Opinion - 4 reasons why Trump should reject China's invitation to its military parade
The event marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II under the banner of the 'Commemoration of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.'
However, behind this seemingly historical commemoration lies a calculated political agenda by Beijing: the distortion of history and an ambition to challenge the free world.
Every international visit by a U.S. president carries deep symbolic meaning. This event touches on the core of U.S.-China relations, America's position on historical truth and the international order the U.S. upholds.
I therefore earnestly urge President Trump to weigh the following four considerations before making any final decision should Beijing extend an official invitation.
First, this parade is not a symbol of peace, but a strategic challenge to U.S.-Led Global Order. The Chinese Communist Party is not holding this parade merely to commemorate a historic victory. It is a deliberate display of military strength, aimed at projecting the narrative of Communist Party superiority and signaling strategic rivalry with the U.S.
Since 2015, the party has increasingly normalized large-scale military parades. Domestically, they glorify one-party rule; internationally, they serve as a geopolitical tool to intimidate neighbors. By showcasing hypersonic missiles, fifth-generation fighter jets and long-range nuclear strike capabilities, these parades are clearly targeted at undermining the leadership of the U.S. and the free world.
The Xi regime's invitation to Trump is a calculated effort to present China as America's equal on the global stage — conveying a vision of 'co-governance of the world.' Should Trump attend, his presence may be exploited as an implicit endorsement of China's military rise, thereby weakening America's global standing and eroding the confidence of regional allies. As President Ronald Reagan said in his 1981 inaugural address, 'Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'
True strength lies not in weaponry, but in the spirit and conviction of free people. America's greatness stems from its values — not from military displays. Moreover, the essence of a military parade should be to honor those who gave their lives in service. Just last month, Trump presided over the 250th anniversary celebration of the U.S. Army in Washington, fulfilling that solemn duty with dignity and honor. This would not be like that.
Second, the Chinese communists have falsified history and stolen the Nationalist government's wartime legacy. There is no historical ambiguity regarding who bore the brunt of Japan's invasion during World War II. Following the outbreak of the Pacific War in 1941, China became the principal theater of war in Asia. The Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek's leadership conducted over 90 percent of the major battles and suffered the bulk of casualties.
In contrast, the Communist Party operated largely in guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines, focused more on consolidating its own strength than on resisting Japan strategically. It was the Nationalist government's sacrifices that initially earned the Republic of China a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. Even after its retreat to Taiwan in 1949 following the civil war, the U.N. continued to recognize the Republic of China for nearly two more decades — underscoring its historical legitimacy.
After consolidating power, the Chinese Communist Party eliminated many of the generals and troops who had genuinely resisted Japan. Now, Beijing stages military parades as if it had been the actual victor, mocking the true heroes of World War II and engaging in historical theft of valor. If Trump were to attend, it would risk signaling U.S. endorsement of this manipulated narrative, creating the impression that America has accepted the Chinese Communist Party's version of history.
Third, this parade dishonors fallen American soldiers from the Korean War. During World War II, the U.S. provided significant aid to China's anti-Japanese efforts. Yet less than five years later, the Chinese communists sent over 1 million troops across the Yalu River to directly engage U.S.-led United Nations forces in the Korean War.
The Chinese Communist Party's support for the Kim regime in North Korea was part of its strategy to establish regional dominance in East Asia. More than 36,000 American soldiers died in the Korean War, and over 100,000 were wounded. Even today, many American families continue to grieve the loss of loved ones.
The U.S. has always deeply honored its veterans and war dead — building monuments, museums and preserving their legacy in public memory. For a U.S. president to attend this parade would amount to public recognition of the very military that opened fire on American troops.
Trump understands the profound sacrifice of military service. He must also be made to understand that attending this parade could deeply wound the families and descendants of the fallen.
Finally, sharing a platform with Putin and Xi could send the wrong signal to the free world. Reports suggest that, because Xi attended Russia's 80th anniversary parade for the Great Patriotic War in Moscow this last May, Russian President Vladimir Putin will return the favor by attending China's parade in September. Both men are now seen across the free world as symbols of authoritarian expansionism.
Putin has invaded Ukraine and constantly threatens Europe. Xi, meanwhile, has escalated provocations in the South China Sea and around Taiwan, suppressed freedoms in Hong Kong and continues the persecution of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet. His regime that is both militaristic and repressive.
Even if Trump does not share their goals, his standing alongside these two dictators at a military parade would be heavily exploited by Chinese and Russian media to depict an image of unity among the three powers. Such an image could damage global perceptions of the U.S. and undermine America's moral standing as the beacon of freedom. It risks shaking allies' trust in the values the U.S. represents.
Trump is unquestionably one of the most influential American presidents and global leaders of our time. He has firmly defended American interests and values, taken strong action against the Iranian regime, and shown deep respect for America's military — earning widespread admiration at home and abroad.
