalien (Venetien): die Heilige Maria Magdalena gemeinam mit Junfrau Maria und Johannes dem Täufer vor einer naturalistischen Landschaft und venezianischer Architektur. Das Attribut des Salbengefäßes ist deutlich sichtbar, es fehlen die sonst üblichen Hinweise auf die Reue der Sünderin und die Jahre als Einsiedlerin in der Wüste.

*Giovanni Battista CIMA, genannt CIMA DA CONEGLIANO, La Vierge et l’Enfant Jésus entre saint Jean Baptiste et sainte Maria-Madeleine, um 1511-1513*

Als vorletztes Beispiel der Vielfalt der ästhetischen Interpretationsmöglichkeiten der Figur der heiligen Madeleine in der bildenden Kunst – damals in der klassischen Periode (um 1800) noch naiv betitelt : „Portrait d’une négresse“. Die Künstlerin – Maria-Guillemine Benoist – Schülerin der bekannten Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun und Mitarbeiterin des großen Jacques-Louis David – verstand ihr Werk als aktiven, humanistischen Beitrag zur Durchsetzung der Menschen- (und Frauen-) Rechte, zur Abschaffung der Sklaverei. Damit wurde sie und besonders mit diesem Bild, erstmals gezeigt im PARISER SALON von 1800, zur Vorkämpferin der aktuellen feministischen Bewegung unter dem Banner der Madeleine !

Zum Abschluss meines privaten Rundganges im Louvre – müde, durstig, ästhetisch gesättigt: im DENON-Flügel, Niveau -1, Saal 169: eine Version der Maria Magdalena aus dem Deutschland Albrecht Dürers (im Glaskasten) – aus einem Augsburger Dominikaner-Kloster.

Erhart, GregorPays Germaniques et de l’Europe de l’Est, Musée du Louvre, Département des Sculptures du Moyen Age, de la Renaissance et des temps modernes, RF 1338 – https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010093565 – https://collections.louvre.fr/CGU

Die Heilige, wie sie uns nach den Jahrzehnten der ägyptischen Einsiedelei entgegentritt: entblößt von allem bürgerlichen Luxus, die zu Lumpen gewordenen Kleider abgeworfen und den noch makellosen Körper verhüllt durch das natürliche Haupt- und Körperhaar! – ein Wunsch-Sujet des Renaissance-Künstlers.
Nach der nötigen Pause zur Erholung – Monate werden vergehen, um Kraft zu schöpfen für die Museen d’Orsay, Moreau etc.
À tantot !

PUTINS „Kapriolen“ -dialektisch verstanden?

Es wird uns viel zugemutet! Zuviel ? Uns ? Schon im ersten Satz scheinbar unauflösliche Denkansätze –

Der Kreml – asiatisch umhüllt (Titelbild des ECONOMIST, Detail)

Der Kreml zeugt von „jähen Wendungen“ seiner Herrscher wie kaum eine andere Residenz Europas seit es etablierte Zentren der Macht gibt, also seit dem Spätmittelalter, also seit IWAN IV, – dem „Grosny“. Seine Machtinhaber waren aus der Sicht der Unterlegenen immer GROSNY – Schrecklich, FURCHTEINFLÖSSEND, GRAUSAM. Wird „uns“ Sympthisanten zuviel zugemutet, wenn uns Putin Solidarität abfordert, „UNS“, den Freunden der Partisanen vom AMUR,

der Reiterarmeen des Kirgisen Frunse,

des Pawka Kortschagin, der Kumpels der Fahne von Kriwoj Rog, UNS – den Gefolgsleuten des Zaren Alexander Newski, den Gefährten der Matrosen der AURORA?

Die jüngste Wendung des Kreml – konsequente Abkehr vom Traum eines EUROPÄISCHEN HAUSES (Gorbatschow bis PUTIN im Bundestag)

Hegels Weltgeist käme ins Schwärmen – Putins „Jähe Wendung“ erfährt durch einen Fanfarenstoß des „WESTENS“ globale Aufmerksamkeit – Terror-Anschlag auf eine Brücke, des Symbols der Einheit, der Zusammenarbeit, der Verbindung!

SIGNAL: Ende der Zusammenarbeit, Ende der Träume

Es scheint nur eine Formalität – aber es ist das Ende jenes Traums vom Groß-Europa unter Einschluss Russlands, das Präsident Putin „am darauffolgenden Montag“ im russischen Sicherheitsrat verkündet ! Die Welt außerhalb des klassischen Kontinents EUROPA – Richtung Osten und Süden -Richtung China, Indien, Afrika. Europa muß neu denken lernen. Meine ostdeutschen Schwestern und Brüder sollten nach Kirgysien reisen und Brückenbau studieren:

Brückenbau nach Norden (Sibirien) und Osten (China)

Und sie sollten mal wieder Dshingis Aitmatow zur Hand nehmen.

Mit solidarischen Grüßen
Dr. Dieter Weigert, Berlin Prenzlauer Berg 11. Oktober 2022

Die Ängste der klassischen „weißen“ Eliten

Das zielbewusste Gesicht der italienischen Wahlsiegerin flösst den Eliten Westeuropas Angst ein, sie machen sich in die Hosen – Frau von der Leyen droht sogar mit Instrumenten wie dazumals die Hexenjäger.

Was steckt dahinter ? Sie spüren ihre Ohnmacht angesichts des weltweiten Machtverlustes, angesichts von „Shanghai“ und „BRICS“,

(Osaka – Japão, 28/06/2019) Presidente da República, Jair Bolsonaro, durante foto de família dos Líderes dos BRICS. Foto: Alan Santos / PR

angesichts der wachsenden Unruhe ihrer nach KOKS und WUNDERWAFFEN schreienden Kasperpuppe in Kiew, angesichts der Demonstrationen in den europäischen Straßen gegen den drohenden Hunger, die drohende Eiseskälte in den Wohnungen, angesichts der lächerlichen „Waschlappen“-Provinzpotentaten.

Die „weißen“ Eliten hatten nach 1989 einen Traum : die Sowjetunion war verschwunden, der russische Säufer verschenkt die Reichtümer des Landes, China versteckt sich, der Rest der Welt duckt sich ab und liegt den USA und Westeuropa zu Füßen.

Nun aber – nach nur dreißig Jahren – zeigen die „Bösen“ die Zähne!

Also wird die Kiste der bewährten Propaganda-Fähnchen vom Boden geholt und den TV- und Netz-Fans zwischen Los Angeles und Vilnius in de Hände gedrückt – die Autokraten, die Post-faschisten, die „neuen Zaren“, die „imperialistischen Träumer“ sind nun die Feinde: Putin, Orban, Xi Jinping und letzt die strahlende Georgia Meloni! Kein Mittelzu schade. aus Nationalisten werden Faschisten, und im Umkehrschluss werden aus den faschistoiden Verbrechen der ukrainischen Badera-Verehrer Instrumentarien der Demokratie, werden aus ehemals pazifistischen Grünen militante, fanatische Freiheitskämpfer gegen die asiatische Gefahr.

Ich übertreibe? Keineswegs – wie schnell und akkurat die „weißen“ Medien sich auf das Schlagwort „POST-FASCHISTISCH“ eingeschworen haben, um die neue Koalition in Rom, die der Demokratie-feindlichen EU-Bürokratie wirklich zur Gefahr „von innen“ werden kann, abzuwerten, zeugt von der Riesenangst, die sie umtreibt, die LEYEN und Komplizen!

Es wird ein heißer Herbst !!!

Dr.Dieter Weigert, Berlin Prenzlauer Berg, 26. September 2022

Präsident Putin – was schrieb er im Sommer 2021 (oder was ließ er schreiben?)

Den treuen Lesern meiner Blogs zur Erklärung: Pandemie, Kriegsdrohungen und Kriegsrealität der letzten Monate verhinderten die „normale“ intellektuelle Tätigkeit, die Erarbeitung und Veröffentlichung von Beiträgen zu historischen, kulturellen, philosophischen Themen.

Aber das „hohe demokratische Gut“ der Meinungsfreiheit und der grundgesetzlich verbürgte freie Zugang zu politischen Informationen – auch aus dem Ausland, auch aus Staaten, mit denen Deutschland und die EU sich nicht im Kriegszustand befinden – lässt mich heute „zur Feder greifen“ und das Ergebnis den Lesern meiner Blogs zur Kenntnis geben.

Der Hintergrund: im Sommer des vergangenen Jahres veröffentlichte der russische Präsident Putin einen Beitrag unter dem Titel „On the Historical Unity of Russians und Ukrainians“, dessen Hauptthesen sich wiederfinden in der Rede Putins zur Begründung des Antrags auf völkerrechtliche Anerkennung der Unabhängigkeit der Republiken Donezk und Lugansk vor dem russischen Parlament im letzten Monat.

Da es aufgrund der Blockierung des Zugangs zu offiziellen Medien Russlands durch das demokratische politische System der Bundesrepublik nicht möglich ist, jenen Beitrag Putins vom 12. Juli 2021 abzurufen (man möge es versuchen: en.kremlin.ru/d/66181), erlaube ich mir, den Text hier zum Zwecke der Beförderung der wissenschaftlichen Debatte und zur objektiven politischen Meinungsbildung wiederzugeben, den ich glücklicherweise damals abgespeichert hatte.

Quelle: http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

Article by Vladimir Putin

”0n the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

July 12, 2021 17:00

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people — a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what l have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today’s situation.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial — divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.

To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But l will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.

Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov — were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and — after the baptism of Rus — the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.

The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, „Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“

Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.

The fragmentation intensiﬁed after Batu Khan’s devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which — most signiﬁcantly — was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.

Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas — Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk — fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry lvanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila — son of the Princess of Tver — led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.

Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.

At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. lt so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes — the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky — cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. ln the 14th century, Lithuania’s ruling elite converted to Catholicism. In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.

As a consequence, in the 16—17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth.

ln its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. ln January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.

In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking „the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar“. lt means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.

Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would „detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).

The name „Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word „Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.

On the right bank, which remained under the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the uniﬁed state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.

During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa’s rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.

Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate — an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure — and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country — its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.

In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian — and later Austro-Hungarian — Empire.

The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. it was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and — I would like to emphasize it once again — language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insigniﬁcant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.

Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage.

Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it? The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.

I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the „Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.

At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis — and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such „hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.

Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War l, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.

Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.

After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. ln November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.

ln December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.

The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.

For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.

ln November 1918 — following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary — Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that „Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. lt was now the time of the so-called Directorate.

ln autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.

In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the „heroes“ in today’s Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up — in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s forces surrendered to those same Poles.

The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks‘ supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.

Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic’s leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that „one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.

Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands — the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War ll, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.

In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin’s plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A „parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that „the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the ClS Charter adopted back in 1993.

In the 1920’s-1930’s, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.

The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.

In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.

I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine „with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ — as The Pravda newspaper put it – was announced.

Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped — for a signiﬁcant part — on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. lt is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.

When working on this article, l relied on open-source documents that contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records. The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external „patrons“ prefer to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks‘ efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.

Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal within a single country, which, while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly centralized – this, again, was secured by the CPSU’s leading role. But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.

What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!

You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? l will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.

In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people’s views.

The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990’s and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine. Whatever „political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991- 2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.

Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.

Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.

Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine’s electricity production, which has seen a nearly two-time decrease in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine’s GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe’s poorest country.

Who is to blame for this? ls it the people of Ukraine’s fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who waisted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality have not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.

Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people — both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, l emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.

Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, l charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the „aggressor state“ is.

When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events — at first gradually, and then more rapidly — started to move in a different direction.

In essence, Ukraine’s ruling circles decided to justify their country’s independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else’s geopolitical will.

I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.

Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. inevitably, there came a time when the concept of „Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.

The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.

Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.

All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new „Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the „purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.

Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on „indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.

There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be — Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.

But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.

I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the gloriﬁcation of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.

For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot lvan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.

The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.

The coup d’état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.

During ofﬁcial negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine’s representatives regularly declare their „full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of „unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the „victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.

Apparently, and l am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add — under the protection and control of the Western powers.

This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military „development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on „indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.

This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and beneﬁts for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.

The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.

In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as „pro-Russian“ agents.

Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.

Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.

All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.

The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians‘ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.

l am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be „anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be — it is up to its citizens to decide.

Publication status

Published in sections: News, Transcripts

Publication date: July 12, 2021, 17:00

Direct link: en.kremlin.ru/d/66181

Aktualisiert am Donnerstag,

d. 8. September 2022,

Dr. Dieter Weigert,

Berlin – Prenzlauer Berg

Aus GENF: Eine freie Stimme der „freien Welt“ – gegen MAINSTREAM und gekaufte Journaille

Der COURRIER, eine Tageszeitung aus Genf, veröffentlicht auch manchmal Provokatives, Anti-Mainstream! Dazu gehört Geschäftssinn, Gefühl für die Red Lines, in Zeiten der NATO-Kriege ein Gespür, wieweit man in der neutralen Schweiz gehen kann, wenn man sich mit den großen Nachbarn Frankreich, Italien und Deutschland und der Wallstreet anlegt.

DENNOCH: Vor einigen TAGEN entschied sich die Redaktion für die Veröffentlichung einer solchen Provokation: ich zitiere –

ON NOUS ÉCRIT

Une guerre téléguidée

LUNDI 22 AOÛT 2022 VOTRE LETTRE

Marcel gerber pointe le rôle des Etats-Unis dans le déclenchement du conglit russo-ukrainien.

Ein Leserbrief! Wer sich bei deutschen Leserbriefredaktionen schon einmal um die Veröffentlichung eines Beitrages bemüht hat, versteht die Hintergründe! Es muss passen !!! Aber es soll auch ANECKEN ! Ein sehr schmaler Grat – denn der Beitrag soll auch keinen der etwa 7 000 Leser davon abhalten, die Ausgabe des nächsten Tages zu kaufen.

Kriegszerstörungen im Stadion von Donezk

Hier nun der volle Text des Beitrages:

La guerre actuelle en Ukraine est une guerre provoquée et voulue par les USA contre la Russie, avec la complicité active du Royaume-Uni, de la France et du Canada. Leur vieux désir de dominer ce pays, de supprimer un adversaire (URSS ou Russie) et de piller ses immenses richesses naturelles est loin de dater de la période actuelle et a été très souvent avancé et théorisé par l’élite politique US. Un des buts de cette guerre est aussi d’obliger l’UE à couper tous liens économiques avec la Russie quelles qu’en soient les conséquences pour les peuples européens ou du tiers monde.

La Russie a tout fait pour éviter cette guerre programmée, en exigeant en particulier depuis 2015 que soient respectés les accords de Minsk et la non-appartenance de l’Ukraine à l’OTAN. Mission impossible puisque contraire à la politique imposée par les USA et leur bras armé l’OTAN. La Russie, avec son pouvoir corrompu et donc fragile, privilégie pourtant la stabilité (ou la coexistence pacifique comme l’URSS auparavant) afin que ce pouvoir ne soit pas mis en question.

Cette guerre US à débuté par la préparation et la réussite du coup d’Etat de 2014, qui a nécessité un investissement avoué de 5 milliards de dollars. Elle s’est poursuivie ensuite par les bombardements continus sur le Donbass et par l’encadrement et l’armement aux normes de l’OTAN de l’armée ukrainienne et de ses régiments néonazis, avec des instructeurs US, canadiens, anglais et français. Ainsi qu’avec des manœuvres militaires internationales sur le sol ukrainien et navales en mer Noire.

La guerre «chaude» actuelle date du 16 février dernier en conformité avec la décision du gouvernement Zelenski du printemps 2021 de reconquérir militairement le Donbass et la Crimée. Ce jour-là a commencé le bombardement massif des républiques autoproclamées, prélude à leur invasion par les troupes massées dans la région, régiments néonazis en tête, pour faire le «nettoyage», soit l’éradication des ressortissants russophones ayant soutenu l’autonomie de leur région dans le cadre ukrainien. Les rapports quotidiens de l’OSCE démontrent que les bombardements sur le Donbass ont été multipliés par 50 à partir du 16 février.

L’«opération spéciale» russe du 24 février a donc été rendue inéluctable, ce que savait pertinemment l’auteur réel de cette guerre, le gouvernement des USA, ce qui a permis à Biden et consorts de l’annoncer avec certitude en indiquant sa date à quelques jours près. Dès la fin de l’URSS, certains milieux dirigeants US annonçaient déjà une future guerre russo-ukrainienne…

Marcel Gerber,
Le Mont

Man muss sich den ersten Satz noch einmal auf der Zunge zergehen lassen:

„Der aktuelle Krieg in der Ukraine ist ein Krieg, der durch die USA mit der aktiven Komplizenschaft des Vereinigten Königreiches, Frankreichs und Kanadas gegen Russland provoziert und gewollt wurde.“

Wer in einer deutschen bürgerlichen Mainstream-Zeitung der letzten Wochen mir einen derartig brisanten Beitrag zuschicken kann, erhält in meiner Berliner Stammkneipe ein gutes großes Freibier !

Dr. Dieter Weigert, Berlin Prenzlauer Berg, 22. August 2022

Ein heißer Herbst – und ein sehr kalter Winter

Die Führung der Volksrepublik CHINA hat eine ernste WARNUNG veröffentlicht – keine der seit Jahrzehnten belächelten „letzten Warnungen“, sondern den Aufmarsch der PLA zu Wasser, auf dem Boden und in der Luft.

Aber: die USA nehmen diese Fakten nicht zur Kenntnis, sie provozieren weiter, sie planen die Verheizung Tausender Taiwan-Chinesen ebenso wie sie Ukrainer, Polen, Slowaken etc. vor die russische Artillerie als Zielscheibe aufstellen.

Manche Experten verweisen auf die aus fünftausend JAHREN sprichwörtliche stammende chinesische GEDULD !

