Is there a Western conspiracy against China?

My former employer The Global Times wants to know.

Is there a “plot” among the Western countries against China? In answer to this, few Chinese people would give a definitive answer. However, actions taken by the West have forced Chinese citizens to speculate about this matter.

Tomorrow will see the ceremony for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, which has been awarded to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who has devoted himself to subverting the government. Furthermore, at the invitation of the Nobel committee, several dissidents who are hostile toward the Chinese government, will converge in Oslo from around the world.

The modern world is much like a sports arena, in which China has passed the first round and qualified for the final. As a newcomer, China may not be well prepared, with sloppy technique, lacking audience support and seeming like a stranger to the surroundings. China has no other choice but to fight on in the competition, strictly following the rules set by others.

Suddenly, boos and catcalls resound from the stands, from the Westerners in the pricey seats. Worse than this, the referee blows the whistle against China, amid jeers from cheerleaders and media, relishing exposing China’s “scandals.” What can the Chinese team do?

…The West has shown great creativity in conspiring against China. With its ideology remaining dominant at present, the West has not ceased harassing China with all kinds of tricks like the Nobel Peace Prize.

It might be advisable for China not to buy the conspiracy theory, for communication would be much smoother if given the benefit of the doubt. However, China has to maintain its independence in thinking and ensure its discerning ability is not swayed by outside powers. As long as China can keep its independent judgment, its security will be ensured even when faced with a conspiracy.

Love the sports metaphor.

This is one kooky editorial. It’s loaded with gems that are typical of the angrier commenters here: the West is intentionally and strategically seeking to hobble China; the West is self-righteous and hypocritical and sanctimonious, going after a benevolent, peace-loving China while engulfing the world in chaos; China must gird its loins and fight against those powers that seek to harm it. These powers wish only bad for China. These powers hate China.

Despite a series of spats and misunderstandings between China and the West, globalization is forcing the country to adapt to co-existing with the “noble countries” in the West. China has to act discreetly, obeying rules set by the West and trying not to disturb their interests when seeking to safeguard its own welfare. Meanwhile, these “noble countries” launch broadsides at China’s actions, even where no wrongdoing exists.

Do they really not get that in the eyes of civilized nations the idea of jailing a dissident for 11 years for seeking democratic reforms is unpleasant? That the civilized nations react the same way to political repression in Myanmar and Zimbabwe and other nations?

One thing I liked about Global Times was their tendency to balance the more hysterical editorials and columns with more sensible voices. I remember editing a particularly vitriolic column by a former general that all but advocated war over the South China Sea. This was tempered by a far less psychotic response that noted the weakness of China’s navy and its utter unpreparedness for war. It urged a more moderate approach, like negotiating. I mention this because I’m hoping they’ll follow this pattern now. Editorials like this, with no balancing voice, will make China appear kukoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Via Shanghaiist, which has its own excellent response to the insanity.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 281 Comments

Did one of your more colourful commentators score a job at Global Times? It’s the same old “the west is out to get China” motif, with the Nobel Peace Prize playing the role of the back alley weapon of choice.

In fact, I’d say the NPP directed the spotlight on China. Rather than rising to the occasion, there’s no “i” in team, and winning one for the gipper, she instead tripped all over her own feet, fumbled in the red zone, and dribbled the rock off her gun-shot wounded toe. In other words, China choked in the clutch. Didn’t exactly come off as a money player. Probably won’t be a coveted fantasy pick.

December 10, 2010 @ 5:17 am | Comment

As we usually say, in politics, it is not reality, but perception that counts.

Now a Nobel prize is awarded to a person whose solution for China to be colonized for another 300 years. Soon you will have a image of Rabiye Qadir and Dalai celebrating for his award.

Well, you got the idea. This is the best materials for CCP’s propaganda. This is the best thing to discredit democracy movement in China.

The western society has forgotten that the democracy movement in eastern Europe was successful because it is aligned with national sentiment again USSR dominance. Nationalism/patriotism is very powerful driving force. In that sense, if the west wants to push for democracy in China, Liu is a lousy and foolish choice.

