|
1. The document you linked to is about domestic, not foreign policy. If that isn't clear from the nature of the document itself, see in particular these quotes: > The document is critical of "extremely malicious" ideals spreading in the Chinese society, such as ideas of (Western) constitutional democracy, civil society, universal values (freedom, democracy, and human rights), neo-liberalism, and freedom of the press (described as the "Western news values").[1][2][13] The document warns that such subjects undermine the Chinese Communist Party's control over Chinese society.[2] > According to news analysis by a reporter at The New York Times, the emphasis on political discipline is intended to forestall leftist, or Maoist, opposition to needed economic reforms avoiding the split which resulted in the Soviet Union during Gorbachev's reform efforts when media freedom resulted in publishing of a great deal of critical historical material and alienation of the mass of party workers.[7] The document shows that China's leaders were worried that the spread of western values within Chinese society could turn China into the next Soviet Union and were acting to prevent that from happening. I don't see how this could be read as proving any claim about their foreign policy aims, much less the extremely strong claim that China aims to usurp or replace the US. 2. I agree Taiwan "feels that way [i.e. like a sovereign country]": they have their own elections, passports, currency, … But I'm not seeing how the question about Taiwan bears on the claim (to the extent that clear empirical meaning can be attached to it) that China "explicitly set out" to usurp US's place. |