China ist nicht wütend –

China sammelt sich

Ich zweifle an der Weisheit dieser Experten! Ich zweifle auch an der Prognose jener „Fachleute“, die China erst im Jahre 2035 in die Lage versetzt sehen, militärisch mit den USA gleichzuziehen. China ist nicht nur gesellschaftspolitisch und ökonomisch ein anderes Tempo gewöhnt als die USA oder die Staaten Westeuropas, die PLA beschleunigt konventionell, nuklear, im Weltraum und auf allen Ozeanen auf allen Gebieten in einem Maße, wie es bisher in der Geschichte nicht bekannt war.

Was für manche Politik- und Militärwissenschaftler des Westens im Vorbeigehen notiert wurde – der Einsatz der PLA im System der UN-Friedenstruppen – ist für die chinesische Führung ein willkommener globaler militärischer Lernprozess und ein wichtiges Element im Aufbau und Ausbau politischer stabiler Beziehungen in Afrika, im Nahen Osten.

Angesichts solcher harten Fakten ist eine erfolgreiche militärische Aktion (vergleichbar mit dem Vorgehen Russlands in der Ukraine) der PLA gegenüber den Streitkräften Taiwans im Herbst d.J. durchaus möglich.

Zu den geopolitischen Fragen, die eine derartige Entscheidung Pekings aufwirft, sollte man sich die Resonanz der chinesischen Medien auf die bemerkenswerten Reden des russischen Präsidenten Putins und seines Verteidigungsministers Schoigu in den letzten Wochen vor internationelem hochrangigen internationalen Politikern und Militärs ansehen.

Putins Rede auf der Moskauer Sicherheitskonferenz überschrieb RT.de , „Russlands Botschaft an die Welt: Reicht uns die Hand, wir helfen euch auf dem Weg in die Freiheit“, )Kernsatz:“Überang von der Dominanz einer einzigen globalen Führung hin zu mehreren Gravitationszentren“)

Sowohl Putin als auch Schoigu betonen die zentrale Rolle des Militärs:

„Die Rolle militärischer Tätigkeit ändert sich in der neuen Wirklichkeit. Das Militär garantiert nicht nur eine sichere Umgebung für die wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit, sondern durch militärische Zusammenarbeit schafft es Vorhersagbarkeit und Vertrauen zwischen Ländern.“

In ihrer Plazierung auf internationaler Ebene, in der gewählten Öffentlichkeit sind diese Thesen von strategischer Bedeutung – bisher auch nicht negativ kommentiert aus CHINA, was man sich vielleicht in den Büros der Annalena Baerbock, Ricarda Lang, Norbert Röttgen so sehnlichst wünschte, sondern solche Töne aus Beijing:

As the US attempts to sustain hegemony, China, Russia safeguard international order, justice

By Global Times Published: Aug 18, 2022 11:25 PM

Illustration: Chen Xia/GT
How to evaluate the strength of a major power? To see its attitude toward its opponents. In his press briefing on Wednesday, US State Department Spokesman Ned Price referred to China-Russia relationship as a „burgeoning“ one, which is „of concern“ because the vision they have for the international order is „starkly at odds to the liberal vision“ and „with the underpinnings of the international system that have been in place for some eight decades following the end of the Second World War.“

The US concerns toward China and Russia are also reflected in the latest massive coverage in the Western media about China sending troops to Russia to participate in the „Vostok“ exercises, and the hype of the so-called threat from the two countries.

A thief crying „stop thief.“ The US‘ concerns about the China-Russia relationship are the product of US‘ own strategic anxiety. Washington worries that the US-centered international order established after WWII would collapse, and the coordination between China and Russia in the security realm could offset US‘ influence in the international order the US has long dominated.

US‘ strategic anxiety stems from the fact that the US is declining, said Zhang Tengjun, deputy director of the Department for Asia-Pacific Studies at the China Institute of International Studies. „The US maintains its strategic competition posture with China and Russia simultaneously in the directions of Ukraine and the Asia-Pacific. Under such circumstances, if China and Russia get closer, it will affect US‘ deployment of resources in the two directions and hinder its efforts to dominate regional order. But US‘ current strength does not allow it to focus on both,“ said Zhang.

The mismatch of US‘ strength and its mentality of viewing itself as the world’s No.1 is the root cause of the existing division and chaos of the world. Zhang held the view that the crux of the problem is not what China and Russia have done or not done, but whether the US and the West can overcome their fears and anxiety about their own decline.

From the perspective of the international order, the US is the most prominent representative of hegemonism, while China and Russia are actually defending the international order, fairness and justice. Cui Heng, an assistant researcher at the Center for Russian Studies at East China Normal University, believes that the strategic cooperation between China and Russia injects positive momentum into the international community.

„When the US-led NATO bombed Yugoslavia more than 20 years ago, no force could restrain the hegemony of the US. Can the US still do this today? Obviously not. At the regional level, the coordination between China and Russia is a constructive force. Taking Afghanistan as an example. The US left a mess, but in the end it is China, Russia and other neighboring countries that are helping clean up the mess,“ said Cui, adding that those who twist China-Russia relations reflect their wretched purposes, short-sightedness as well as failure to understand that the continuous strengthening of this bilateral relationship serves for world peace and stability.

Henry Kissinger, former US secretary of state, said in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal that „we are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to.“ Sadly, even though Kissinger’s advice serves for US interests, the mainstream elites in the US who have slipped into the abyss of American political correctness won’t heed such advice. If the US goes its own way to become enemies with China and Russia, it is isolating itself in the world.

Wer glaubt, das sei eine Eintagsfliege, dem ist die Lektüre jenes Artikels aus der nämlichen GLOBAL TIMES vom März empfohlen:

Mutual trust between China and Russia is a valuable asset for global stability

By Wu Dahui Published: Mar 24, 2022 07:23 PM

China Russia Photo: VCG

The US-led West has not stopped its ill-intentioned attempt to coerce China on the Ukraine issue since the outbreak of the conflict.

From threatening sanctions on China and hyping the idea that „China had prior knowledge“ of Russia’s action at the beginning of the clash to falsely claiming „China colluding with Russia,“ „China willing to give military supports to Russia“ and „China weakens West’s sanctions on Russia“ in March, these groundless accusations all highlight Washington’s unbridled arrogance and hegemony.

In the current international situation, no matter how China handles its relationship with Russia, Western countries will not be satisfied and will think that China is secretly helping Russia. Even if China, Russia’s largest trading partner, maintains normal economic and trade relations with Russia, it will be considered to be contradicting the Western sanctions against Russia.

For instance, China recently announced to accept the import of wheat from the whole territory of Russia, and Russia announced the China-Mongolia-Russia natural gas corridor plan. These cooperation plans have been discussed by China and Russia for a long time, just because they are announced close to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, some in Western countries assumed that China is actively bailing Russia out. Yet, China’s humanitarian assistance to Ukraine has been neglect by the West.

In fact, the West’s suppression of China is not due to China’s attitude toward Russia, but because of the rapid development of China’s national strength. Although China has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of challenging the US, as long as China has the strength to challenge it, or even only getting close to the US, it is viewed as a huge threat already.

In the US‘ logic, after China has the strength, it can have the willingness to challenge the US anytime it wants. Therefore, whether China is a rivalry against the US or not, it’s up to the US to decide. And this is what the West calls a structural contradiction between the two largest economies in the world.

In dealing with international affairs, China always makes its own judges according to the actual situation, justice and its own national interests. These factors are equally important in making proper foreign policies. Even as justice in international affairs has been arbitrarily twisted by a US-led circle, in the end, a country that arbitrarily smears and kidnaps international justice will eventually be despised by the international community.

The China-Russia strategic partnership is based on a similar basic understanding of the world today and the national interests of both countries. However, the China-Russian relationship is not an alliance after all, and the two countries‘ perceptions of international affairs and their national interests cannot completely overlap.

Since the Russia-Ukraine conflict, China has made it clear that it respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine. China and Russia have different positions and views on certain regional and international issues. But this does not hinder the overall situation of China-Russia strategic cooperation.

Although China and Russia’s strategic cooperation is a bilateral relationship, it has global significance and is directly related to the stability of the region and the world. This is also the international responsibility that China and Russia should shoulder as the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

It’s hard to imagine what would the world be like without the strategic cooperation between China and Russia? As China’s Ambassador to the US, Qin Gang, recently noted China’s trusted relations with Russia is not a liability. It’s an asset in the international efforts to solve the crisis in a peaceful way. In other words, maintaining the stability of China-Russian relations is a key element of global harmony.

The core essence of the China-Russia strategic partnership of coordination is non-alignment, non-confrontation, and non-targeting of third parties. This is a new security concept that is completely different from the Cold War mentality that Western countries adhere to. Neither China nor Russia has the will to move toward an alliance and choose to confront the West.

In the face of the turbulent international situation surrounding the Ukraine crisis, China and Russia do not need and have no intention of forming an alliance, and China has no obligation or desire to cut China-Russia strategic cooperation. Bilateral ties only need to maintain the level and rhythm of the original strategic cooperation. It will be the greatest contribution to world stability and development.

The author is the deputy dean of the Russian Institute of Tsinghua University. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Machen wir uns auf einen Heißen Herbst gefasst !!!

Dr. Dieter Weigert,Berlin, 20. August 2022

Deutsche blutige Nasen über Taipeh – die JETS verteidigen unsere Freiheit fern vom Hindukusch (?)

Gesucht werden ORTSKRÄFTE in Taipeh und Umgebung, die es unseren Piloten so richtig deutsch gemütlich machen, bevor sie von Jägern mit dem ROTEN STERN vom fernöstlichen Himmel geholt werden!!!

Ein schlimmer Traum, aber Annalena und Ricarda wollen wirklich Krieg !!!

Der REALE KRIEG – Es ist ein Element ihrer NEUEN WELTORDNUNG !!! (FAZ von heute)

Man hat sogar ein neues Wort erfunden in den Kneipen und Pubs, die unsere beiden Studienabbrecher***INNEN jahrelang so fleißig frequentierten:

RULE-BASED-WORLD-ORDER !

Ich glaube nicht, dass die Beiden so genau wissen, was sich hinter diesem Ungetüm verbirgt. Aber das wissen sie und vertreten es mit Überzeugung – Kniefall vor der Wallstreet, Hasstiraden gegen Moskau und Beijing, Umsturzpläne für Minsk, Caracas à la Kiew-Maidan. Und dabei sollen die Jetpiloten der Bundes-Luftwaffe mitspielen ?

Haben die beiden betuchten Damen und ihre Recken vergessen, was sich vor gerade einmal 12 Monaten in Afghanistan vor den Linsen der Kameras aller großen TV-Stationen gezeigt hat – die schmähliche Flucht mit Hinterlassung von Gerät, und „Stück und Wagen“ zur Nutzung der Taliban? Die chinesische PLA braucht unsere deutsche Wertarbeit nicht.

HALTET EIN !!!!!

Dr.Dieter Weigert, Berlin, Jahrgang 1939, der noch die Explosionsgeräusche von Bomben im Ohr hat, dessen Onkel jämmerlich für Hitler in Weißrussland verrecken musste !!“

Henry Kissingers Gespür für den wirklichen Krieg

Angesichts der erschreckenden Vision eines durch unverantwortliche Provinz-Marionetten des amerikanischen Herrschaftsegimes provozierten Krieges der Volksrepublik CHINA gegen die „abtrünnige Provinz“ TAIWAN erlaube ich mir die Wiedergabe eines Beitrages – indirekte Fassung des Interviews mit dem ehemaligen Sicherheitsberater und Secretary of State Henry Kissinger im Wallstreet Journal – Eine Minute vor Zwölf !!!

By Laura Secor Aug. 12, 2022 1:27 pm ET

Henry Kissinger Is Worried About ‘Disequilibrium’

The 99-year-old former secretary of state has just published a book on leadership and sees a dangerous lack of strategic purpose in U.S. foreign policy

At 99 years old, Henry Kissinger has just published his 19th book, “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy.” It is an analysis of the vision and historical achievements of an idiosyncratic pantheon of post-World War II leaders: Konrad Adenauer, Charles DeGaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan-Yew and Margaret Thatcher.

In the 1950s, “before I was involved in politics,” Mr. Kissinger tells me in his midtown Manhattan office on a steamy day in July, “my plan was to write a book about the making of peace and the ending of peace in the 19th century, starting with the Congress of Vienna, and that turned into a book, and then I had about a third of a book written on Bismarck, and it was going to end with the outbreak of World War I.” The new book, he says, “is a kind of continuation. It’s not just a contemporary reflection.”

All six figures profiled in “Leadership,” says the former secretary of state and national security adviser, were shaped by what he calls the “second Thirty Years’ War,” the period from 1914 to 1945, and contributed to molding the world that followed it. And all combined, in Mr. Kissinger’s view, two archetypes of leadership: the farsighted pragmatism of the statesman and the visionary boldness of the prophet.

Asked if he knows of any contemporary leader who shares this combination of qualities, he says, “No. I would make the qualification that, though DeGaulle had this in him, this vision of himself, in the case of Nixon and probably Sadat, or even of Adenauer, you would not have known at an earlier stage. On the other hand, none of these people were essentially tactical people. They mastered the art of tactics, but they had a perception of purpose as they entered office.”

‘I think that the current period has a great trouble defining a direction. It’s very responsive to the emotion of the moment.’

One never goes long in conversation with Mr. Kissinger without hearing that word—purpose—the defining quality of the prophet, along with another, equilibrium, the guiding preoccupation of the statesman. Since the 1950s, when he was a Harvard scholar writing on nuclear strategy, Mr. Kissinger has understood diplomacy as a balancing act among great powers shadowed by the potential for nuclear catastrophe. The apocalyptic potential of modern weapons technology, in his view, makes sustaining an equilibrium of hostile powers, however uneasy it might be, an overriding imperative of international relations.

“In my thinking, equilibrium has two components,” he tells me. “A kind of balance of power, with an acceptance of the legitimacy of sometimes opposing values. Because if you believe that the final outcome of your effort has to be the imposition of your values, then I think equilibrium is not possible. So one level is a sort of absolute equilibrium.” The other level, he says, is “equilibrium of conduct, meaning there are limitations to the exercise of your own capabilities and power in relation to what is needed for the overall equilibrium.” Achieving this combination takes “an almost artistic skill,” he says. “It’s not very often that statesmen have aimed at it deliberately, because power had so many possibilities of being expanded without being disastrous that countries never felt that full obligation.”

Mr. Kissinger concedes that equilibrium, while essential, can’t be a value in itself. “There can be situations where coexistence is morally impossible,” he notes. “For example, with Hitler. With Hitler it was useless to discuss equilibrium—even though I have some sympathy for Chamberlain if he was thinking that he needed to gain time for a showdown that he thought would be inevitable anyway.”

There is a hint, in “Leadership,” of Mr. Kissinger’s hope that contemporary American statesmen might absorb the lessons of their predecessors. “I think that the current period has a great trouble defining a direction,” Mr. Kissinger says. “It’s very responsive to the emotion of the moment.” Americans resist separating the idea of diplomacy from that of “personal relationships with the adversary.” They tend to view negotiations, he tells me, in missionary rather than psychological terms, seeking to convert or condemn their interlocutors rather than to penetrate their thinking.

Mr. Kissinger sees today’s world as verging on a dangerous disequilibrium. “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to,” he says. Could the U.S. manage the two adversaries by triangulating between them, as during the Nixon years? He offers no simple prescription. “You can’t just now say we’re going to split them off and turn them against each other. All you can do is not to accelerate the tensions and to create options, and for that you have to have some purpose.”

On the question of Taiwan, Mr. Kissinger worries that the U.S. and China are maneuvering toward a crisis, and he counsels steadiness on Washington’s part. “The policy that was carried out by both parties has produced and allowed the progress of Taiwan into an autonomous democratic entity and has preserved peace between China and the U.S. for 50 years,” he says. “One should be very careful, therefore, in measures that seem to change the basic structure.”

Mr. Kissinger courted controversy earlier this year by suggesting that incautious policies on the part of the U.S. and NATO may have touched off the crisis in Ukraine. He sees no choice but to take Vladimir Putin’s stated security concerns seriously and believes that it was a mistake for NATO to signal to Ukraine that it might eventually join the alliance: “I thought that Poland—all the traditional Western countries that have been part of Western history—were logical members of NATO,” he says. But Ukraine, in his view, is a collection of territories once appended to Russia, which Russians see as their own, even though “some Ukrainians” do not. Stability would be better served by its acting as a buffer between Russia and the West: “I was in favor of the full independence of Ukraine, but I thought its best role was something like Finland.”

He says, however, that the die has now been cast. After the way Russia has behaved in Ukraine, “now I consider, one way or the other, formally or not, Ukraine has to be treated in the aftermath of this as a member of NATO.” Still, he foresees a settlement that preserves Russia’s gains from its initial incursion in 2014, when it seized Crimea and portions of the Donbas region, though he does not have an answer to the question of how such a settlement would differ from the agreement that failed to stabilize the conflict 8 years ago.

The moral claim posed by Ukraine’s democracy and independence—since 2014, clear majorities have favored EU and NATO membership—and the dire fate of its people under Russian occupation fit awkwardly into Mr. Kissinger’s statecraft. If the avoidance of nuclear war is the greatest good, what is owed to small states whose only role in the global equilibrium is to be acted upon by larger ones?

What do you think is Henry Kissinger’s legacy? Join the conversation below.

“How to marry our military capacity to our strategic purposes,” Mr. Kissinger reflects, “and how to relate those to our moral purposes—it’s an unsolved problem.”

Looking back over his long and often controversial career, however, he is not given to self-criticism. Asked if he has regrets from his years in power, he replies, “From a manipulative point of view, I ought to learn a great answer to that question, because it’s always being asked.” But while he might revisit some minor tactical points, on the whole, he says, “I do not torture myself with things we might have done differently.”