December 10, 2010 @ 6:27 am | Comment

I wonder why we have to take a posture for or against something, against China, against the West, why this drivel necessary?
I just returned from China and I love the place. Spending time with some Chinese people taught me to look at the social structure with more open eyes.
Firstly, with 1.7 billion people, China can not just jump into the kind of democracy the hard right West would like them to embrace. There are so many different areas with different social development levels that I imagine it will take 100 years for rural Chinese to have anywhere near the life style and amenities that Beijing or Shanghai residents have.
Secondly, China has, with the exception of a very brief period in the early 20th century, always been a country where the masses served the ideals or needs of the Feudal Lords, the Emperors, or the Communist Party. The people are not ready to think or fend for themselves. They live in an orderly manner; they follow the rules, for the most part.
But, it’s changing and I believe the Government will have no choice but to loosen the power for the collective masses and increase individual freedoms. If you are there, you can feel the change happening.
So, while the world’s governments will find fault with each other, let us please be tolerant of the things we really don’t understand and marvel at man’s evolution. The fact that we aren’t all evolving at the same rate is not relevant because, like it or not, we will all figure out the same solutions eventually.
Thanks for allowing me to respond on your website.

December 10, 2010 @ 6:56 am | Comment

@Richard – I’ve asked you this before, I know your answer, but I still have to ask: why in god’s name did you ever work for these people?

Sure, I worked for Foxconn, an organisation with a less than stellar reputation. I defend myself by saying that firstly, the scandals happened after I joined, secondly that I saw little evidence of the things which which Foxconn was accused of whilst there, and thirdly that, since almost everyone owns something made in the factory I worked in, very few people can claim to have had nothing to do with Foxconn. Perhaps from this point of view I can kinda-sorta understand working for GT, but not really.

@Steve – Here we go. Pitching for a job at Global Times are we? I’m afraid you may have missed the boat somewhat . . .

December 10, 2010 @ 7:46 am | Comment

[...] is just feeding the beast.  Every time The Global Times prints and editorial about “Western Conspiracies” or Jiang Yu breaks out her thesaurus it gives the international media another excuse to [...]

December 10, 2010 @ 8:41 am | Pingback

JV, I love China, too. I think the government there has done some amazing things, and I think most Chinese people are more than satisfied with their leaders. I never advocate ending the rule of the CCP and instituting Western-style democracy; it would be a catastrophe. Any shift to any form of democracy will have to be done gradually.

China wants to be a global player very badly. It wants to be seen as a superpower. And then it does what it knows will create a global outcry with acts of sheer repression. There are many examples of this. There are many examples of the US doing awful things, and you read about them constantly in all the newspapers, in Wikileak cables, in my blog, etc. The US is fair game, and so is China; both should be called to account. Let’s not put China in a cocoon and say it’s like a teenager who’s just flexing its muscles, and that we should just let it be. I praise China to the skies for its achievements. And when I see gross examples of repression and cruelty I blog about that, too. Especially when China brings the problem on itself. Its handling of Liu Xiaobo and the Nobel Prize was like a huge invitation, a big red flag waved at the world, “Criticize me!” Ham-fisted, obtuse and just plain stupid.

FOARP, I enjoyed working there and learning how a Chinese newspaper worked. And I loved my colleagues there. Sometimes I wish I could go back. Of course, it had its down sides, but it was something I wanted to experience and I don’t regret it.

December 10, 2010 @ 8:45 am | Comment

So tired of being asked to be “tolerant” of obviously unethical positions. Just because land that is now the PRC was ruled by emperors for does not mean it is “correct” for the CCP to continue locking people up for fear that their words might spark a color revolution. Europe was ruled by monarchs for 100s of year too, does that make monarchism an essential component of their culture that must be continued?

To me, the idea that authoritarianism is the “only” and “correct” way to govern in China because it is somehow “ingrained” in the culture is another subtle way of orientalizing China. Such a position willfully ignores its dynamism and diversity by imagining the culture and people as mindlessly stuck in some perpetual loop of history governed by ancient principles. This is simply not true.

