Western diplomats and foreign policy analysts frequently fall into the trap of treating the armed forces of Communist China as a standard national defense force. However, examining the explicit ideological declarations of active-duty military scholars and legislative delegates—such as Miao Runqi, Professor of Political Work Teaching and Research Section, Department of Political Work and Director of the Political Department at the PLA Air Force Command College, and Delegate to the National Soviet Assembly of Communist China—lays bare the reality: the Chinese Communist Party Armed Forces exist solely to enforce the rule of a single political party, explicitly rejecting the fundamental principles of national defense and constitutional government.
In an official address broadcast by China National Radio, Miao Runqi launched a fierce attack on the concepts of “military depoliticization” (军队非政治化), “military non-partisanship” (军队非党化), and “military nationalization” (军队国家化), labeling them as deceptive and “erroneous political views” concocted by “hostile forces” to undermine the regime.
1. Rejecting Military Neutrality and the Concept of National Defense
Miao Runqi explicitly argues that the idea of a military remaining politically neutral or serving the broader nation rather than a specific ruling party is “hypocritical and erroneous.”
In modern constitutional democracies, the military swears allegiance to the nation and its constitution, remaining politically neutral while serving whichever civilian government is elected by the public. Miao completely rejects this universal standard, asserting that in party politics, an army must always belong to a specific class and its party. By rejecting “military nationalization,” Miao acknowledges that the Chinese Communist Party Armed Forces do not belong to the nation or its citizens, but function as the private enforcement arm of the Chinese Communist Party.
2. Denying the State and Hijacking Popular Sovereignty
Miao labels “military nationalization” as a deceptive “variant” of depoliticization. He argues that an abstract “state” independent of party control does not exist, claiming that the state is merely a tool for the ruling class, represented exclusively by the party.
Under this ideological framework, the 1.4 billion citizens and the entire national territory are held hostage to party survival. Tax revenues, national resources, and conscripted youth are extracted not to defend the country against external aggression, but to guarantee the absolute power of the ruling party. Any attempt to align the military with the nation’s constitution rather than the party’s command is treated by delegates like Miao as an act of subversion.
3. Terror of the Soviet Collapse: The Fear of Unarmed Dictatorship
To justify absolute party control over the armed forces, Miao explicitly invokes the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union as a tragic warning. He laments that when the Soviet Communist Party surrendered its exclusive command over the military, “depoliticized” and “nationalized” Soviet troops refused to fire on citizens during the August Coup of 1991.
To the Chinese Communist Party and its military strategists, the lesson of 1991 is not the failure of a brutal economic and political system, but the fatal danger of losing control of the gun. Miao’s rhetoric demonstrates that the regime views a professional, nationalized military—one that refuses to turn its weapons on its own citizens—as an existential threat.
Strategic Takeaways for International Security
Miao Runqi’s public declarations reveal why the totalitarian communist system acts as a persistent threat to global peace and human freedom:
The Fallacy of a “National” Military: Foreign governments engaging with Beijing must recognize that they are not dealing with a national defense organization, but with a party militia whose primary mission (党指挥枪) is regime security.
Incompatibility with the Rule of Law: A regime that views military nationalization as a threat cannot abide by neutral legal frameworks, peaceful power transitions, or genuine constitutional limits.
Inherent Aggression: Because a party-owned military lacks genuine democratic legitimacy, it relies on manufactured external crises, ideological warfare, and internal coercion to justify its monopolized control over state violence.
Conclusion
When active-duty delegates like Professor Miao Runqi occupy seats in the National Soviet Assembly of Communist China to denounce military nationalization, they strip away the regime’s propaganda. They confirm that under communist rule, the army belongs to the Party, the law is an instrument of coercion, and the state itself is merely a vehicle for permanent authoritarian control.
No comments:
Post a Comment