Appeared in the August 13, 2022, print edition as ‚Henry Kissinger.‘

CHINA STRAIT TALK – die Alarmglocken schrillen

August/September – die Monate, bisher in der modernen Geschichte Europas und Asiens genutzt, größere militärische Aktionen zu beginnen. Nehmen wir uns deshalb etwas Zeit, in einem der meistgelesenen politischen Magazine, dem in London herausgegebenen ECONOMIST, zu blättern – Ausgabe vom 13. – 19. August 2022.

,,, und verfolgen wir gleichzeitig die englisch-sprachigen Sendungen des „staatsnahen“ globalen chinesischen (Beijing) Fernsehnetzes CGTN. (Übrigens – Die internationale Zensur von TWITTER versieht die Weitergabe von Beiträgen des Senders CGTN wie auch der Wochenzeitung CHINA DAILY – unabhängig vom Thema – mit der Warnung für Angsthasen: „Dieser Tweet enthält einen Link zu einer chinesischen staatsnahen website!) – was möglicherweise zur Sperrung des accounts führen könnte.

Liu Xin, präsentiert bei CGTV das tägliche Programm „THE POINT“ – Interviews, Meinungen, New

THE POINT, THE HUB ( mit Wang Guan), DIALOGUE sind die gängigen aktuellen Programme, die im aufregenden Fernsehzentrum von Beijing produziert und weltweit ausgestrahlt werden.

Das Gebäude des chinesischen Fernsehens in Beijing

Die Formel STRAIT TALK

Ein aktuelles Beispiel aus dem Programm THE POINT:

The Point Special Edition — Nancy Pelosi: the Sneaky Opportunist

Liu Xin

On August 2, U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi sneaked into Taiwan, becoming the first U.S. Speaker to visit the island in 25 years. The trip has drawn concerted criticism around the world for her reckless, high-profile, and unnecessary provocation at a time when relations between China and the U.S. were already at an all-time low.

She touts the trip as a victory for democracy. But in the „great democratic country“ she came from, things don’t look too pretty. The economy is getting worse by the day, people are getting killed in the streets due to rampant gun violence, and women are denied their rights over their own bodies.

Things are bad even in her own home. California has had more than 90,000 COVID-19 deaths, and another emergency over the monkeypox virus was just announced.

Yet, the speaker left that mess for a foreign trip.

Why is that? What kind of politician has she been? Today we will take a look back into the political life of Nancy Pelosi, a vain opportunistic politician who is out there only for herself.

Kein Zufall ist es, dass Russlands Pendant, das „staatsnahe“ globale Netz RT, die provokative Reise der USA-Politikerin Nancy Pelosi in der gleichen Tonart kommentiert: „Pelosi in Taiwan – Narretei einer Greisin, aber auch das Ende des Liberalismus“, „China könnte sich für den Besuch von Pelosi rächen – nur nicht so, wie wir es vielleicht erwarten“, „China und Taiwan: Die Kunst des Bluffs oder doch die letzte Warnung?“.

Aufhorchen jedoch lässt die Wortwahl der RT-Redakteure des Beitrages vom 2. August:

„Könnte Pelosis Taiwan-Besuch einen Krieg zwischen des USA und China auslösen?“

Der internationale Kontext seit Februar 2022 zwingt uns, diese Zeilen sehr ernst zu nehmen ! Hatte noch die überwiegende Mehrheit der Beobachter die russischen militärischen Vorbereitungen eines Angriffs auf die Ukraine als Bluff oder diplomatisches Druckmittel gegenüber dem Westen abgetan (darunter auch ich), so scheint nun die Kriegsgefahr real.

Das neueste chinesische militärische Instrument, der Flugzeugträger-Eigenbau

CHINA DAILY verweist auf den

Hintergrund dieser neuen alarmierenden Lage:

US‘ one-China policy eroded by Pelosi visit

By YIFAN XU in Washington | China Daily | Updated: 2022-08-08 07:29

The Taipei 101 skyscraper commands the urban landscape in Taipei, Taiwan. [Photo/Xinhua]

Bilateral relations put at risk by action of the politician, analysts say

The visit last week by the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, to China’s Taiwan region was another incremental action that erodes the one-China policy of the US, putting the China-US relations in an „extremely dangerous“ state, political experts say.

Sourabh Gupta, a senior fellow at the Institute for China-America Studies in Washington, said the visit means some US officials will continue to use the Taiwan question as a wedge to polarize and worsen China-US relations.

„It also means that in the longer term, the strategy of strategic ambiguity will be hollowed out completely, with the latter perhaps even formally abandoned,“ he said.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Friday announced eight countermeasures, including canceling China-US defense policy coordination talks and suspending China-US talks on climate change, in response to Pelosi’s visit to China’s Taiwan region.

Dangerous move

„Pelosi has been both irresponsible and provocative in going to Taiwan,“ said Colin Mackerras, professor emeritus at Griffith University in Australia.

„What’s incendiary about her actions is that they more than imply that she favors independence for Taiwan,“ Mackerras said.

„It seems to me that China’s response, rather than being provocative, is quite measured and responsible,“ he added.

At a webinar hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, warned that bilateral relations are in „a dangerous, acrimonious state“.

„When you have (President Joe Biden) say things like, ‚We don’t support Taiwan independence, and we still adhere to our one-China policy,‘ if that rings hollow in Beijing, then we are at a very difficult point.

„I think the Chinese took these set of actions … to shore up their red line, to signal those future incremental actions by the United States, as they would say, to slice the salami will be extremely dangerous.“

John Culver, a senior fellow at the Global China Hub of the Atlantic Council and a former CIA senior intelligence officer, called China’s response unprecedented.

„I think that this is the new normal the Chinese want to show as they have in previous Taiwan Straits crises that a line has been crossed by the speaker’s visit.“

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Pelosi said her visit in no way contradicted the long-standing US one-China policy. However, that was an „unadulterated lie“, Gupta said.

„As part of its one-China policy, the United States pledged to limit its relationship with the island to unofficial ties. The visit of congressmen and women in their official capacity violates the one-China policy. And an official visit by the third-highest ranking member of the US government violates the one-China policy in spades.“

Before Pelosi’s visit, Biden said publicly that the US military believed the trip was „not a good idea right now“.

Xu Weiwei in Hong Kong contributed to this story

Washington needs to stay committed to one-China principle

By Shakeel Ahmad Ramay | China Daily Global | Updated: 2022-08-10 08:58

The one-China principle explicitly explains why Taiwan is an inalienable and integral part of China. It is a red line drawn since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and ratified by the United Nations in 1971 through UN Resolution 2758.

The core of the UN resolution is the one-China principle, which states that there is only one China, and the government of the PRC is the sole legitimate government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is part of China.

Therefore, a wider community of 181 countries, by following the UN resolution, established and developed diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.

These countries, including the United States, unambiguously endorsed the PRC as the sole representative of the people of China.

The three joint communiques that the US issued with China commit the US to adherence to the one-China principle.

Through the communiques, the US specifically committed to keeping only commercial and unofficial links with Taiwan, which means that officials like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should never have been in Taiwan in an official capacity.

Unfortunately, US deviations from its pledges are not unusual. Despite all provocations, China has tried to avert the interference and criticism but emphasized the red line as the core of bilateral relations.

However, the visit by Pelosi to Taiwan has changed all the dynamics. She went ahead, after China clarified its red line in bilateral relations, in blatant disregard of China’s continuous warnings and the advice of people from many other countries.

First of all, Pelosi should have realized that her visit marked a deliberate crossing by the US of China’s red line. Second, it was the ultimate denial of the one-China principle recognized by the UN and the US itself. Third, it was an official departure from and betrayal of the US‘ stated commitments to China.

Therefore, China feels that the US has broken the commitments. There is consensus among a wider community of countries, Pakistan included, that China’s concerns and countermeasures are justifiable.

China is taking this US violation of agreements and norms very seriously and is honoring its words with concrete countermeasures.

Maybe some US politicians and anti-China forces, in their wild bid to contain China, are deliberately pushing for the possibility of hot conflict, making the world worse amid multiple challenges at global level. However, they should never underestimate the strong will of resistance from the Chinese, who for centuries have taken pride in national unity and sovereignty.

Neither China nor other parts of the world want the US to provoke China further, because in the current context, a conflict between the world’s largest economy and the biggest trade partner of most countries would have an impact on the world beyond imagination.

China values peace over conflict and has kept its word on seeking maximum means of solving the Taiwan question with peaceful means.

But the US needs to understand that even Chinese patience has a limit. Therefore, the US must stop such provocative actions, which could lead to much more than disturbing the regional peace.

Thus, it is advisable for the US and allies to stay committed to the one-China principle and avoid further interfering in China’s internal affairs.

Large parts of the international community have opposed US violations of the UN resolution on Taiwan and international norms and consider the US responsible for the deteriorating situation in the region.

Any further US actions down this path of troublemaking and attempts to contain would result in a worsening of the trust deficit for the administration of US President Joe Biden.

The world needs peace and sustainable development, not conflicts, more than ever. Thus, the US, which is the biggest economy and has the strongest military in the world, must do its part for common peace and development and not provoke any more tension.

The author is CEO of the Asian Institute of Eco-civilization Research and Development in Pakistan.

Die täglichen Magazine des globalen chinesischen TV-Netzes lassen erkennen, wie ernst die chinesische Führung die internationale Lage nimmt – Interviews am laufenden Band zum Thema NEUE LAGE auf beiden Seiten der STRAIT !

Taiwan visit exposes Pelosi to more problems

14:48, 12-Aug-2022

Overseas Chinese confident about China’s complete reunification

Xinhua | Updated: 2022-08-13 15:40

BEIJING — China has recently released a white paper on the Taiwan question and China’s reunification in the new era, which resonated strongly among overseas Chinese.

In separate interviews with Xinhua, overseas Chinese said the white paper reaffirmed the fact that Taiwan is a part of China, the wheel of history rolls on towards national reunification, and it will not be stopped by any individual or any force.

Relying on external forces will achieve nothing for Taiwan’s separatists, and using Taiwan to contain China is doomed to fail, they said.

„As is pointed out in the white paper, Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times. This statement has a sound basis in history and jurisprudence,“ said Wu Hao, executive vice president and secretary general of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification in Russia.

Taiwan is part of China, which is an indisputable fact supported by history and the law, Wu said, noting that Taiwan has never been a state and its status as part of China is unalterable.

China’s complete reunification is a process that cannot be halted, Wu said, adding that they, as overseas Chinese, should jointly defend and promote the cause of peaceful reunification, and leave no room for the activities of „Taiwan independence“ separatists.

Overseas Chinese firmly oppose the evil external interventionist forces using Taiwan to contain China, said Yang Hanxin, chairman of a British overseas Chinese group.

„The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities ’seek independence by relying on external forces‘ out of their self-interest, which runs against the trend, severely endangers peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and undermines the prospect of peaceful reunification. We firmly oppose it,“ Yang said.

Yang stressed that achieving China’s complete reunification is the common aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, and that it is an unstoppable trend of history.

„The white paper fully demonstrates the firm will and determination of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to pursue the reunification of the motherland,“ said Chen Kunfei, vice president of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification in Peru.

Chen voiced confidence that under the strong leadership of the CPC, the Chinese people are fully confident and capable of resolving the Taiwan question and realizing the complete reunification of the motherland.

Xia Xiaolei, executive vice chairman of Latvia’s Federation of Chinese Emigrants and Ethnic Chinese, said that the publication of the white paper is very timely and necessary.

The white paper said that peaceful reunification and One Country, Two Systems are our basic principles for resolving the Taiwan question and the best approach to realizing national reunification. Xia voiced firm support to the principles.

Looking forward to the day when China realizes complete reunification, Xia said: „5,000 years of Chinese civilization nourishes the descendants of China. We overseas Chinese are willing to give full play to our unique advantages and make our own efforts to promote the complete reunification of China and strive for national rejuvenation.“

„The reunification of China is an irresistible historical trend. The realization of peaceful cross-Straits reunification is not only the blessing of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people, but also that of the international community and the people of the world,“ said Chen Guangping, president of the Dutch „United Times“ and chairman of the Foundation for Chinese Cultural Events in the Netherlands.

„We, overseas Chinese, firmly support all the principles and policies of the CPC and the Chinese government in promoting the complete reunification of China,“ he added.

Chen Wei, president of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification in Türkiye, said that the DPP authorities „seek independence by relying on external forces,“ creating tensions in cross-Straits relations, endangering peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and undermining the prospect of peaceful reunification.

Overseas Chinese firmly oppose the DPP’s attempt to seek „independence,“ Chen said, noting that relying on external forces will achieve nothing for Taiwan’s separatists, using Taiwan to contain China is doomed to fail and national reunification is an irresistible historical trend.

The complete reunification of China is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation and the inevitable requirement for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, said Li Zuqing, vice chairman of the Myanmar-China Friendship Association in Mandalay, noting that it is believed that with the joint efforts of the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, the complete reunification of the motherland will surely be achieved.

Zhang Weiqing, honorary chairman of the Overseas Chinese Committee of the Austria-China Friendly Association, said: „We firmly oppose the US scheme of using Taiwan to contain China and the DPP authorities‘ separatist activities that seek ‚Taiwan independence.‘ We firmly believe that the reunification of the motherland will be realized and overseas Chinese will make their own contribution.“

Bevor wir uns jedoch in die geopolitischen Risiken der aktuellen US-amerikanisch-chinesischen Beziehungen vertiefen, werfen wir ein Blick in die chinesischen Medien der Jahre 2014 – 2017, in denen der Optimismus und das Interesse am Ausbau der Wirtschaftsbeziehungen – auch in Richtung Europa – dominierten:

Welch ein Unterschied in der Stimmung zu heute, wo sich Gigant BLOOMBERG am 11. August 2022 existentielle Sorgen macht –

Pelosi Says US Can’t Let China Establish ‘New Normal’ on Taiwan

Speaker hits back at exercises held in response to her visit
China has announced regular military patrols around island

House Speaker Pelosi: We Will Not Allow China to Isolate TaiwanUnmuteWATCH: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi discussed her recent trip to Taipei, and said the US “will not allow China to isolate Taiwan.”Source: Bloomberg

Rebecca Choong Wilkins

11. August 2022 um 05:42 MESZ

Follow the authors

@RChoongWilkins

+ Get alerts forRebecca Choong Wilkins

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the US couldn’t let China establish a “new normal” around Taiwan, hours after Beijing announced plans for regular military patrols near the democratically governed island.

Pelosi told a news briefing Wednesday in Washington that Chinese leaders had been “trying to push their way” toward their goals on Taiwan before she led a congressional delegation there last week. The California Democrat was responding to a question about whether China would continue exercises near Taiwan, after conducting its most significant military drills near the island in decades, including likely firing ballistic missiles over Taipei.

“What we saw with China is they were trying to establish sort of a new normal,” Pelosi said. “And we just can’t let that happen.”

The drills held by China in response to Pelosi’s visit shrank a vaguely defined buffer zone that has long helped kept the peace around Taiwan, which Beijing views as part of its territory. On Wednesday, the People’s Liberation Army command responsible for the Taiwan Strait said it had “successfully completed all tasks” set out in the exercises and would “regularly organize patrols” in the area.

More than 180 Chinese warplanes operated east of the Taiwan Strait’s median line over an eight-day period ending Wednesday. Crossing the divider was once a rare event. The promise of more patrols will likely fuel concerns that Chinese President Xi Jinping will seek to make such incursions the new status quo.

Crossing Lines

Chinese warplanes are repeatedly breaching the Taiwan Strait’s median line.

NOTE: Data includes flights through median line of strait and Taiwan’s southwest air-defense zone

The trip has further strained relations between the US and China, with Beijing suspending of a series of working-level talks on issues including military ties and climate change. It has also complicated President Joe Biden decision on the future of Trump-era tariffs on more than $300 billion in Chinese goods, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said Wednesday.

“Certainly, it has made it a little more challenging,” Raimondo said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power With David Westin.” “It’s harder, but I am hopeful that we will get beyond that and get back to a place where we can have more of those discussions.”

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.524.0_en.html#goog_1841077

Source: Bloomberg

https://6c61d4aee274715a23dda44f625062f7.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Pelosi again declined to comment on Biden’s remark prior to her trip that the Pentagon didn’t approve of such a visit, but credited her military escorts with taking “very good care” of the delegation. “I don’t remember them ever telling us not to go,” she said.

The House speaker shrugged off the threat of Chinese sanctions, which Beijing announced last week without detailing the penalties. “Who cares?” she said.

— With assistance by Eric Martin, and Cindy Wang

keine amerikanische, ondern eine chinesische „battle-group“

Was ist nun neu an der internationalen Lage um Taiwan, die die Kriegsgefahr real erscheinen lässt ?

Der für RT.de schreibende Analytiker Gert Ewen Ungar kommt zu folgender Einschätzung (5. August), der ich zustimme:

Die globalen Mächte China und Russland haben sich strategisch auf die geopolitische Ablösung des aus dem 19. Jahrhundert stammenden Konzept des Liberalismus ( = offener oder verhüllter Kolonialismus) durch ein neues System der internationalen Beziehungen eingestellt und betreiben aktiv diesen Ablösungsprozess. Sie sind bereit, im Rahmen dieses Prozesses auch militärische Mittel konsequent einzusetzen.:

Ich erlaube mir, aus dem RT.de-Beitrag zu zitieren: „Die aktuellen Entwicklungen … deuten auf eine beschleunigte Ablösung des Liberalismus. Der Liberalismus ist die letzte verbliebene politusche Ideologie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Er ist der in die Jahre gekommene Allmachtsanspruch des Westens,

Die Welt organisiert sich neu

In diesen gegenwärtigen Tagen veröffentlichen die chinesischen Medien ein umfangreiches Weißbuch zur TAIWAN-Frage.