December 10, 2010 @ 9:17 am | Comment

China is… Rocky Balboa?

December 10, 2010 @ 9:26 am | Comment

Very good post, and comments too. Global Times and other mindcontrolled brainwashed entities inside sub-rationalist China don’t GET IT because they are subrational people at the moment, seeing conspiracies in the oustide world, from the dear (and cute) Dolly Lama to the Taiwanese splittists (ballerinas I guess) and the West’s “conspiratorial” reaction to the good news that the Nobel people gave the Peace prize this year to Mr Liu. Look, the Chinese subrationalists are good people but they are sub-rational on all things government and mindcontrol related. They cannot think outside the parameters of their mindcontrol. That is how mindcontrol works. Same thing occurred in old USSR, they reacted the same subrational way to the West’s embrace of authentic Russian heroes and heroines…….when a Chinese Gorby, maybe Li Keqiang, 55, arises in rational China, 2025 or so, then all this will be like a bad dream. Until then, endure endure……subrationalists are oh so boring and passe. But hey, they run China now. And forever? I hope not. Time will tell.

December 10, 2010 @ 11:23 am | Comment

A good article on Liu’s “300 year colonization” by Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121000111_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010120906241

“Barry Sautman, a political scientist at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and a critic of Liu’s Nobel Prize, says that China’s case against Liu cannot be dismissed as mere propaganda. Liu, he said, “wants to see China completely Westernized in a way that most Chinese would not want.”

“Writing for the same magazine in 2006, Liu declined to retract his “300 years of colonialism” quip and described it as an “extreme expression” of a core conviction: “China’s modernization can only be achieved after a long period of Westernization.”

That is why selecting Liu for Nobel pease prize is really not a wise decision. Judge for yourself.

December 10, 2010 @ 2:51 pm | Comment

ESWN’s compilation of Liu’s writing

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/201010a.brief.htm#010

I wonder Norwegians have ever bothered to read his writing.

December 10, 2010 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

The main reason why developing countries such as China resent Western intereference is not so much the fine words on human rights and the principles of human rights, but the actual underlying motives of the West in pushing their so called ‘human rights’ agenda.

It’s simply an upgrade of the way the Bible was used in the past – the coloured man got Christianity, the white man gets the land. Nothing wrong with Christianity in itself, but it was used as a cover to advance imperialist interests.

Now if the West really was concerned about human rights, it would do everything possible to gain credibility with developing nations, to assure them that they really meant no harm.

The first thing to do of course would be to apologise unreservedly for the crimes of colonialism. European colonialism killed over 50 million Africans and Asians in the 20th Century alone (at a bare minimum), and many millions more of course before that. Westerners still cling to the same flags, symbols, under which these atrocities were carried out.

By any measure, European colonialism killed far more than the Nazis in Europe. In fact Nazi race theories had their antecedents in Western racial ‘science’ and the justification of extermination of native peoples for living space for white people.

What should happen of course is the West thoroughly goes through a period of pennance for the Opium war, King Leopold, the genocide of Phillipinos, the genocide of the Hereros …etc. All symbols associated with colonialism should be expunged from public life, the monarchies under which imperialist genocides carried out abolished, text books written which openly face up to the crimes of colonialism – in short a period similar to that which Germany was forced to go through – a thorough denazification.

And renditions of ‘rule britannia’ should invite the same opprobrium as the ‘horst wessel’.

Compensation should be paid out to countries which were victims of imperialist aggression (China should consider its legal options in demanding reparations from Britain for the Opium War).

Once the West has done all of the above, its message on ‘human rights’, if they are still so shameless as to want to peddle this stuff after all they have done, will resonate far better than it currently does and cause far less offence.

At the moment the West lecturing the developing world on ‘human rights’, is as absurd as say a non-denazified Germany lecturing the United States on its incarceration rate.