Yes, diplomacy involves difficult trade-offs. But China's invitation is not a normal diplomatic event. It is a stage crafted by an authoritarian regime to whitewash history and showcase military might — not in the pursuit of peace, but to control the global narrative.
By declining to attend, President Trump would send a powerful signal: that America stands for historical truth, democratic values and the shared honor of defending freedom with its allies.
Moreover, the Chinese Communist Party is currently under significant pressure from U.S. tariffs and technological sanctions. Its economy is more dependent on global markets than ever. This is not the time to offer Beijing symbolic concessions or legitimacy.
A wiser, stronger strategy would be to reserve a presidential visit to China for when Beijing demonstrates genuine reform, keeps its promises, curbs its aggression and halts its theft of American technology and commerce. Only then should a U.S. president visit — with moral authority and strategic advantage.
Trump, for the honor of the United States and in the name of historical responsibility, should firmly and respectfully decline this invitation.
Vincent C. Chen is a senior executive in Taiwan's information and communications technology industry who serves as an advisory board member for Taiwan Thinktank and Foundation for Future Generations, Taiwan.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Japan's Ishiba Tries to Buy Time After Historic Election Setback
(Bloomberg) -- Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba sought to buy time in office following a second election setback in less than a year. But whether he stays days, weeks or even months, Sunday's vote made clear that his Liberal Democratic Party needs an overhaul to stay relevant. Why the Federal Reserve's Building Renovation Costs $2.5 Billion Milan Corruption Probe Casts Shadow Over Property Boom How San Jose's Mayor Is Working to Build an AI Capital Ishiba on Monday vowed to remain in his job even though his LDP-led coalition finished Sunday running a government without a majority in both chambers of parliament for the first time since the party's founding seven decades ago. While it has ruled Japan for most of that period, younger voters are increasingly turning toward populist smaller parties as rising prices fuel discontent. 'The LDP is a fatigued party and it has a brand problem,' said David Boling, director at the Eurasia Group covering Japan and Asia Trade, former negotiator at the USTR. 'To be blunt I think many Japanese and many Japanese voters see it as a party of old men who are out of touch.' Although the outcome on Sunday wasn't as bad as some of the early exit polls suggested, Ishiba still failed to clear the low bar he set of retaining a majority in the upper house. That leaves him at risk of becoming yet another footnote in the revolving door of Japanese prime ministers that only managed to last for a year or so. For now, Ishiba can lean into the fact that he needs to stay on to negotiate a trade deal with the US to help Japan avoid a steep increase in tariffs from Donald Trump's administration. He cited those talks and other pressing issues at his briefing on Monday. 'I plan to put all of my efforts into finding a solution to the urgent issues we face, including the US tariffs, inflation, natural disasters, and the most complex and severe security environment since the war,' Ishiba said. Still, it looks like his days are numbered — even if he has no obvious successor right now. 'We'll see in the next day or two if the dissenters are able to gather enough people to push him out, but this can't go on,' said Tobias Harris, founder of Japan Foresight, adding that none of the opposition parties want to join a coalition with him. 'It all looks like you've got a political crisis.' Harris cited four key points a replacement would need for success: bringing back right-wing voters, appealing to a younger demographic, matching Trump at the negotiation table and rebuilding a governing coalition that can win at the ballot box. Few of the familiar names in the LDP check all four boxes, he said. The timing of any move may depend on the success of the trade talks. Ishiba said he wanted to speak with Trump and obtain tangible results in the negotiations soon. His long-time right-hand man Ryosei Akazawa is already on his way to Washington for an eighth attempt to gain traction with his counterparts in the US. Among the key sticking points is the sectoral tariff on cars and auto parts that is sending profit hit shockwaves through Japan's auto sector. Within the LDP there is already unhappiness about Ishiba's relatively neutral response to Trump's abrupt letter stipulating higher across-the-board duties of 25% from the beginning of August. 'If Ishiba has no concrete results by then the voices calling for his resignation will likely get louder,' said Katsuyuki Yakushiji, professor emeritus at Toyo University and writer of multiple books on Japanese politics. He indicated that August would likely be the make-or-break month for the prime minister. The last three LDP prime ministers who lost an upper house majority stepped down within two months, including Shinzo Abe in 2007 during his first stint as premier. Abe's departure then, may provide a rough time frame for Ishiba now. Abe lost the majority in July, tried a cabinet reshuffle in August to regain momentum then stepped down in September. That month is a common post-summer timing for the LDP to appoint and try to rally around a new leader. At the time, Ishiba was one of the LDP's fiercest voices calling on Abe to resign unless he could justify a reason for staying on. Ishiba was reminded of this comment on Monday and said he clearly remembered asking Abe to explain himself to the public as well as the party. Fast forward 18 years and it's Ishiba taking the heat. The same names in the news, a generation later. The opposition gains in the election show voters are wanting something different. Ishiba is the leader the LDP chose, but he's not the choice of most members of the public. And they seek a sales tax cut to ease the pain of inflation they never asked for either. While the Constitutional Democratic Party came second as the biggest opposition party offering to address the tax issue, many younger voters opted for the Democratic Party for the People's and its pledge of more take-home pay for working age people. Harder conservatives drifted to Sanseito and its 'Japanese First' message, though support remained highly localized around areas with high concentrations of foreigners or as a kind of protest vote in the proportional representation segment of the election. Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is among the LDP members who might check a couple of the check boxes cited by Harris, while Sanae Takaichi, the policy hawk who lost out to Ishiba in last year's party shootout, might seem an obvious choice to win back right-wingers. But both would give the impression of looking at the rear-view mirror. Takaichi would likely more look like Abenomics II, than a move forward. Instead the party should look at younger guns such as conservative former Economic Security Minister Takayuki Kobayashi or Shinjiro Koizumi, the 'rice minister' whose quick action has helped cool prices of the nation's staple, according to Eurasia's Boling. In Koizumi's case, he also inherits some reformist cache from his father Junichiro, a party maverick who helped re-brand the party a quarter century ago, something the party needs to do again now. 'I think that brand needs to be a face of a younger LDP member. Is that Kobayashi? Is that Koizumi?' said Boling. 'I think it's probably more Koizumi than Kobayashi.' --With assistance from Yuko Takeo. (Adds analyst comments.) A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk Thailand's Changing Cannabis Rules Leave Farmers in a Tough Spot How Starbucks' CEO Plans to Tame the Rush-Hour Free-for-All What the Tough Job Market for New College Grads Says About the Economy ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
As Harvard and Trump head to court, the government piles on the pressure
Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served subpoenas to Harvard with sprawling demands that included payroll records, years of disciplinary files and any videos Harvard had of international students protesting on campus since 2020, according to two people familiar with the subpoenas, some of which were reviewed by The New York Times. The agency gave the university a breakneck one-week deadline for compliance. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also this month, the administration formally accused the school of civil rights violations, arguing that Harvard had failed to protect Jewish people on campus. The government also complained to the university's accreditor, which could eventually jeopardize Harvard students' access to federal financial aid. Advertisement Even so, both sides have continued discussions toward a resolution of the government investigations into the school and the sprawling legal fights, though they have made limited headway. This account is drawn from conversations with four people familiar with negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid endangering the talks, and from public statements and court records. Harvard leaders are well aware that a long fight with the government is perilous, threatening jobs, projects, reputations and academic independence. Some inside the university have feared that civil inquiries could become criminal matters. Advertisement Trump administration officials are looking to secure the most significant victory of their ongoing pressure campaign on academia. They are seeking to balance the long-term advantage of their powerful hold on the government with the short-term reality of working for a president who regularly favors dealmaking over systemic policy changes. Negotiators have been exchanging communications about what the administration wants from Harvard and what the university may be willing to accept. But the outcome of the hearing in Boston on Monday could shift how much leverage each side has in the talks. The case that will be before Judge Allison D. Burroughs began in April, after the Trump administration began to cut off billions of dollars in federal grants to Harvard. The university sued to restore the funding, contending, among other arguments, that the administration's tactics were violating the university's First Amendment rights. On Monday, both Harvard and the government will try to persuade Burroughs to rule in their favor outright. Her decision will be a milestone in a case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court on appeal and is already being regarded by West Wing officials and Harvard leaders as another bargaining chip. Before the lawsuit, the administration sent Harvard an extraordinary list of conditions, including new policies on hiring, admissions and faculty influence, compulsory reports to the government and audits of academic programs and departments. Since then, although officials acknowledged that sending the letter was a mistake, the government has barely budged from the demands. Advertisement And Trump aides have regarded the university's proposals as insufficient and anodyne. 'The Trump administration's proposition is simple and common-sense: Don't allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students,' said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson. 'We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision.' Harvard declined to comment. Drawing out the talks has some benefits, too. Polls have suggested many Americans have become more distrustful of higher education, and the government's campaign has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of elite schools, which Trump and his allies argue have been captive to liberal ideas. Trump administration officials have especially reveled in squeezing Harvard, which, like other major universities, is deeply reliant on federal research money. But even though polling also suggests that many Americans disapprove of the Trump White House's tactics toward colleges and universities, administration officials have given little indication they want to end a clash that some Republicans have long craved. University officials have been trying to balance a sense of urgency with the advantages Harvard has drawn from the fight, including a show of public support. Besides the possibility of reclaiming leverage in the talks, university officials feel that a favorable ruling from Burroughs would give them greater credibility and cover to sell students, faculty members, donors and others on a settlement. Some officials expect the university to insist that any accord grant a judge or another figure the authority to enforce the terms. Harvard, wary of the White House's whipsaw approach to dealmaking, is not believed to be interested in an informal arrangement. Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president who has sometimes sharply criticized the university, said that the absence of an agreement would leave Harvard vulnerable to new inquiries and a steady flow of court fights. He said he believed that the 'vast majority' of people with close ties to the school 'want to see all of this in the rearview mirror, if that's achievable.' Advertisement But Summers said that the conditions of any agreement will drive whether Harvard faces an internal rebellion. 'If they tell us we have to take certain books out of our library, we have to say no to that. If they tell us certain people can't be on our faculty, we have to say no to that,' said Summers, who added: 'If they tell us we've got to follow the law on reverse discrimination, we can say yes to that.' Harvard, he suggested, should also be open to changing some of its leadership. How hard of a bargain either side can drive is expected to become clearer Monday, when lawyers for the university and the government go before Burroughs for their first substantive oral arguments in Harvard's signature case against the administration. (Burroughs is also presiding over another case involving the government's quest to keep Harvard from enrolling international students. She has granted the university a series of interim victories in that matter.) Harvard is expected to argue that the Trump administration is trampling on constitutional protections, as it seeks greater influence over the university's operations. Harvard is also making an array of technical arguments, including that the government failed to follow long-established, written procedures for revoking funding. The administration has argued that it had followed certain regulations and that the case is essentially a contract dispute. In a court submission, the Justice Department said that federal research funds were 'not charitable gratuities.' Advertisement 'Rather, the federal government grants funds to universities through contracts that include explicit conditions,' the Justice Department wrote, adding: 'If they fail to meet these conditions, the grants are subject to cancellation.' The government's lawyers also contend that an 1887 law means that the dispute should be moved out of the Boston federal court entirely. Rather, they argue, the case should be heard in Washington by a specialized court that considers claims related to money. Harvard, which has said that Burroughs should keep the case because it involves constitutional questions that go beyond dollars and cents, suggested in court filings that the government was presiding over a jumbled assault. In one this month, the university told Burroughs that even after the government said it was terminating many grants to Harvard, the Defense Department paid the university hundreds of thousands of dollars for a grant that had supposedly ended. The government's attempted hardball tactics against Harvard have a fan in Trump. After all, the president himself mused in April: 'What if we never pay them?' Linda McMahon, the education secretary, told Trump during a Cabinet meeting July 8 that the administration was 'negotiating hard' with Harvard and Columbia University, another elite school that the White House has targeted. 'It's not wrapped up as fast as I wanted to, but we're getting there,' McMahon said as the cameras rolled. ICE's subpoenas arrived in Cambridge later that afternoon. Harvard made no secret of its disdain the next day, openly eschewing any talk of reconciliation and decrying the subpoenas as 'unwarranted.' 'The administration's ongoing retaliatory actions come as Harvard continues to defend itself and its students, faculty and staff against harmful government overreach,' the university said. Harvard, it added, was 'unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Second suspect sought in shooting of off-duty Border Patrol agent
Authorities searched Sunday for a second suspect in the shooting of an off-duty U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer in an apparent botched robbery on Saturday. New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said the 42-year-old officer was injured after he was approached by two men on a moped while sitting with a woman in a park under the George Washington Bridge just before midnight. When one man got off and approached the officer, the officer drew his service weapon and the two exchanged fire, officials said. The officer was shot in the face and in the arm. Police said the man attempting the robbery was injured before he drove away with the moped driver. The officer was not in uniform and there was no indication that he was targeted because of his employment, Tisch said. Police took a person of interest, 21-year-old Miguel Mora, into custody after he arrived at a Bronx hospital to be treated for wounds to the groin and leg. Mora is an undocumented immigrant with an extensive criminal history, Tisch said, adding that he entered the country illegally through Arizona in 2023 and was arrested twice in New York for domestic violence. He was also wanted in New York on accusations of robbery and felony assault, Tisch said. In Massachusetts, he was wanted in a case involving stolen weapons. President Trump seized on the incident as an example of what he views was an inadequate immigration policy under President Biden. 'Last night, in New York City, an incredible CBP Officer was shot in the face by an Illegal Alien Monster freed into the Country under Joe Biden. He was apprehended at the Border in April 2023 but, instead of being deported, was RELEASED,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Sunday afternoon. 'The CBP Officer bravely fought off his attacker, despite his wounds, demonstrating enormous Skill and Courage. The Democrats have flooded our Nation with Criminal Invaders, and now, they must all be thrown out or, in some cases, immediately prosecuted in that we cannot take a chance that they are able to come back. That's how evil and dangerous they are!'