Eine zentralen Aussagen lautet: „Wir sind ein China und Taiwan ist ein Teil von China. Dies ist eine unbestreitbare Tatsache, die durch Geschichte und das Gesetz gestützt wird. Taiwan war nie ein Staat, sein Status als Teil Chinas ist unabänderlich“.
Die Vorgängerdokumente stammen aus den Jahren 1993 und 2000. In der aktuellen Version heißt es, dass die Wiedervereinigung zu beschleunigen sei. Unter anderem ist die Rede davon, ähnlich wie bei der Befreiung Pekings im Jahre 1949, die Insel zu umzingeln und mit friedlichen Mitteln zu übernehmen.

Die Veröffentlichung dieses Papiers fällt mit der vorläufigen Einstellung der massiven Manöver zusammen. Die chinesischen Streitkräfte simulierten eine militärische Übernahme der Insel, die nach Souveränität strebt. In dem Weißbuch heißt es, dass der Einsatz militärischer Mittel nur das allerletzte Mittel sei.

Peking kann angesichts der angekündigten harten Reaktionen und der angeheizten Stimmung unter der wachsenden Gruppe von Nationalisten nicht einfach zur Tagesordnung übergehen. Es ist eine Erwartungshaltung entstanden, welche die Pewkinger Führung einlösen muss. Bislang wurden zahlreiche bilaterale Dossiers zwischen den USA und China abgebrochen, landwirtschaftliche Produkte aus Taiwan kamen wie anderes auf die Sanktionsliste. Doch würde ein handfester Wirtschaftskrieg Chinas die weltweite Halbleiterproduktion, die auf Taiwan gleichsam konzentriert ist, ins Wanken bringen. Das trifft alle – so, wie Sanktionen immer zum Bumerang werden. China befindet sich zweifellos in einem handfesten Dilemma, das mit einem Gesichtsverlust nach innen wie nach außen einhergeht.

Ist die militärische Lösung also die einzige Alternative – Ich glaube, JA ! Die Politik Bidens lässt Peking keinen anderen Ausweg – die Geschichte belegt es. Peking hat vor schwerwiegenden Konsequenzen gewarnt, sollte Pelosi die Androhung ihres Taiwan-Besuches wahr machen. Daher wird nun von vielen angenommen, Peking bluffe nur. Schließlich scheint das Risiko eines Krieges mit den USA anlässlich der Reise eines Amtsträgers aus Washington weder verhältnismäßig noch rational zu sein. Es liegt jedoch in der Natur der Salamitaktik, alle Reaktionen als unverhältnismäßig und irrational darzustellen. Die Taktik beinhaltet begrenzte, aber sich wiederholende Vorstöße, um neue Realitäten aufzubauen. Revisionismus in kleinen Schritten soll eine schnelle Eskalation vermeiden und den Widerstand von Gegnern und Verbündeten ausschalten, da jede Reaktion als unverhältnismäßig oder unprovoziert dargestellt werden kann. Mit einer derartigen politisch unehrlichen Salamitaktik fängt ein unbeabsichtigter Krieg an.

Was zeigt die Geschichte der letzten Jahrzehnte ??? Sie zeigt dem realistischen Beobachter die Ein-China-Politik und die Politik der strategischen Uneindeutigkeit.

Die USA und China nahmen in den 1970er Jahren volle diplomatische Beziehungen auf, als Washington seıne diplomatısche Anerkennung von Taipeh nach Peking verlegte. Washington verpflichtete sich zur Ein-China-Politik, wonach es nur ein China gibt und Taiwan ein Teil davon ist.

Gleichzeitig stärken die USA mit Waffenlieferungen Taiwans Fähigkeit, als unabhängiger Staat zu handeln.

In den letzten vier Jahrzehnten beruhte der Frieden zwischen den USA und China also auf einer strategischen Unklarheit über den Status Taiwans.

Während dieser Zeit haben sich die USA und China in einem „Abschreckungsdilemma“ befunden. Washington hat versucht, Peking durch Waffenlieferungen an die Insel von einer gewaltsamen Wiedervereinigung mit Taiwan abzuhalten. Derweil hält China Taiwan durch die Androhung einer militärischen Intervention davon ab, sich offiziell abzuspalten.

Nachdem Peking stärker geworden ist, provozieren die amerikanischen Bemühungen, China am Einsatz seiner Armee zu hindern, das Land stattdessen zum Eingreifen.

ln der Vergangenheit zeigten sich die USA bereits unbesonnen im Umgang mit der Ein-China-Politik, aber in den letzten Jahren begann Washington mit der absichtlichen Unterwanderung dieser Politik. Jetzt bedroht Pekings Aufstieg die auf globaler Vormachtstellung basierende Sicherheitsstrategie der USA. Doch in Washington will man sich nicht auf eine multipolare Ordnung einlassen. Die Zeit scheint auf Chinas Seite zu sein, da sein Einfluss in der Region nur zunehmen wird. lm Gegensatz dazu schwindet die Macht der USA, und das schafft Anreize für eine Änderung der Haltung gegenüber China und der Taiwan-Frage.

Vor einem Jahrzehnt verkündete die Obama- Regierung ihre Neuausrichtung nach Asien. Zur Eindämmung Chinas beinhaltete dies eine Verlagerung der militärischen Infrastruktur der USA nach Ostasien.

Obamas Nachfolger, Donald Trump, begann einen Wirtschaftskrieg gegen Peking und nutzte die Ein-China-Politik dabei als Druckmittel. Unter Präsident Joe Biden scheinen die USA ihre Verpflichtungen nun vollständig aufgeben zu wollen.

Peking sieht die anhaltende Unterwanderung der Ein-China-Politik im Zusammenhang mit der Weigerung der USA, sich an die multipolare Welt anzupassen und damit auch Beziehungen zu den anderen Großmächten :u entwickeln.

Die militärische Zusammenarbeit der USA mit Taiwan wurde im Laufe der Zeit intensiver und offener. Washington drängt auf eine stärkere Vertretung Taiwans im internationalen System, indem es zum Beispiel die Teilnahme Taiwans am UN-System unterstützt. Mit der Lockerung von Beschränkungen für den offiziellen Austausch mit Taipeh besuchten immer mehr US-Beamte die Insel. Das wiederum werteten einige US-Gesetzgeber als Unterstützung für die taiwanesische Souveränität.

Zusätzlich prangerten auch amerikanische Medien und Think Tanks die Ein-China-Politik an und forderten die Abspaltung Taiwans. Biden hat in den vergangenen Monaten mehrfach verkündet, dass die USA Taiwan im Falle eines Angriffs durch China verteidigen würden. Das legt die jahrzehntelange Politik der strategischen Unklarheit darüber offen, wie die USA in so einem Fall reagieren würden.
Diese Ereignisse fallen in eine Zeit wachsender militärischer und wirtschaftlicher Rivalität, in der zudem auch intensiv versucht wird, China von innen heraus zu destabilisieren. Doch wie eh und je beteuert Washington keine Konfrontation mit Peking zu suchen, sondern lediglich für amerikanische Werte einzutreten. Dies entspricht mit dem allgemeinen Konzept amerikanischer Hegemonie, bei dem eine kriegerische Politik zur Förderung der globalen Vormachtstellung als wohlwollende Unterstützung für Demokratie und Menschenrechte, als Ringen um die Durchsetzung des Konzepts des Liberalismus dargestellt wird.

China’s white paper answers the Taiwan question

Opinion 12:31, 12-Aug-202

15:27, 12-Aug-2022

A matter of principle

Opinion

14:54, 12-Aug-2022

Want Want Group has adhered to One-China Principle since its founding

Video

14:52, 12-Aug-2022

Xi calls on int’l community to build global development partnership

Politics

11:51, 12-Aug-2022

Chinese state-owned firms announce plans to delist from U.S. market

Markets

16:48, 12-Aug-2022

Europe

01:21, 12-Aug-2022

China 20:06, 10-Aug-2022

Full Text: The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era

CGTN

The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China published a white paper titled „The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era“ on Wednesday.

The following is the full text of the white paper:

The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era

The People’s Republic of China

The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and The State Council Information Office

August 2022

Contents

Preamble

I. Taiwan Is Part of China – This Is an Indisputable Fact

II. Resolute Efforts of the CPC to Realize China’s Complete Reunification

III. China’s Complete Reunification Is a Process That Cannot Be Halted

IV. National Reunification in the New Era

V. Bright Prospects for Peaceful Reunification

Conclusion

Preamble

Resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation. It is indispensable for the realization of China’s rejuvenation. It is also a historic mission of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The CPC, the Chinese government, and the Chinese people have striven for decades to achieve this goal.

The 18th National Congress of the CPC in 2012 heralded a new era in building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Under the strong leadership of the CPC Central Committee with Xi Jinping at the core, the CPC and the Chinese government have adopted new and innovative measures in relation to Taiwan. They have continued to chart the course of cross-Straits relations, safeguard peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits, and promote progress towards national reunification. However, in recent years the Taiwan authorities, led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), have redoubled their efforts to divide the country, and some external forces have tried to exploit Taiwan to contain China, prevent the Chinese nation from achieving complete reunification, and halt the process of national rejuvenation.

The CPC has united the Chinese people and led them in fulfilling the First Centenary Goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects as scheduled, and in embarking on a new journey towards the Second Centenary Goal of building China into a modern socialist country.

The Chinese nation has achieved a historic transformation from standing upright to becoming prosperous and growing in strength, and national rejuvenation is driven by an unstoppable force. This marks a new starting point for reunification.

The Chinese government has published two previous white papers on Taiwan. One was The Taiwan Question and Reunification of China in August 1993, and the other was The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue in February 2000. These two white papers provided a comprehensive and systematic elaboration of the basic principles and policies regarding the resolution of the Taiwan question. This new white paper is being released to reiterate the fact that Taiwan is part of China, to demonstrate the resolve of the CPC and the Chinese people and their commitment to national reunification, and to emphasize the position and policies of the CPC and the Chinese government in the new era.

I. Taiwan Is Part of China – This Is an Indisputable Fact

Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times. This statement has a sound basis in history and jurisprudence. New archeological discoveries and research findings regularly attest to the profound historical and cultural ties between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. A large number of historical records and annals document the development of Taiwan by the Chinese people in earlier periods.

The earliest references to this effect are to be found, among others, in Seaboard Geographic Gazetteer compiled in the year 230 by Shen Ying of the State of Wu during the Three Kingdoms Period. The royal court of the Sui Dynasty had on three occasions sent troops to Taiwan, called Liuqiu at that time. Starting from the Song and Yuan dynasties, the imperial central governments of China all set up administrative bodies to exercise jurisdiction over Penghu and Taiwan.

In 1624, Dutch colonialists invaded and occupied the southern part of Taiwan. In 1662, General Zheng Chenggong, hailed as a national hero, led an expedition and expelled them from the island. Subsequently, the Qing court gradually set up more administrative bodies in Taiwan. In 1684, a Taiwan prefecture administration was set up under the jurisdiction of Fujian Province. In 1885, Taiwan’s status was upgraded and it became the 20th province of China.

In July 1894, Japan launched a war of aggression against China. In April 1895, the defeated Qing government was forced to cede Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to Japan. During the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931-1945), China’s Communists called for the recovery of Taiwan. Talking with American journalist Nym Wales on May 15, 1937, Mao Zedong said that China’s goal was to achieve a final victory in the war – a victory that would recover the occupied Chinese territories in Northeast China and to the south of the Shanhai Pass, and secure the liberation of Taiwan.

On December 9, 1941, the Chinese government issued a declaration of war against Japan, and proclaimed that all treaties, conventions, agreements, and contracts regarding relations between China and Japan had been abrogated, and that China would recover Taiwan and the Penghu Islands.

The Cairo Declaration issued by China, the United States and the United Kingdom on December 1, 1943 stated that it was the purpose of the three allies that all the territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Northeast China, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China.

The Potsdam Proclamation was signed by China, the United States and the United Kingdom on July 26, 1945, and subsequently recognized by the Soviet Union. It reiterated: „The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.“ In September of the same year, Japan signed the instrument of surrender, in which it promised that it would faithfully fulfill the obligations laid down in the Potsdam Proclamation. On October 25 the Chinese government announced that it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan, and the ceremony to accept Japan’s surrender in Taiwan Province of the China war theater of the Allied powers was held in Taibei (Taipei). From that point forward, China had recovered Taiwan de jure and de facto through a host of documents with international legal effect.

On October 1, 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded, becoming the successor to the Republic of China (1912-1949), and the Central People’s Government became the only legitimate government of the whole of China. The new government replaced the previous KMT regime in a situation where China, as a subject under international law, did not change and China’s sovereignty and inherent territory did not change. As a natural result, the government of the PRC should enjoy and exercise China’s full sovereignty, which includes its sovereignty over Taiwan.

As a result of the civil war in China in the late 1940s and the interference of external forces, the two sides of the Taiwan Straits have fallen into a state of protracted political confrontation. But the sovereignty and territory of China have never been divided and will never be divided, and Taiwan’s status as part of China’s territory has never changed and will never be allowed to change.

At its 26th session in October 1971, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758, which undertook „to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it“. This resolution settled once and for all the political, legal and procedural issues of China’s representation in the UN, and it covered the whole country, including Taiwan. It also spelled out that China has one single seat in the UN, so there is no such thing as „two Chinas“ or „one China, one Taiwan“.

The specialized agencies of the UN later adopted further resolutions restoring to the PRC its lawful seat and expelling the representatives of the Taiwan authorities. One of these is Resolution 25.1 adopted at the 25th World Health Assembly in May 1972. It was clearly stated in the official legal opinions of the Office of Legal Affairs of the UN Secretariat that „the United Nations considers ‚Taiwan‘ as a province of China with no separate status“, and the „‚authorities‘ in ‚Taipei‘ are not considered to… enjoy any form of government status“. At the UN the island is referred to as „Taiwan, Province of China“[1].

Resolution 2758 is a political document encapsulating the one-China principle whose legal authority leaves no room for doubt and has been acknowledged worldwide. Taiwan does not have any ground, reason, or right to join the UN, or any other international organization whose membership is confined to sovereign states.

In recent years some elements in a small number of countries, the US foremost among them, have colluded with forces in Taiwan, to falsely claim that the resolution did not conclusively resolve the issue of Taiwan’s representation. Puffing up the illegal and invalid Treaty of San Francisco[2] and disregarding the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international legal documents, they profess that the status of Taiwan has yet to be determined, and declare their support for „Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the UN system“. What they are actually attempting to do is to alter Taiwan’s status as part of China and create „two Chinas“ or „one China, one Taiwan“ as part of a political ploy – using Taiwan to contain China. These actions in violation of Resolution 2758 and international law are a serious breach of political commitments made by these countries. They damage China’s sovereignty and dignity, and treat the basic principles of international law with contempt. The Chinese government has condemned and expressed its resolute opposition to them.

The one-China principle represents the universal consensus of the international community; it is consistent with the basic norms of international relations. To date, 181 countries including the United States have established diplomatic relations with the PRC on the basis of the one-China principle. The China-US Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, published in December 1978, states: „The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.“ It also states: „The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.“

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, adopted at the Fifth Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress (NPC) in December 1982, stipulates: „Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People’s Republic of China. It is the inviolable duty of all Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland.“

The Anti-Secession Law, adopted at the Third Session of the 10th NPC in March 2005, stipulates: „There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included. Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the ‚Taiwan independence‘ secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means.“

The National Security Law, adopted at the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th NPC in July 2015, stipulates: „The sovereignty and territorial integrity of China brook no violation or separation. Safeguarding national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity is the common duty of all Chinese citizens, including Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan compatriots.“

We are one China, and Taiwan is part of China. This is an indisputable fact supported by history and the law. Taiwan has never been a state; its status as part of China is unalterable. Any attempt to distort these facts and dispute or deny the one-China principle will end in failure.

II. Resolute Efforts of the CPC to Realize China’s Complete Reunification

The CPC has always been dedicated to working for the wellbeing of the Chinese people and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Soon after its founding in 1921, the CPC set itself the goal of freeing Taiwan from colonial rule, reuniting it with the rest of the country and liberating the whole nation, including compatriots in Taiwan. It has made a tremendous effort to achieve this goal.

The CPC is committed to the historic mission of resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification. Under its resolute leadership, people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits have worked together to de-escalate tension across the Straits. They have set out on a path of peaceful development and made many breakthroughs in improving cross-Straits relations.

After the founding of the PRC in 1949, China’s Communists, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, proposed the essential guideline, underlying principle, and basic policy for peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question. The CPC prepared and worked for the liberation of Taiwan, thwarted the Taiwan authorities‘ plans to attack the mainland, and foiled attempts to create „two Chinas“ and „one China, one Taiwan“. Through their efforts, the lawful seat and rights of the PRC in the United Nations were restored and the one-China principle was subscribed to by the majority of countries, laying important groundwork for peaceful reunification. The CPC central leadership established high-level contact with the Taiwan authorities through proper channels in pursuit of a peaceful solution to the Taiwan question.

Following the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee in 1978, with the establishment of diplomatic relations between the PRC and the United States, China’s Communists, led by Deng Xiaoping, defined the fundamental guideline for peaceful reunification in the vital interests of the country and the people and on the basis of the consensus for peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question. The CPC introduced the creative and well-conceived concept of One Country, Two Systems, and applied it first in resolving the questions of Hong Kong and Macao. It took action to ease military confrontation across the Taiwan Straits, restore contact, and open up people-to-people exchanges and cooperation, opening a new chapter in cross-Straits relations.

After the Fourth Plenary Session of the 13th CPC Central Committee in 1989, China’s Communists, led by Jiang Zemin, made eight proposals for the development of cross-Straits relations and the peaceful reunification of China[3]. The CPC facilitated agreement across the Straits on the 1992 Consensus, which embodies the one-China principle. It initiated cross-Straits consultations and negotiations, resulting in the first talks between heads of the non-governmental organizations authorized by the two sides of the Straits, and expanded cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation in various fields. The CPC took firm action against separatist activities led by Lee Teng-hui, and struck hard at the separatist forces seeking „Taiwan independence“. It ensured the smooth return of Hong Kong and Macao to China, and applied the policy of One Country, Two Systems, which had a constructive impact on the settlement of the Taiwan question.

After the 16th CPC National Congress in 2002, China’s Communists, led by Hu Jintao, highlighted the importance of peaceful development of cross-Straits relations. The CPC pushed for the enactment of the Anti-Secession Law to curb separatist activities in Taiwan, hosted the first talks between the leaders of the CPC and the Kuomintang in six decades since 1945, and defeated attempts by Chen Shui-bian to fabricate a legal basis for „independence“. The CPC effected profound changes in moving the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations forward by promoting institutionalized consultations and negotiations that produced fruitful results, establishing overall direct two-way links in mail, business and transport, and facilitating the signing and implementation of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement.

After the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, China’s Communists, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, took a holistic approach to cross-Straits relations in keeping with changing circumstances, added substance to the theory on national reunification and the principles and policies concerning Taiwan, and worked to keep cross-Straits relations on the right track. The CPC developed its overall policy for resolving the Taiwan question in the new era, and set out the overarching guideline and a program of action.

At its 19th National Congress in October 2017, the CPC affirmed the basic policy of upholding One Country, Two Systems and promoting national reunification, and emphasized its resolve never to allow any person, any organization, or any political party, at any time or in any form, to separate any part of Chinese territory from China.

In January 2019, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee and president of China, addressed a meeting marking the 40th anniversary of the release of the Message to Compatriots in Taiwan. In his speech, Xi Jinping proposed major policies to advance the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations and the peaceful reunification of China in the new era. These are: first, working together to promote China’s rejuvenation and its peaceful reunification; second, seeking a Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question and making innovative efforts towards peaceful reunification; third, abiding by the one-China principle and safeguarding the prospects for peaceful reunification; fourth, further integrating development across the Straits and consolidating the foundations for peaceful reunification; fifth, forging closer bonds of heart and mind between people on both sides of the Straits and strengthening joint commitment to peaceful reunification.

The CPC and the Chinese government have thereby adopted a series of major measures for charting the course of cross-Straits relations and realizing China’s peaceful reunification:

– The CPC and the Chinese government have facilitated the first meeting and direct dialogue between leaders of the two sides since 1949, raising exchanges and interactions to new heights, opening up a new chapter, and creating new space for cross-Straits relations. This is a new milestone. The departments in charge of cross-Straits affairs on both sides have established regular contact and communication mechanisms on a common political foundation, and the heads of the two departments have exchanged visits and set up hotlines.

– Upholding the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus, the CPC and the Chinese government have facilitated exchanges between political parties across the Straits, and conducted dialogues, consultations, and in-depth exchanges of views on cross-Straits relations and the future of the Chinese nation with relevant political parties, organizations, and individuals in Taiwan. These efforts have resulted in consensus on multiple issues, and promoted a number of joint initiatives exploring the Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question with all sectors of Taiwan society.

– Guided by the conviction that people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits are of the same family, the CPC and the Chinese government have promoted peaceful development of cross-Straits relations and integrated development of the two sides for the benefit of both the mainland and Taiwan. We have also refined the institutional arrangements, policies and measures to promote cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation, designed to advance the wellbeing of the people of Taiwan. These include the delivery of water from the coastal province of Fujian to Kinmen Island, electronic travel passes for Taiwan residents to enter or leave the mainland, residence permits for Taiwan residents, progressively ensuring that Taiwan compatriots have equal access to public services so as to facilitate their studying, starting businesses, working and living on the mainland, and an ongoing effort to pave the way for Taiwan to benefit first from the mainland’s development opportunities.

– While countering interference and obstruction from separatist forces, the CPC and the Chinese government have called on the people of Taiwan to promote effective and in-depth cooperation and people-to-people exchanges in various fields across the Straits. Having overcome the impact of COVID-19, we have held a number of exchange events such as the Straits Forum, and maintained the momentum of cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation.

– Resolute in defending state sovereignty and territorial integrity and opposing separatist activities and external interference, the CPC and the Chinese government have safeguarded peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation. We have taken lawful action against and effectively deterred separatist forces. We have handled Taiwan’s external exchanges in a sound manner, and consolidated the international community’s commitment to the one-China principle.

Under the guidance of the CPC, great progress has been made in cross-Straits relations over the past seven decades, especially since the estrangement between the two sides was ended. Increased exchanges, broader cooperation and closer interactions have brought tangible benefits to people across the Straits, especially of Taiwan. This fully demonstrates that cross-Straits amity and cooperation are mutually beneficial.

The volume of cross-Straits trade was only US$46 million in 1978. It rose to US$328.34 billion in 2021, up by a factor of more than 7,000. The mainland has been Taiwan’s largest export market for the last 21 years, generating a large annual surplus for the island. The mainland is also the largest destination for Taiwan’s off-island investment. By the end of 2021 Taiwan businesses had invested in almost 124,000 projects on the mainland, to a total value of US$71.34 billion[4].

In 1987 less than 50,000 visits were made between the two sides; by 2019 this number had soared to about 9 million. In the past three years, affected by COVID-19, online communication has become the main form of people-to-people interactions across the Straits, and the numbers of people participating in and covered by online communication are reaching new highs.

The CPC has always been the spine of the Chinese nation, exercising strong leadership in realizing national rejuvenation and reunification. Its consistent efforts over the decades to resolve the Taiwan question and achieve complete national reunification are based on the following:

First, the one-China principle must be upheld, and no individual or force should be allowed to separate Taiwan from China.

Second, it is imperative to strive for the wellbeing of all Chinese people, including those in Taiwan, and to realize the aspirations of all Chinese people for a better life.

Third, we must follow the principles of freeing the mind, seeking truth from facts, maintaining the right political orientation, and breaking new ground, and defend the fundamental interests of the nation and the core interests of the state in formulating principles and policies on work related to Taiwan.

Fourth, it is necessary to have the courage and skill to fight against any force that attempts to undermine China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity or stands in the way of its reunification.

Fifth, extensive unity and solidarity must be upheld to mobilize all factors to fight against any force that would divide the country, and pool strengths to advance national reunification.

III. China’s Complete Reunification Is a Process That Cannot Be Halted

Against a backdrop of profound and complex changes in the domestic and international situation, our cause of complete national reunification is facing new challenges. The CPC and the Chinese government have the strength and the confidence to deal with complexities and overcome risks and threats, and the ability to take great strides forward on the path to national reunification.

1. Complete Reunification Is Critical to National Rejuvenation

Throughout China’s 5,000-year history, national reunification and opposition to division have remained a common ideal and a shared tradition of the whole nation. In the modern era from the mid-19th century, due to the aggression of Western powers and the decadence of feudal rule, China was gradually reduced to a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society, and went through a period of suffering worse than anything it had previously known. The country endured intense humiliation, the people were subjected to great pain, and the Chinese civilization was plunged into darkness. Japan’s 50-year occupation of Taiwan epitomized this humiliation and inflicted agony on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. Our two sides face each other just across a strip of water, yet we are still far apart. The fact that we have not yet been reunified is a scar left by history on the Chinese nation. We Chinese on both sides should work together to achieve reunification and heal this wound.

National rejuvenation has been the greatest dream of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation since the modern era began. Only by realizing complete national reunification can the Chinese people on both sides of the Straits cast aside the shadow of civil war and create and enjoy lasting peace. National reunification is the only way to avoid the risk of Taiwan being invaded and occupied again by foreign countries, to foil the attempts of external forces to contain China, and to safeguard the sovereignty, security, and development interests of our country. It is the most effective remedy to secessionist attempts to divide our country, and the best means to consolidate Taiwan’s status as part of China and advance national rejuvenation. It will enable us to pool the strengths of the people on both sides, build our common home, safeguard our interests and wellbeing, and create a brighter future for the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. As Dr Sun Yat-sen, the great pioneer of China’s revolution, once said, „Unification is the hope of all Chinese nationals. If China can be unified, all Chinese will enjoy a happy life; if it cannot, all will suffer.“

In exploring the path to rejuvenation and prosperity, China has endured vicissitudes and hardships. „Unification brings strength while division leads to chaos.“ This is a law of history. The realization of complete national reunification is driven by the history and culture of the Chinese nation and determined by the momentum towards and circumstances surrounding our national rejuvenation. Never before have we been so close to, confident in, and capable of achieving the goal of national rejuvenation. The same is true when it comes to our goal of complete national reunification. The Taiwan question arose as a result of weakness and chaos in our nation, and it will be resolved as national rejuvenation becomes a reality. When all the Chinese people stick together and work together, we will surely succeed in realizing national reunification on our way to national rejuvenation.

2. National Development and Progress Set the Direction of Cross-Straits Relations

China’s development and progress are a key factor determining the course of cross-Straits relations and the realization of complete national reunification. In particular, the great achievements over four decades of reform, opening up and modernization have had a profound impact on the historical process of resolving the Taiwan question and realizing complete national reunification. No matter which political party or group is in power in Taiwan, it cannot alter the course of progress in cross-Straits relations or the trend towards national reunification.

International Monetary Fund statistics show that in 1980 the GDP of the mainland was about US$303 billion, just over 7 times that of Taiwan, which was about US$42.3 billion; in 2021, the GDP of the mainland was about US$17.46 trillion, more than 22 times that of Taiwan, which was about US$790 billion.[5]

China’s development and progress, and in particular the steady increases in its economic power, technological strength, and national defense capabilities, are an effective curb against separatist activities and interference from external forces. They also provide broad space and great opportunities for cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation. As more and more compatriots from Taiwan, especially young people, pursue their studies, start businesses, seek jobs, or go to live on the mainland, cross-Straits exchanges, interaction and integration are intensified in all sectors, the economic ties and personal bonds between the people on both sides run deeper, and our common cultural and national identities grow stronger, leading cross-Straits relations towards reunification.

The CPC has united the Chinese people and led them in embarking on the new journey of building China into a modern socialist country in all respects. Following the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the mainland has improved its governance and maintained long-term economic growth; it enjoys a solid material foundation, a wealth of human resources, a huge market, strong resilience in development, and social stability. It therefore has many strengths and favorable conditions for further development, and these have become the driving force for reunification.

Grounding its effort in the new development stage, the mainland is committed to applying the new development philosophy, creating a new development dynamic, and promoting high-quality development. As a result, the overall strength and international influence of the mainland will continue to increase, and its influence over and appeal to Taiwan society will keep growing. We will have a more solid foundation for resolving the Taiwan question and greater ability to do so. This will give a significant boost to national reunification.

3. Any Attempt by Separatist Forces to Prevent Reunification Is Bound to Fail

Taiwan has been an integral part of China’s territory since ancient times. Moves to separate Taiwan from China represent the serious crime of secession, and undermine the common interests of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits and the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation. They will lead nowhere.

The DPP authorities have adopted a separatist stance, and colluded with external forces in successive provocative actions designed to divide the country. They refuse to recognize the one-China principle, and distort and deny the 1992 Consensus. They assert that Taiwan and the mainland should not be subordinate to each other, and proclaim a new „two states“ theory. On the island, they constantly press for „de-sinicization“ and promote „incremental independence“. They incite radical separatists in and outside the DPP to lobby for amendments to their „constitution“ and „laws“. They deceive the people of Taiwan, incite hostility against the mainland, and obstruct and undermine cross-Straits exchanges, cooperation and integrated development. They have steadily built up their military forces with the intention of pursuing „independence“ and preventing reunification by force. They join with external forces in trying to sow the seeds of „two Chinas“ or „one China, one Taiwan“. The actions of the DPP authorities have resulted in tension in cross-Straits relations, endangering peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, and undermining the prospects and restricting the space for peaceful reunification. These are obstacles that must be removed in advancing the process of peaceful reunification.

Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people, including the 23 million Taiwan compatriots. The Chinese people are firm in their resolve and have a deep commitment to safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation, and this resolve and commitment will frustrate any attempt to divide the country. When Taiwan was invaded by a foreign power more than 100 years ago, China was a poor and weak country. More than 70 years ago, China defeated the invaders and recovered Taiwan. Today, China has grown into the world’s second largest economy. With significant growth in its political, economic, cultural, technological, and military strength, there is no likelihood that China will allow Taiwan to be separated again. Attempts to reject reunification and split the country are doomed, because they will founder against the history and culture of the Chinese nation as well as the resolve and commitment of more than 1.4 billion Chinese people.

4. External Forces Obstructing China’s Complete Reunification Will Surely Be Defeated

External interference is a prominent obstacle to China’s reunification. Still lost in delusions of hegemony and trapped in a Cold War mindset, some forces in the US insist on perceiving and portraying China as a major strategic adversary and a serious long-term threat. They do their utmost to undermine and pressurize China, exploiting Taiwan as a convenient tool. The US authorities have stated that they remain committed to the one-China policy and that they do not support „Taiwan independence“. But their actions contradict their words. They are clouding the one-China principle in uncertainty and compromising its integrity. They are contriving „official“ exchanges with Taiwan, increasing arms sales, and colluding in military provocation. To help Taiwan expand its „international space“, they are inducing other countries to interfere in Taiwan affairs, and concocting Taiwan-related bills that infringe upon the sovereignty of China. They are creating confusion around what is black and white, right and wrong. On the one hand, they incite separatist forces to create tension and turmoil in cross-Straits relations. On the other hand, they accuse the mainland of coercion, pressurizing Taiwan, and unilaterally changing the status quo, in order to embolden these forces and create obstacles to China’s peaceful reunification.

The important principles of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations are the cornerstones of modern international law and basic norms of international relations. It is the sacred right of every sovereign state to safeguard national unity and territorial integrity. It goes without saying that the Chinese government is entitled to take all measures necessary to settle the Taiwan question and achieve national reunification, free of external interference.

Behind the smokescreens of „freedom, democracy, and human rights“ and „upholding the rules-based international order“, some anti-China forces in the US deliberately distort the nature of the Taiwan question – which is purely an internal matter for China – and try to deny the legitimacy and justification of the Chinese government in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. This clearly reveals their intention of using Taiwan to contain China and obstruct China’s reunification, which should be thoroughly exposed and condemned.

These external forces are using Taiwan as a pawn to undermine China’s development and progress, and obstruct the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. They are doing so at the cost of the interests, wellbeing and future of the people of Taiwan rather than for their benefit. They have encouraged and instigated provocative actions by the separatist forces; these have intensified cross-Straits tension and confrontation, and undermined peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. This runs counter to the underlying global trends of peace, development and win-win cooperation, and goes against the wishes of the international community and the aspiration of all peoples.

Shortly after the PRC was founded, even though the country itself had to be rebuilt on the ruins of decades of war, China and its people won a resounding victory in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea (1950-1953). We defeated a powerful and well-armed enemy through gallantry and tenacity. In doing so, we safeguarded the security of the newly founded People’s Republic, reestablished the status of China as a major country in the world, and demonstrated our heroic spirit, our lack of fear, and our will to stand up against the abuse of the powerful.

China is firmly committed to peaceful development. At the same time, it will not flinch under any external interference, nor will it tolerate any infringement upon its sovereignty, security and development interests. Relying on external forces will achieve nothing for Taiwan’s separatists, and using Taiwan to contain China is doomed to fail.

Tranquility, development and a decent life are the expectations of our Taiwan compatriots, and the common aspiration of those on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. Under the strong leadership of the CPC, the Chinese people and the Chinese nation have stood upright, won prosperity, and grown in strength. A moderately prosperous society in all respects has been built on the mainland, where a large population once lived in dire poverty. We now have better conditions, more confidence, and greater capabilities. We can complete the historic mission of national reunification, so that both sides of the Straits can enjoy a better life. The wheel of history rolls on towards national reunification, and it will not be stopped by any individual or any force.

IV. National Reunification in the New Era

Taking into consideration the overall goal of national rejuvenation in the context of global change on a scale unseen in a century, the CPC and the Chinese government have continued to follow the CPC’s fundamental guidelines on the Taiwan question and implement its principles and policies towards Taiwan, and have made concrete efforts to promote peaceful cross-Straits relations, integrate the development of the two sides, and work towards national reunification.

1. Upholding the Basic Principles of Peaceful Reunification and One Country, Two Systems

National reunification by peaceful means is the first choice of the CPC and the Chinese government in resolving the Taiwan question, as it best serves the interests of the Chinese nation as a whole, including our compatriots in Taiwan, and it works best for the long-term stability and development of China. We have worked hard to overcome hardships and obstacles to peaceful reunification over the past decades, showing that we cherish and safeguard the greater good of the nation, the wellbeing of our compatriots in Taiwan, and peace on both sides.

The One Country, Two Systems principle is an important institutional instrument created by the CPC and the Chinese government to enable peaceful reunification. It represents a great achievement of Chinese socialism. Peaceful reunification and One Country, Two Systems are our basic principles for resolving the Taiwan question and the best approach to realizing national reunification. Embodying the Chinese wisdom – we thrive by embracing each other – they take full account of Taiwan’s realities and are conducive to long-term stability in Taiwan after reunification.

We maintain that after peaceful reunification, Taiwan may continue its current social system and enjoy a high degree of autonomy in accordance with the law. The two social systems will develop side by side for a long time to come. One Country is the precondition and foundation of Two Systems; Two Systems is subordinate to and derives from One Country; and the two are integrated under the one-China principle.

We will continue working with our compatriots in Taiwan to explore a Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question and increase our efforts towards peaceful reunification. In designing the specifics for implementing One Country, Two Systems, we will give full consideration to the realities in Taiwan and the views and proposals from all walks of life on both sides, and fully accommodate the interests and sentiments of our compatriots in Taiwan.

Ever since the One Country, Two Systems principle was proposed, certain political forces have been misrepresenting and distorting its objectives. The DPP and the authorities under its leadership have done everything possible to target the principle with baseless criticisms, and this has led to misunderstandings about its aims in some quarters of Taiwan. It is a fact that since Hong Kong and Macao returned to the motherland and were reincorporated into national governance, they have embarked on a broad path of shared development together with the mainland, and each complements the others‘ strengths. The practice of One Country, Two Systems has been a resounding success.

For a time, Hong Kong faced a period of damaging social unrest caused by anti-China agitators both inside and outside the region. Based on a clear understanding of the situation there, the CPC and the Chinese government upheld the One Country, Two Systems principle, made some appropriate improvements, and took a series of measures that addressed both the symptoms and root causes of the unrest. Order was restored and prosperity returned to Hong Kong. This has laid a solid foundation for the law-based governance of Hong Kong and Macao and the long-term continuation of One Country, Two Systems.

To realize peaceful reunification, we must acknowledge that the mainland and Taiwan have their own distinct social systems and ideologies. The One Country, Two Systems principle is the most inclusive solution to this problem. It is an approach that is grounded in democratic principles, demonstrates good will, seeks peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question, and delivers mutual benefit. The differences in social system are neither an obstacle to reunification nor a justification for secessionism. We firmly believe that our compatriots in Taiwan will develop a better understanding of the principle, and that the Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question will play its full role while compatriots on both sides work together towards peaceful reunification.

Peaceful reunification can only be achieved through consultation and discussion as equals. The long-standing political differences between the two sides are the fundamental obstacles to the steady improvement of cross-Straits relations, but we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next. We can phase in flexible forms of consultation and discussion. We are ready to engage with all parties, groups, or individuals in Taiwan in a broad exchange of views aimed at resolving the political differences between the two sides based on the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus. Representatives will be recommended by all political parties and all sectors of society on both sides, and they will engage in democratic consultations on peaceful development of cross-Straits relations, integrated development of the two sides, and the peaceful reunification of our country.

2. Promoting Peaceful Cross-Straits Relations and Integrated Development

Peaceful cross-Straits relations and integrated development pave the way for reunification and serve to benefit our people on both sides. Thus, both sides should work together towards this goal. We will extend integrated development, increase exchanges and cooperation, strengthen bonds, and expand common interests in the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations. In this way, we will all identify more closely with the Chinese culture and Chinese nation, and heighten the sense of our shared future. This lays solid foundations for peaceful reunification.

We will explore an innovative approach to integrated development and take the lead in setting up a pilot zone for integrated cross-Straits development in Fujian Province, advancing integration through better connectivity and more preferential policies, and based on mutual trust and understanding. Both sides should continue to promote connectivity in any area where it is beneficial, including trade and economic cooperation, infrastructure, energy and resources, and industrial standards. We should promote cooperation in culture, education, and health care, and the sharing of social security and public resources. We should support neighboring areas or areas with similar conditions on the two sides in providing equal, universal, and accessible public services. We should take active steps to institutionalize cross-Straits economic cooperation and create a common market for the two sides to strengthen the Chinese economy.

We will improve the systems and policies to guarantee the wellbeing of Taiwan compatriots and ensure that they are treated as equals on the mainland, and we will protect their legitimate rights and interests here in accordance with the law. We will support our fellow Chinese and enterprises from Taiwan in participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, major regional development strategies, and the strategy for coordinated regional development. We will help them integrate into the new development dynamic, participate in high-quality development, share in more development opportunities, and benefit from national socio-economic development.

We will expand cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation in various fields and overcome any obstacles and obstruction. We will encourage our people on both sides to pass on the best of traditional Chinese culture and ensure that it grows in new and creative ways. We will strengthen communication among the general public and the younger generations on both sides, and encourage more fellow Chinese in Taiwan – young people in particular – to pursue studies, start businesses, seek jobs, or live on the mainland. This will help people on both sides to expand mutual understanding, strengthen mutual trust, consolidate a shared sense of identity, and forge closer bonds of heart and mind.

3. Defeating Separatism and External Interference

Separatism will plunge Taiwan into the abyss and bring nothing but disaster to the island. To protect the interests of the Chinese nation as a whole, including our compatriots in Taiwan, we must resolutely oppose it and work for peaceful reunification. We are ready to create vast space for peaceful reunification; but we will leave no room for separatist activities in any form.

We Chinese will decide our own affairs. The Taiwan question is an internal affair that involves China’s core interests and the Chinese people’s national sentiments, and no external interference will be tolerated. Any attempt to use the Taiwan question as a pretext to interfere in China’s internal affairs or obstruct China’s reunification will meet with the resolute opposition of the Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan. No one should underestimate our resolve, will and ability to defend China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We will work with the greatest sincerity and exert our utmost efforts to achieve peaceful reunification. But we will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures. This is to guard against external interference and all separatist activities. In no way does it target our fellow Chinese in Taiwan. Use of force would be the last resort taken under compelling circumstances. We will only be forced to take drastic measures to respond to the provocation of separatist elements or external forces should they ever cross our red lines.

We will always be ready to respond with the use of force or other necessary means to interference by external forces or radical action by separatist elements. Our ultimate goal is to ensure the prospects of China’s peaceful reunification and advance this process.

Some forces in the US are making every effort to incite groups inside Taiwan to stir up trouble and use Taiwan as a pawn against China. This has jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits, obstructed the Chinese government’s efforts towards peaceful reunification, and undermined the healthy and steady development of China-US relations. Left unchecked, it will continue to escalate tension across the Straits, further disrupt China-US relations, and severely damage the interests of the US itself. The US should abide by the one-China principle, deal with Taiwan-related issues in a prudent and proper manner, stand by its previous commitments, and stop supporting Taiwan separatists.

4. Working with Our Fellow Chinese in Taiwan Towards National Reunification and Rejuvenation

National reunification is an essential step towards national rejuvenation. The future of Taiwan lies in China’s reunification, and the wellbeing of the people in Taiwan hinges on the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, an endeavor that bears on the future and destiny of the people on both sides. A united and prosperous China will be a blessing for all Chinese, while a weak and divided China will be a disaster. Only China’s rejuvenation and prosperity can bring lives of plenty and happiness to both sides. But it requires the joint efforts of both sides, as does the complete reunification of the country.

Separatist propaganda and the unresolved political dispute between the two sides have created misconceptions over cross-Straits relations, problems with national identity, and misgivings over national reunification among some fellow Chinese in Taiwan. Blood is thicker than water, and people on both sides of the Straits share the bond of kinship. We have great patience and tolerance and we will create conditions for closer exchanges and communication between the two sides, and to increase our compatriots‘ knowledge of the mainland and reduce these misconceptions and misgivings, in order to help them resist the manipulation of separatists.

We will join hands with our fellow Chinese in Taiwan to strive for national reunification and rejuvenation. We hope they will stand on the right side of history, be proud of their Chinese identity, and fully consider the position and role of Taiwan in China’s rejuvenation. We hope they will pursue the greater good of the nation, resolutely oppose separatism and any form of external interference, and make a positive contribution to the just cause of China’s peaceful reunification.

V. Bright Prospects for Peaceful Reunification

Once peaceful reunification is achieved under One Country, Two Systems, it will lay new foundations for China to make further progress and achieve national rejuvenation. At the same time, it will create huge opportunities for social and economic development in Taiwan and bring tangible benefits to the people of Taiwan.

1. Taiwan Will Have a Vast Space for Development

Taiwan boasts a high level of economic growth, industries with distinctive local features, and robust foreign trade. Its economy is highly complementary with that of the mainland. After reunification, the systems and mechanisms for cross-Straits economic cooperation will be further improved. Backed up by the vast mainland market, Taiwan’s economy will enjoy broader prospects, become more competitive, develop steadier and smoother industrial and supply chains, and display greater vitality in innovation-driven growth. Many problems that have long afflicted Taiwan’s economy and its people can be resolved through integrated cross-Straits development with all possible connectivity between the two sides. Taiwan’s fiscal revenues can be better employed to improve living standards, bringing real benefits to the people and resolving their difficulties.

Taiwan’s cultural creativity will also enjoy a great boost. Both sides of the Taiwan Straits share the culture and ethos of the Chinese nation. Nourished by the Chinese civilization, Taiwan’s regional culture will flourish and prosper.

2. The Rights and Interests of the People in Taiwan Will Be Fully Protected

Provided that China’s sovereignty, security and development interests are guaranteed, after reunification Taiwan will enjoy a high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region. Taiwan’s social system and its way of life will be fully respected, and the private property, religious beliefs, and lawful rights and interests of the people in Taiwan will be fully protected. All Taiwan compatriots who support reunification of the country and rejuvenation of the nation will be the masters of the region, contributing to and benefitting from China’s development. With a powerful motherland in support, the people of Taiwan will enjoy greater security and dignity and stand upright and rock-solid in the international community.

3. Both Sides of the Taiwan Straits Will Share the Triumph of National Rejuvenation

The people of Taiwan are brave, diligent and patriotic, and have made unremitting efforts to improve themselves. They revere their ancestry and love their homeland. Working together and applying their talents, people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits will create a promising future. After reunification, we Chinese will bridge gaps and differences caused by long-term separation, share a stronger sense of national identity, and stand together as one. After reunification, we can leverage complementary strengths in pursuit of mutual benefit and common development. After reunification, we can join hands to make the Chinese nation stronger and more prosperous, and stand taller among all the nations of the world.

The people separated by the Taiwan Straits share the same blood and a common destiny. After reunification, China will have greater international influence and appeal, and a stronger ability to shape international public opinion, and the Chinese people will enjoy greater self-esteem, self-confidence and national pride. In Taiwan and on the mainland the people will share the dignity and triumph of a united China and be proud of being Chinese. We will work together to refine and implement the Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question, to improve the institutional arrangements for implementing the One Country, Two Systems policy, and to ensure lasting peace and stability in Taiwan.

4. Peaceful Reunification of China Is Conducive to Peace and Development in the Asia-Pacific and the Wider World

Peaceful cross-Straits reunification is of benefit not only to the Chinese nation, but to all peoples and the international community as a whole. The reunification of China will not harm the legitimate interests of any other country, including any economic interests they might have in Taiwan. On the contrary, it will bring more development opportunities to all countries; it will create more positive momentum for prosperity and stability in the Asia-Pacific and the rest of the world; it will contribute more to building a global community of shared future, promoting world peace and development, and propelling human progress.

After reunification, foreign countries can continue to develop economic and cultural relations with Taiwan. With the approval of the central government of China, they may set up consulates or other official and quasi-official institutions in Taiwan, international organizations and agencies may establish offices, relevant international conventions can be applied, and relevant international conferences can be held there.

Conclusion

Over its 5,000-year history, China has created a splendid culture that has shone throughout the world from past times to present, and has made an enormous contribution to human society. After a century of suffering and hardship, the nation has overcome humiliation, emerged from backwardness, and embraced boundless development opportunities. Now, it is striding towards the goal of national rejuvenation.

Embarking on a new journey in a new era, the CPC and the Chinese government will continue to rally compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits, and lead the efforts to answer the call of the times, shoulder historic responsibilities, grasp our fate and our future in our own hands, and work hard to achieve national reunification and rejuvenation.

The journey ahead cannot be all smooth sailing. However, as long as we Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Straits devote our ingenuity and energy to the same goal, let there be no doubt – we will tolerate no foreign interference in Taiwan, we will thwart any attempt to divide our country, and we will combine as a mighty force for national reunification and rejuvenation. The historic goal of reuniting our motherland must be realized and will be realized.

Notes

[1] United Nations Juridical Yearbook 2010, p. 516.

[2] Between September 4 and 8, 1951, the United States gathered a number of countries in San Francisco for what they described as the San Francisco Peace Conference. Neither the PRC nor the Soviet Union received an invitation. The treaty signed at this meeting, commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco, included an article under which Japan renounced all rights, title and claim to Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. This treaty contravened the provisions of the Declaration by United Nations signed by 26 countries – including the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China – in 1942, the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, and the basic norms of international law. The PRC was excluded from its preparation, drafting and signing, and its rulings on the territory and sovereign rights of China – including the sovereignty over Taiwan – are therefore illegal and invalid. The Chinese government has always refused to recognize the Treaty of San Francisco, and has never from the outset deviated from this stance. Other countries, including the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam, have also refused to recognize the document’s authority.

[3] In his speech titled „Continue to Promote the Reunification of the Motherland“ on January 30, 1995, Jiang Zemin, then general secretary of the CPC Central Committee and president of China, made eight proposals for the development of cross-Straits relations and peaceful national reunification. He emphasized, „Adhering to the one-China principle is the basis and prerequisite for peaceful reunification“, and „in not promising to renounce the use of force, we are in no way targeting our Taiwan compatriots, but rather foreign forces conspiring to interfere in China’s peaceful reunification and bring about Taiwan independence“. (See Selected Works of Jiang Zemin, Vol. I, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 2009, pp. 407-412.)

[4] This figure does not include reinvestment by Taiwan investors through a third place.

[5] From the statistics of the April 2022 edition of the World Economic Outlook databases of the International Monetary Fund.

Source(s): Xinhua News Agency

618

Spokesperson says white paper on national reunification is necessary

China

15:41, 10-Aug-2022

China’s State Council releases white paper on Taiwan question

China

04:00, 10-Aug-2022

Charting the course for reunification in the new era

08:53, 11-Aug-2022

Das klassische China – Richter Di

Im Jahre -1 der CORONA-Pandemie, also 2018, begann ich einige Blogs zu klassischen chinesischen Themen zu veröffentlichen – ziemlich wahllos, für manchen Leser chaotisch, planlos – eben nicht ordentlich, wie man sich das so in deutschen Lesestuben vorstellt. Man schrieb mir böse und auch gutartige Zeilen, so dass ich nun nach Jahren der Abstinenz den Ordnungsfanatikern den Richter Di (judge Dee) systematisch vorstellen möchte. Wobei ich es mir die Bemerkung nicht verkneifen kann, dass meine eigene erste Lektüre des van Gulikschen Oeuvres mit dem 1981 zufällig in einem New Yorker Café-Antiquariat erstandenen „Necklace and Calabash“ war:

Dennoch ein lyrischer Einstieg – ich kann nicht anders! Die Anfänge – erste Schritte nach dem Abschluss des Studiums – beschreibt van Gulik im 1958 in London erschienenen „The Chinese Gold Murders“.

Ein trüber Frühlingsmorgen. Drei junge Männer sitzen in einer Schenke vor den Toren von Chang’an (das heutige Xi’an). Sie feiern Abschied: Einer der drei macht sich auf nach Nordosten, an die Küste. Er soll dort das Amt als Bezirksrichter übernehmen, statt, wie seine Freunde, eine Karriere am Hofe von Kaiser Gaozong anzustreben. „Ich habe es Euch doch schon gesagt, ich habe es satt Kriminalfälle nur auf dem Papier zu studieren“, begründet der angehende Bezirksrichter von Penglai seinen Entschluss. Und deshalb verlässt er im Frühjahr 663 die vertraute Umgebung, die Familie, die Freunde – begleitet nur von Wachtmeister Hong, der schon der Diener seines Vater war und darauf bestanden hat, seinem Schützling beizustehen.
Erst dreizehn Jahre später, im Jahr 676 wird Di Renjie wieder nach Chang’an zurückkehren – im Rang des Präsidenten des obersten Gerichtshofes. Doch bis dahin muss der viele Kriminalfälle in den verschiedensten Ecken des Reiches zu Iísen. Fast 20 Jahre begleitet der Leser den Helden des Romanzyklus von Robert van Gulik (1910 – 1967).

Richter Di ist ein Sherlock Holmes des alten China, der seine Fälle in erster Linie durch kühles Analysieren der Fakten löst. Bei handfesten Auseinandersetzungen verlässt er sich auf seine beiden Gehilfen, Qiao Tai und Ma Yong. Doch wenn es drauf ankommt, kann sich Di durchaus auch seiner Haut erwehren – mit den Fäusten und mit seinem berühmten Schwert „Regendrachen“. Das müssen auch Qiao Tai und Ma Yong erfahren, als die beiden „Brüder vom grünen Wald“ den Richter um seine Habe erleichtern wollen, sich dann aber geschlagen geben müssen.
Diesen Einstieg in die farbig gestaltete Karriere des jungen Richters finden wir in „The Chinese Maze Murders“,

dessen Entstehungsgeschichte Robert van Gulik im Vorwort in Kurzfassung wiedergiebt:

Nach der Niederlage entschließen sie sich, das Dasein als ehrliche Räuber gegen das von Gerichtsgehilfen einzutauschen. – Die Brüder vom grünen Wald genossen übrigens im alten China hohes Ansehen bei der einfachen Bevölkerung, die sie häufig vor der Willkür von Beamten und Reichen schützten. Viele Geschichten_rankten sich um diese Bruderschaften, etwa der Klassiker iš“Die Räuber von Lianq Shan Moor“. – Die Truppe komplettiert Tao Gan. Der ehemaliger Falschspieler und Spezialist für das Öffnen von Schlössern ohne Schlüssel und jedwede Art von geheimen Türen schließt sich Richter Di während der Ermittlungen um die Verschwörung in Hanyuan an. Di Renjie (630 – 700) ist eine historische Persönlichkeit aus der Tang-Dynastie (618 – 906). Er wurde dadurch bekannt, dass er sich nach dem Tod der Kaiserin Wu Jiao für die Wiedereinsetzung der Herrscher-Dynastie der Tang einsetzte. Während seine politische Laufbahn ganz gut dokumentiert ist, sind seine Kriminalfälle jedoch kaum überliefert.

Robert van Gulik, holländischer Diplomat und Sinologe, hatte 1949 ein klassisches Werk_über den Richter ins Englische übersetzt (deutsch: „Merkwürdige Kriminalfälle des Richters Di“), bevor er begann, eigene Richter Di-Krimis zu schreiben, die er zudem selbst illustriert hat (wenn auch im Stil der Ming-Zeit).

In seinen Werken adaptierte Gulik vielfach Kriminalfälle aus der klassischen chinesischen Literatur. Auch ein anderes Handlungselement übernahm er aus der Tradition: Wie die Protagonisten der klassischen chinesischen Krimis muss auch Richter Di in jedem Buch drei Fälle lösen, die jedoch oft miteinander in Zusammenhang stehen. Die Kurzgeschichten in den beiden Bänden „Richter Di bei der Arbeit“ und „Der Affe und der Tiger“ behandeln hingegen jeweils nur einen Fall. Übrigens, so verrät der holländische Krimiautor Janwillem van de Wettering, Guliks Freund und Biograph („Robert van Gulik. Ein Leben mit Richter Di“), pflegte Robert van Gulik nach einigen Genever zu gestehen: „Richter Di bin ich.“

Geisterspuk in Peng-Iai Zürich: Diogenes, 1988. 224 Seiten.

So hatte sich der junge Di sein erstes Amt als Richter wohl nicht vorgestellt: Nicht nur, dass er den Mord an seinem Amtsvorgänger in Penglai aufklären muss. Schon bald geschehen weitere Morde in dem Ort nahe der Grenze zu Korea. Auch einer seiner Schreiber ist seit einiger Zeit spurlos verschwunden, ebenso wie die Ehefrau eines der Honoratioren. Schon bald beschleicht den erfahrenen Krimileser der Verdacht, dass die Morde, das Verschwinden einiger Personen sowie die Angriffe auf den Richter und seine streitbaren Gefährten in Zusammenhang stehen – und er ist damit dem Richter zunächst einen Schritt voraus. Doch während der Leser noch grübelt und versucht, die einzelnen Verdachtsmomente zu einem Ganzen zusammenzusetzen, findet Di mit seinem genauen Beobachtungsvermögen und seinem scharfen analytischen Verstand die verblüffende Lösung des Falls, dessen Auswirkungen sogar in der Hauptstadt zu spüren sind.

Richter Di bei der Arbeit Zürich: Diogenes, 1990. 240 Seiten.

Dieser Band enthält acht Kurzgeschichten über kleinere Fälle, die Richter Di auf verschiedenen Stationen seiner Laufbahn gelöst hat. Im Gegensatz zu den Romanen, in denen Di meist mehrere Straftaten (oder vermeintlich mehrere, die sich am Ende als eine herausstellen) aufklärt, drehen sich die Kurzgeschichten immer nur um ein einziges Verbrechen.

Fünf glückbringende Wolken

Richter Di sitzt mit mehreren Geschäftsleuten zusammen als einer von ihnen die Nachricht erhält, seine Frau habe sich umgebracht. Di nimmt die Ermittlungen auf. Doch schon bald kommen ihm Zweifel: Ist der Tod von Frau He wirklich Selbstmord? Eine Weihrauchuhr bringt ihn auf die Lösung.

Tod in der Festung

In der Garnison nahe der Bezirkshauptstadt wird ein Offizier ermordet. Der Schuldige scheint schnell gefunden. Doch Richter Di kommt wegen einer fehlenden Akte einem Mordkomplott auf die Spur.

Er kam mit dem Regen

Rätsel um einen Toten im Sumpfland außerhalb der Stadt. Eine Zeugin sagt aus, der Tote sei ein Regengeist, der sie immer besucht habe, und schwarze Kobolde hätten ihn getötet. Oder hat der Mord doch ganz un-metaphysische Gründe?

Mord am Lotosteich

Richter Di ist ratlos: Ein alternder Poet wird in seinem Garten ermordet, doch niemand scheint ein Motiv für den Mord zu haben. Ein tierischer Zeuge bringt den Richter schließlich auf die Spur des Täters.

Zwei Bettler

Es ist der Tag des Laternenfestes, der letzte Tag der Neujahrsfeierlichkeiten. Richter Di hat die guten Wünsche der Honoratioren Puyangs empfangen und will sich gerade zum Festessen mit seiner Familie begeben, als Wachtmeister Hong ihm die Nachricht vom Tod eines Bettlers überbringt. Offensichtlich ein Unfall – der Tote war kopfüber in eine Grube gefallen. Doch kaum ist der Wachtmeister aus dem Raum, als der Geist des Toten durch Zimmer das Richters schwebt. Di beherzigt den Wink aus dem Jenseits und beginnt zu ermitteln. Noch vor dem Abendessen kann er den Mörder des Bettlers dingfest machen und das Rätsel des Geistes entschlüsseln.

Das falsche Schwert

Qiao Tai und Ma Yong, die Gehilfen von Richter Di, haben sich eben zum Essen niedergelassen, da passiert auf der Straße vor ihrem Lieblingsrestaurant ein Unfall: Der Sohn einer Gauklerfamilie stirbt während des Auftritts. Sein Vater hat ihn statt mit einem Trickschwert mit einer echten Waffe durchbohrt. Hat der Vater die beiden Waffen verwechselt? Oder war der Unfall in Wirklichkeit ein Mord?

Die kaiserlichen Särge

Ausnahmezustand in der Westprovinz: Die Tataren sammeln sich zu seinem Angriff. Der Kaiser hat seinen Oberbefehlshaber in den Westen geschickt, um die Verteidigung zu organisieren. Doch eine Verschwörung in den eigenen Reihen bedroht seine Bemühungen. Mit einem archimedischen Trick verhindert Di die Verschwörung, die den Sieg der Tataren herbeigeführt hätte, und rettet en passant einem zu Unrecht Verurteilten das Leben.

Blutiqer Neujahrsabend

Dis letzter Fall in Lanfang: Am letzten Abend des Jahres kommt ein Junge ins Gericht, um ein Verbrechen anzuzeigen. Seine Mutter ist verschwunden, und Zuhause ist eine riesige Blutlache auf dem Boden. Di kombiniert sofort: Hier ist ein Mord geschehen. Doch erstmals unterlaufen Di bei der Aufklärung eines Falls Fehler.

Der Wandschirm aus rotem Lack Zürich: Diogenes, 1990. 224 Seiten.

Statt nach einer Dienstreise einige Tage Urlaub in Weiping zu genießen, stürzt sich Richter Di in Ermittlungen – es gilt das Verschwinden der Ehefrau seines Amtskollegen Deng aufzuklären. Der bezichtigt sich selbst der Tat, doch Di mag ihm nicht so recht glauben. Deng bittet Di zudem um Hilfe bei der Klärung des Selbstmordes eines reichen Seidenhändlers. Die Ermittlungen bringen Di und seinen Gehilfen Qiao auf Abwege: Sie ermitteln under cover in der örtlichen organisierten Unterwelt.

Der See von Han-yuan Zürich: Diogenes, 1991. 272 Seiten.

Etwas stimmt nicht in Hanyuan. Das merkt Di Renjie schnell nach Antritt seines neuen Amtes als Bezirksrichter. Im See soll es spuken. Menschen, die in seinen Fluten ertrinken, tauchen nie wieder auf- wie der Sohn von Doktor Zhang, der sich in den See stürzt, als seine Braut in der Hochzeitsnacht Stirbt. Doch mehr noch als der Tod von Zhang und seiner Braut beschäftigt Di der Tod einer Tänzerin und die Entführung eines städtischen Würdenträgers. Hat dieser seine Entführung nur vorgetäuscht, um Richter Di in die Irre zu führen und zu verheimlichen, dass er die Tänzerin ermordet hat? Oder sammeln sich hier, nahe der Hauptstadt, wirklich die Drahtzieher einer landesweiten Verschwörung? In der deutschen Ausgabe fehlen leider die Guliks Illustrationen. Wer dennoch nicht auf die Bilder verzichten möchte, findet sie auf der Website von Christian Weinert.

Der Affe und der Tiger Zürich: Diogenes, 1988. 160 Seiten.

Der Morqen des Affen

Richter Di sitzt auf dem Balkon, als ein kleiner Affe in den Bäumen des Gerichtsgartens herum turnt und einen goldenen Ring fallen läßt. Di hebt das Schmuckstück auf, um in der Vormittagssitzung dem rechtmäßigen Eingetümer ausfindig zu machen – und sieht sich statt dessen mit dem Mord an einem Apotheker konfrontiert, den er zusammen mit Tao Gan aufklärt.

Die Nacht des Tigers

Die Reise in die Hauptstadt, wo er seinen neuen Posten am Obersten Gerichtshof antreten soll, steht unter keinem guten Stern: Erst wird der Richter von seiner Eskorte getrennt und findet sich in einem Landgut wieder, das, von der Außenwelt in einem Überschwemmungsgebiet abgeschnitten, von Banditen belagert wird. Und nun auch noch das: Als Richter Di und der Hausbesorger des Landgutes den Sargdeckel anheben, liegt im Sarg nicht, wie vermutet, die verstorbene Tochter des Gutsbesitzers Min, sondern eine vermisste Dienerin – ermordet. Di muss sich beeilen mit seinen Ermittlungen, denn die Banditen rüsten zum Angriff.

Nächtlicher Spuk im Mönchskloster Zürich: Diogenes, 1990. 192 Seiten.

Seltsames geht in dem Daoisten- Kloster vor, in dem Richter Di, seine Frauen und Tao Gan auf dem Rückweg von einem Aufenthalt in der Hauptstadt vor einem Sturm Schutz suchen. Mehrere junge Frauen, die sich dem Klosterleben widmen wollten, sind verschwunden. Di vermutet ein Verbrechen, doch er hat nur eine Nacht Zeit, um die Vorfälle aufzuklären. Bei seinen Ermittlungen gerät er selbst in Lebensgefahr – und am Ende droht ihm der Täter sogar zu entwischen.

Wunder in Pu-yang? (Englischer Titel: The Chinese Bell Murders, 1958)
Zürich: Diogenes, 1985. 288 Seiten.

Richter Di hat ein neues Amt in Puyang in der Provinz Jiangsu angetreten. Als erstes muss er einen Mordfall lösen, den ihm sein Vorgänger hinterlassen hat, der komplizierter ist, als es zunächst den Anschein hat. Sehr viel schwieriger hingegen erweisen sich die beiden anderen Fälle, mit denen sich der Richter in seinem neuen Bezirk konfrontiert sieht: Eine ältere Dame übergibt Di ein Konvolut mit Dokumenten, die eine lange Familienfehde mit einem der Honoratioren Puyangs, einem reichen Kaufmann belegen soll. Doch der Richter nimmt sich der Sache an. Schließlich geht er den seltsamen Vorgängen im Buddhistenkloster vor der Stadt auf den Grund. Geschehen hier wirklich wundertätige Dinge? Oder liegen den Wundern sehr menschliche, kriminelle Taten zugrunde? Richter Di gelingt es, den Fall zu lösen – und bekommt dafür Anerkennung von allerhöchster Stelle.

Tod im Roten Pavillon Zürich: Diogenes, 1986. 208 Seiten.

Di Renjie wird in die Hauptstadt beordert, um dort über die Vorgänge im buddhistischen Kloster von Puyang Bericht zu erstatten. Auf dem Rückweg müssen er und sein Gehilfe Ma Yong eine Zwischenstation auf der EParadiesinsel einlegen, einem bekannten Vergnügungsort im Nachbarbezirk von Puyang. Der dortige Amtsvorsteher bittet den Richter, den Selbstmord eines Akademikers aus der Hauptstadt zu untersuchen. Er soll aus aus verschmähter Liebe zu Herbstmond, der Schönheitskönigin der Insel, aus dem Leben geschieden sein. Doch dann wird auch Herbstmond tot aufgefunden. War wirklich Selbstmord die Todesursache? Richter Di ermittelt – und kommt dabei einem alten Verbrechen auf die Spur.

Die Perle des Kaisers Zürich: Diogenes, 1989. 192 Seiten.

Es verspricht ein spannendes Finale zu werden, beim Drachenbootrennen zum Laternenfest vor den Toren von Richter Dis Amtssitz in Puyang. Doch dann bricht der Trommler des führenden Bootes kurz vor der Ziellinie zusammen. Herzanfall als Folge von Alkoholgenuss und der Hitze, sagt ein herbeigeeilter Arzt. Der Amtsarzt hingegen stellt fest: Der Mann wurde vergiftet. War es ein Ritualmord zu Ehren der Flussgöttin, der früher an diesem Festtag stets ein junger Mann geopfert wurde? Doch der Mord an dem Trommler ist nur der Auftakt zu einer ganzen Mordserie. Viele Motive scheinen für die Taten in Frage zu kommen: Betrug, Eifersucht, Habgier und ein lange verloren geglaubtes Schmuckstück: die Perle des Kaisers. Oder ist der legendäre Staatsschatz nur ein Vorwand für ein anderes, schlimmeres Verbrechen? Ein fehlender Stein in seinem Lieblingsspiel bringt den Richter schließlich auf die richtige Spur.

Halskette und Kalebasse Zürich: Diogenes, 2004. 192 Seiten.

Eine gespenstische Szene: Auf dem Rückweg von der Präfektur nach Puyang verirrt sich Richter Di in einem dunklen Wald und begegnet- sich selbst. Der Doppelgänger entpuppt sich als weiser Gelehrter, der den Richter in die „Stadt am Fluss“ geleitet, eine kaiserliche Residenzstadt und Sommersitz der Lieblingstochter des Kaisers. Doch statt sich in der Stadt am Fluss beim Angeln erholen zu können, gerät Richter Di in einen Strudel von Ereignissen: Kaum in der Stadt angekommen, wird er Zeuge, wie ein Toter aus dem Fluss gezogen wird. Dann wird er entführt – und findet sich im kaiserlichen Palast wieder, wo ihn die Prinzessin mit einem sehr heiklen Auftrag betraut: Er soll eine verschwundene Halskette, ein Geschenk ihres Vaters, finden. Gerade mal zwei Tage bleiben Di, um das wertvolle Schmuckstück aufzuspüren. Und keiner seiner Assistenten steht dem Richter bei diesem vertrackten Fall zur Seite. Dafür erweist sich eine attraktive junge Dame als sehr hilfreich bei den Ermittlungen – und beim Angeln.

Poeten und Mörder Zürich: Diogenes, 1988. 208 Seiten.

Statt das Mittherbstfest mit seiner Familie bei Mondkuchen zuhause zu verbringen, muss Di Renjie im Nachbarbezirk Qinhua an einer Konferenz mit dem Präfekten teilnehmen. Sein Kollege Lo bemüht sich redlich, zum Trost ein Unterhaltungsprogramm für das Fest auf die Beine zu stellen. Einige der bekanntesten Dichter des Reiches sind geladen – und Di soll klären, ob die Dichterin Yu-lan wirklich ihre Magd getötet hat. Doch noch während die Vorbereitungen zum Fest im Gange sind, wird ein Student ermordet, und Lo bittet seinen Kollegen, ihm bei den Ermittlungen behilflich zu sein. Wonach suchte der junge Mann aus der Hauptstadt in Qinhua? Welche Rolle spielt sein Vermieter, ein angesehener Teehändler, in dem Fall? Hat einer von Los berühmten Gästen mit dem Mord zu tun? Die beiden Ermittler müssen ihr ganzes Können aufwenden, um zu beweisen, dass nicht einer der Fuchsgeister, vor denen die Einwohner der Stadt zittern, sondern ein Mensch aus Fleisch und Blut für die Tat verantwortlich ist.

Mord im Labyrinth Zürich: Diogenes, 2000. 320 Seiten.

Der Fall um das buddhistische Kloster in Puyang läßt Richter Di nicht los: Einflussreiche Kleriker in der Hauptstadt haben bereits nach zwei Jahren seine Ablösung als Bezirksrichter von Puyang erwirkt (üblich war eine Amtszeit von drei Jahren). Die nächste Station ist Lanfang, eine Stadt im wilden Westen des Reiches. Kaum im neuen Bezirk angekommen sieht sich der Richter einer Verschwörung gegenüber: Ein örtlicher Usurpator hat die Macht in der Stadt an sich gerissen. Bevor sie sich ihrer eigentlichen Arbeit widmen können, müssen Richter Di und seine Gehilfen zuerst die Ordnung in der Bezirkshauptstadt wieder herstellen – was sich als einfacher erweist, als es zunächst den Anschein hat. Doch zwei weitere Morde, einer davon an einem bekannten General im Ruhestand, strapazieren den Verstand von Richter Di so sehr, dass er fast seinen Beruf an den Nagel hängt.

Das Phantom im Tempel Zürich: Diogenes, 1989. 208 Seiten.

Alles beginnt mit einem Geburtstagsgeschenk für Dis erste Frau: In dem kleinen Ebenholzkästchen mit der Jade-Schnitzerei auf dem Deckel findet der Richter einen Zettel mit einem Notruf: Eine junge Frau schreibt, sie sei entführt worden, und bittet um Hilfe. Der Richter forscht nach und findet heraus, dass die junge Frau bereits vor einem halben Jahr verschwunden ist – kurz nachdem einem kaiserlichen Bote in Lanfang eine Ladung mit 50 Goldbarren entwendet wurde. Obwohl sich Diebstahl und Entführung in der Amtszeit seines Vorgängers ereigneten, will Richter Di die Frau befreien und das Gold finden. Die Spur führt zu einem Tempel außerhalb der Stadt, in dem ein Geist sein Unwesen treiben soll. Doch offensichtlich sind noch andere hinter dem wertvollen Diebesgut her. Denn schon bald finden die Ermittler eine Leiche und geraten zudem selbst in höchste Gefahr.

Nagelprobe in Pei-tscho Zürich: Diogenes, 1991. 240 Seiten.

Merkwürdiges geschieht in Beizhou: Erst verschwindet die Tochter eines örtlichen Honoratioren am hellichten Tag unter den Augen ihrer Anstandsdame. Dann wird die Frau eines Handwerkers enthauptet aufgefunden. Zumindest dieser Fall scheint einfach zu sein: Der Mann der Ermordeten verließ am Tage zuvor Hals über Kopf die Stadt. Aber hat er wirklich seine Frau getötet? Oder verbirgt sich hinter der kopflosen Leiche noch viel mehr? Während der Richter noch grübelt, stirbt ein bekannter Boxer im Badehaus durch Gift. Eine Spur, die der Sterbende noch legen kann, weist auf eine Frau – doch haben die Gehilfen des Richters nicht gesagt, dass der Boxer wie ein Mönch gelebt hat? Richter Dis schwierigster Fall – denn seine Verdächtige ist offensichtlich unschuldig, und eine falsche Anklage kann einen Beamten den Kopf kosten. Kurz bevor die Bürger von Beizhou ihn absetzen, kann er den Mord an dem Boxer aufklären. Doch die Lösung des Falles stellt den unbestechlichen Beamten vor eine schwere Entscheidung zwischen Pflichterfüllung und Gefühl. Dass Di am Ende zum Präsidenten an den Obersten Gerichtshof in der Hauptstadt berufen wird, tröstet ihn nur wenig über den Verlust eines seiner Mitarbeiter hinweg.

Mord nach Muster Zürich: Diogenes, 1989. 208 Seiten.

Ausnahmezustand in Chang’an: Die Pest wütet in der Hauptstadt. Der Kaiser und sein Hofstaat sind aufs Land geflohen, und Di soll als Notstandsgouverneur die Ordnung aufrecht erhalten. Eine Aufgabe, die die ganze Kraft des Richters und seiner Gehilfen erfordert: Die Versorgung der Bürger ist nur schwer aufrecht erhalten. In der Bevölkerung rumort es, aufrührerische Straßenkehrer, die eigentlich die Toten beseitigen sollen, bereiten einen Aufstand vor. Doch damit nicht genug, werden auch noch die Häupter von zwei der vornehmsten Familien ermordet. Der Richter zeigt sich jedoch den Anforderungen seines neuen Amtes gewachsen – und schließlich gibt es sogar ein Happy End für einen seiner Getreuen.

Mord in Kanton Zürich: Diogenes, 1988. 256 Seiten.

Der Richter, Qiao Tai und Tao Gan in geheimer Mission in Kanton. Zwei hohe Beamte aus der Hauptstadt sind verschwunden. Die Spur führt in den Süden des Reiches. Doch kaum nehmen sie ihre Ermittlungen auf, wird der erste Vermisste tot aufgefunden, bald darauf auch der zweite. Weshalb reisten die beiden gleich nach ihrer Rückkehr in die Hauptstadt wieder nach Kanton? Planten sie ein Komplott? Oder wollten sie eines verhindern und wurden von der Gegenseite auf dem Weg geräumt? Welche Rolle spielt Mansur, der undurchsichtige Anführer der arabischen Gemeinde, in dem Spiel? Die Angelegenheit wird immer undurchsichtiger, und den Ermittlern wird schnell klar, dass ihre Identität von zwei verfeindeten Parteien aufgedeckt worden ist. In seinem letzten Fall muss Richter Di nochmal sein ganzes kriminalistisches Können aufbieten, um den Mord an den beiden Beamten aufzuklären. Doch bevor der Richter in die ferne Hauptstadt zurückkehren kann, erfüllt sich eine alte Prophezeiung und zu seiner großen Bestürzung verliert er einen seiner langjährigen Weggefährten.

Insoweit die biographische und bibliographische Systematik – vermutlich habe ich nicht alle MURDER MYSTERIES erfasst, aber das Thema läuft uns nicht davon.

Zurück zu den Jahren vor CORONA: Ich wollte mich einstimmen mit leichter Lektüre auf die nächste China-Reise: Die schöne Li, das Perlenhemd, die törichte Buhle und natürlich zwei Bände I GING – das Buch der Wandlungen! Leicht und flüssig die Erzählungen, die Moral locker dahingesprochen wie bei den Fabeln La Fontaines: Ein Jüngling auf dem Wege zur kaiserlichen Beamtenprüfung in der Hauptstadt, also dem sicheren Sprungbrett zur Karriere, wird von einem Mädchen und ihrer erfahrenen Kupplerin um seine Reisekasse geprellt. Sie gefällt ihm, er verfällt ihr mit Kasse und allen Reiseplänen, Familienpflichten und Verantwortung gegenüber den alten Eltern. Dieses Thema mehrfach variiert, auch ein Greis mit einigem Reichtum verfällt den Reizen des Mädchens („Die Kleine Nai“). Die Schönen haben erregende Namen – die schöne Li, die schöne Tu, Duftwolke und Morgenröte. Selbst der reiche Buchhändler Tschang „in seiner imposanten Fülle“ im gelben Rock eines Mandarins lässt sich von den körperlichen Vorzügen der „Pfirsichblüte“ und „Nephritwolke“ vom rechten Weg, von der Erfüllung seiner Pflichten abbringen – hat aber Glück, wird begnadigt und landet nicht in der Gosse. Ich glaubte schon auf dem rechten literarischen Weg zu sein – doch dann wurde es philosophisch. Zum Nachtisch hatte ich „I ging“, das „Buch der Wandlungen“, zurechtgelegt.

(eigentlich Yijing 易经, Pinyin Yì jīng)

Aber – unter der Überschrift „Mong – die Jugendtorheit“ fand ich zu meinem Erstaunen fünf tausend Jahre alte Rezepte, wie diesen Verirrungen der Jünglinge begegnet werden sollte: ein Zeichen aus 13 Strichen, beginnend mit dem oberen Querstrich, angeschlossen die beiden oberen kleinen Längsstriche. Und nach dem mittleren horizontalen Teilungsstrich eine Gruppe verbundener Striche, die ein Tier darstellen könnte – ein Rückgrat, ein Schwanz und nach links vier Füße! Also ein Haustier, ein Hausschwein! Was hat das Hausschwein mit den Torheiten des Jünglings zu schaffen?

Die chinesische Schrift hat ihre Ordnungsprinzipien – keine Willkür in der Reihenfolge der Striche, keine Willkür in der Richtung, wie der Pinsel oder Kugelschreiber die Striche aufs Papier bringt. Also auch keine Willkür in der Deutung der vielfachen Verwendung des Tier-Zeichens mit seinen nur sieben Strichen:

Das moderne Wörterbuch erklärt die Silbe als meng, in unseren Breiten ausgesprochen MANG, im zeitgenössischen Chinesischen je nach Bedeutung in der ersten, zweiten oder dritten Aussprachegruppe. Das Hausschwein geht in seiner bildlichen Gestalt verloren, aber das Zeichen erhält vielfache Interpretationsvarianten! Zu unserer Überraschung gehen aber die Bedeutungen nicht allzusehr auseinander – und haben alle einen interessanten Bezug zu unserem Jüngling und seinen Irrungen – hier nur einige Beispiele: Genie, hintergehen, beschwindeln, betrügen, Kopf verlieren, benommen, bewusstlos, Elefant – in Zusammensetzungen: Betäubungsmittel, Schlaftrunk, verhüllen, verkleiden, Halbschlaf, Sand in die Augen streuen, dunstig, neblig, schummeln.

Nun stecke ich fest im Philosophischen, erinnere mich an meine Jugendlektüre – wie bei Balzac und Dumas der französische Jüngling aus der Provinz wie einst Bonaparte sein Glück in Paris macht – im Gegensatz zum törichten und sinnlich anfälligen Chinesen lässt er sich nicht ablenken auf dem Weg zu Ruhm, Reichtum und Ehre.

Im Gespräch mit einem chinesischen Freund aber kam gestern die Ernüchterung! Er gab zu bedenken, ob nicht die heutigen europäischen jungen Männer bei der Lektüre der Erzählungen von Balzac und Dumas die Rationalität und Strategie zur Maxime machten, aber das Risiko auf dem Wege nach oben, auf dem Wege in die weite Welt scheuten.

Er meinte, dass manche Berater chinesischer Politiker und Wirtschaftslenker von heute im stillen Kämmerlein munkeln, dass sich westliche Minister, Präsidenten, Konzernbosse immer noch vom Image jener Figuren aus den chinesischen Novellen und Kurzgeschichten leiten lassen, wenn sie zögerlich, halbherzig, zaudernd auf die verlockenden Angebote zur langfristigen Zusammenarbeit reagieren.

Vier Frauen durfte ein Bezirksrichter im kaiserlichen China haben, sie wohnten im geräumigen Gerichtsgebäude, hatten ihr eigenes abgetrenntes Privatquartier für sich, für die Kinder und Dienstboten. Robert van Gulik, der holländische Sinologe und Diplomat des 20. Jahrhunderts, hatte en passant in dem Band „The chinese gold murderers“ (deutsch: „Geisterspuk in Peng-lai“) beschrieben, wie sein berühmter Richter Di bei der Lösung eines Kriminalfalles zu einer zweiten Nebenfrau kam, obwohl er eigentlich mit der Hauptfrau und der ersten Nebenfrau sehr zufrieden war.

Das Zeichen für einen Rechtsfall: an

Es ist die erste Station der langen Karriere des Richters, die unruhige Stadt Peng-lai im Norden, an der Grenze zu den Herrschaftsgebieten der Tataren und der Koreaner. Und es ist der fünfte Band der Serie Robert van Guliks über den Richter Di.

Trotz seiner Jugend – er ist 33 Jahre alt – und dem Mangel an taktischen Erfahrungen im Umgang mit den lokalen Autoritäten gelingt es dem Richter in wenigen Tagen, die imperiale Macht zu stabilisieren und – gegründet auf den gesunden Menschenverstand – Vertrauen in seine Person und sein Team zu wecken. Nun muss das Verschwinden einer Person aufgeklärt werden, der frisch verheirateten Frau des Reeders Koo, also einer Person der Oberschicht. Das achte Kapitel des Bandes erzählt im Detail, wie der Reeder dem Gericht die mögliche Entführung oder den möglichen Mord an seiner Ehefrau, einer Tochter aus dem gutem Hause Tsao, mitteilt und damit dem Richter die Aufklärung zur Pflicht macht.

Die Hafenstadt Penglai (蓬莱市, pinyin: Pénglái shì) gibt es heute noch, sie liegt westlich des bekannteren Yantai an der Bohai-Bucht in der Provinz Shandong und ist Teil der Großgemeinde Yantai. Vermutlich geht auch heute wie vor Jahrhunderten ein Großteil des chinesischen Seehandels mit Firmen aus beiden koreanischen Staaten über Penglai und Yantai. Diese Umgebung – Seehandel, Schmuggel, Sprach- und Kulturmix, Bandenkriminalität und Prostitution – prägt die Tochter des Literaten und Landbesitzers Tsao – durch ihren Vater vermeintlich auf dem Landgut beschützt.

Die junge Frau aber entgeht nur Tage nach ihrer Hochzeit um wenige Zentimeter einem Mordanschlag, gerät auf der Flucht in die Fänge einer kriminellen Bande, die sie als Prostituierte missbraucht. Nach all diesen brutalen Erlebnissen wird sie von der verängstigten Bordellbesitzerin dem Gericht übergeben – damit wäre der Fall der vermissten Braut aufgeklärt. Aber – die Normen der „guten Gesellschaft“ verbieten die „Rückgabe“ an Ehemann oder Vater – der geschändeten jungen Frau, der „beschädigten Ware“ wird Selbstmord nahegelegt! Für den Weg in ein Kloster fühlt sie sich nicht reif genug – sie sieht keinen Ausweg. Richter Di, ein Vorläufer der aufgeklärten Juristen der Neuzeit, bietet ihr die aus seiner Sicht beste Alternative – eine Nebenfrau in seinem Haushalt, da sie nicht unansehnlich ist, mit seiner ersten, der Hauptfrau vermutlich gut zurechtkommt und ihm – wie gesagt – rechtmäßig vier Frauen zustehen. Robert van Gulik lässt Richter Di in einem anderen Band der Krimi-Serie („The Chinese Nail Murders“) ein happy-end für die junge Frau und auch den geplagten Richter formulieren: „Er reflektierte, dass er wirklich sehr viel Glück mit seinen Frauen hatte. Seine First Lady war eine sehr kultivierte Frau, die älteste Tochter seines besten Freundes. Das gute Verständnis zwischen ihnen war ihm immer eine große Hilfe in Zeiten der beruflichen Anspannung und ihre zwei Söhne waren eine ständige Quelle der Freude. Seine zweite Frau war nicht ganz so gebildet, aber sie sah gut aus, war mit einem gesunden Menschenverstand ausgestattet und führte den großen Haushalt sehr effizient. Die Tochter, die sie ihm geschenkt hatte, besaß denselben ausgeglichenen Charakter.
Seine dritte Frau hatte er aus Penglai mitgebracht, seinem ersten Posten.

Nach einigen schrecklichen Erfahrungen war sie von ihrer Familie verlassen worden und der Richter hatte sie als Gesellschafterin seiner First Lady in sein Haus genommen. Die First Lady war von ihr sehr angetan und hatte schon bald dem Richter nahegelegt, sie zu seiner Frau zu machen. Der hatte sich anfangs gesträubt, er wolle ihre Dankbarkeit nicht ausnutzen. Aber als sie ihm ihre Zuneigung zeigte, hatte er nachgegeben – und es nicht bereut. Sie war eine schöne, liebliche junge Frau und es war gut, dass sie nun zu viert Domino spielen konnten.“

Soviel zum Privatleben des Bezirksrichters Di im alten China!

Zwei Themen habe ich herausgesucht, um die Schreibweise des holländichen Diplomaten und Sinologen Robert van Gulik detailiert zu veranschaulichen: Thema I – Drei Mädchen und drei Wüstlinge, Thema II: Der törichte Jüngling und die Schöne.

CHINA in der Tang-Periode, also in den Jahren 630 bis 700 unserer Zeitrechnung. Eine scheinbar leicht aufzulösende Kriminalgeschichte – drei sehr junge Mädchen, davon ein Zwillingspaar, und drei ältere Wüstlinge. Zwei der drei Herren werden in schneller Folge ermordet, der ermittelnde Richter, gleichzeitig Kriminaldirektor der Stadt, erkennt, dass die Aufklärung der zusammenhängenden Fälle in der Vergangenheit der Mädchen und der drei Herren beginnen muss. Die einfache Rechnung – jeder Wüstling hatte eines der Mädchen gekauft und brutal misshandelt, dass sich nun rächt – geht nicht auf!
Obwohl ich gern anknüpfen würde an den vorigen BLOG-Geschichten vom schönen Mädchen und dem törichten Jüngling aus dem kaiserlichen China,

Robert van Gulik

verlangt die Redlichkeit vom Schreiber den Bruch und die Offenlegung der nunmehrigen Quelle: mehr als ein Dutzend Bände von Kriminalerzählungen, erschienen erstmals zwischen 1950 und 1968 in englisch, niederländisch und japanisch aus der Feder des niederländischen Diplomaten, Historikers, Sinologen, Musikers und Zeichners Robert van Gulik (1910 – 1967).

Alle Handlungsfäden der sehr unterschiedlichen Geschichten, angesiedelt in verschiedenen Regionen und Städten des Kaiserreiches, laufen zusammen in einer Person, des Richters Di (englisch Dee), seiner Familie und einer kleinen Gruppe von Mitarbeitern Es sind nun nicht mehr die Erzählstile der verschiedenen chinesischen Autoren, die wundersame Verknüpfung von Schicksalen junger Menschen in den Jahrhunderten des Reiches der Mitte, die uns beeindrucken, sondern hier versucht uns erfolgreich ein europäischer Autor, Kenner der Materie durch Spannung, Details aus der Tätigkeit von Polizei, Verwaltung, Militär, durch die Offenlegung psychologischer Strukturen, Denkweisen, Tiefen der Motivationen von Händlern, Beamten, Kurtisanen, Künstler, Studenten, Krimineller das innere Wesen Chinas nahezubringen. Man spürt in jeder Zeile, in jeder Zeichnung die Liebe des Autoren zu diesen Menschen, das Mitgefühl in einer Zeit der Kriege, Bürgerkriege, der Hungersnöte und des politischen Terrors.
Doch zurück zu jenen drei Mädchen und ihren Schicksalen – nachzulesen im Erzählband „The Willow Pattern“ (deutsch: „Mord nach Muster“), geschrieben 1964 und in Fortsetzungen zuerst in den Niederlanden veröffentlicht.

Die Fabel: ein schon nicht mehr sehr junger Sohn aus dem reichem Hause Mei der kaiserlichen Residenz kauft eine sehr junge Kurtisane aus einem Bordell, macht sie zu seiner Ehefrau, umgibt sie mit Luxus und verschleiert in der „guten Gesellschaft“ ihre Herkunft. Das Mädchen, die nunmehrige Ehefrau, leidet unter der Isolation und Monotonie ihres Daseins, brennt mit einem Mann aus einer anderen Familie (Hoo) der Oberschicht durch, wird im Geheimen zu einer Perle der sexuellen Orgien in der Oberschicht, an der auch ihr bisheriger Ehemann teilhat. Der neue Liebhaber jedoch sucht daneben erotische Abenteuer durch die Verführung junger Mädchen in Komplizenschaft mit einem ebenfalls reichen und amoralischen Nachbarn (Yee), dem die schönen Zwillinge aber zum tödlichen Verhängnis werden. Der reiche Ehemann Mei aber kann trotz der erotischen Zerstreuungen seine Eifersucht nicht beherrschen, überrascht seine Frau mit ihrem Liebhaber im eigenen Hause und bezahlt diese Entdeckung mit dem Leben.

Richter Di schafft es, die Fäden des scheinbar unlösbaren Falles aufzutroddeln und den dritten noch lebenden Wüstling aufs Schafott zu bringen – durch den Nachweis, dass einer der drei Wüstlinge die Mutter der beiden schönen Zwillinge auf dem Gewissen hat und Rache das Motiv der Tötung des dritten Mannes Yee war.
Anregung genug, bei van Gulik weiterzulesen – zum Beginn seiner Karriere als Richter in der Provinz und dem Gewinn einer neuen, zusätzlichen Nebenfrau!

Dieter Weigert, Berlin Prenzlauer Berg