December 10, 2010 @ 3:37 pm | Comment

“they are subrational people at the moment, seeing conspiracies in the oustide world, from the dear (and cute) Dolly Lama to the Taiwanese splittists (ballerinas I guess) and the West’s “conspiratorial” reaction to the good news that the Nobel people gave the Peace prize this year to Mr Liu.”

What a load of orientalist nonsense. It is so easy to simply smear coloured people as subrational without addressing the actual issues at hand.

The Dalai Lama was bankrolled by the CIA for decades to carry out subversive activities against China. China has every right to feel aggrieved over this and to distrust the real agenda of the West, especially the US in respect of Tibet.

Of course awarding the NPP to Liu is a gross insult, not just to the Chinese government, but to the Chinese people as a whole. As Steve has pointed out above, Liu has made a whole lot of pro-colonialist statements, the equivalent of which would simply be unacceptable to any people – Chinese or American or French or British or whatever.

If China awarded a peace prize to some convicted US felon, I’m sure Americans would be outraged over this. The Chinese have every right to be outraged over the award of the NPP to Liu Xiaobo.

December 10, 2010 @ 3:47 pm | Comment

To Steve,
that stuff is old news. Got anything better? Have you bothered to read his writing? Have you bothered to read Charter 08 (which is what spurred his Nobel win)?

The points you raise have been debunked months ago. You really have to get with the times.

December 10, 2010 @ 4:04 pm | Comment

@SKC – Yeah, but these cherry-picked quotes are so much more important than Li Xiaobo’s actual work. Plus, who cares if the things that Liu was actually imprisoned for merely advocating things which, at one time or another, the CCP has also been in favour of. Similarly, who cares if you can do exactly the same thing with Mao and Deng, watch:

“People who try to commit suicide — don’t attempt to save them! . . . China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people.”

- Mao Zedong, on hearing that people were being driven to suicide during the Cultural Revolution.

“Don’t say it is wrong of them to beat up bad persons: if in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it.”

- Mao Zedong, on hearing that people were being beaten to death by the Red Guards.

“ (You) don’t have to say sorry, your country had made a great contribution to China. Why? Because if Imperial Japan did not start the war, how could we communists become mighty and powerful? How could we overthrow KMT? How could we defeat Chiang Kai-shek? No, we are grateful and do not want your war reparations!”

- Mao Zedong, on receiving an apology for Japan’s occupation of China.

“If one day China should … turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.”

- Deng Xiaoping.

“Well, that’s the way it’s presented in our propaganda. We needed that to express the fighting spirit of our forces. In fact, it was a very easy military operation”

- Deng Xiaoping, talking about the Long March.

Judging only by these quotes, Mao was a blood thirsty tyrant who supported the invasion of China by Japan, and Deng opposed China becoming a superpower and thought that the Long March was a cakewalk. It must be true, because my cherry-picked quotes show it to be true!

@Richard – You know, in more than one job interview I’ve had since leaving Foxconn, I’ve been asked why I would work for a company with such a bad reputation for mistreating its workers. It’s always a tough question to answer, and my answer is pretty much as set out above – and all I did at Foxconn was work in their IP department, I wasn’t drafting PR material for them or involved in any of their legal attacks on reporters or anything like that. Do you get asked these kind of questions? Do you find them hard to answer?

At any rate, whatever the original intentions behind it, English-language Global Times has become a propaganda outlet spewing ridiculous, servile nonsense like this:

“Oslo puts on a farce against China

* Source: Global Times
* [08:11 December 10 2010]
* Comments

A farce that puts China on trial is underway in Oslo. This is not the first time that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has judged a country’s politics by its own ideological standards. Even more bizarrely, a Chinese criminal named Liu Xiaobo is being honored today at a grand award ceremony in Europe.

It’s unimaginable that such a farce, the like of which is more commonly seen in cults, is being staged on the civilized continent of Europe. Tonight’s political show is not an easy task for the Norwegians. They have to ignore the signs of China’s drastic changes and social progress, in a bid to convince themselves that China’s “darkness” is real.

In a world characterized by competition, estrangement and an uncertain future, perhaps the Nobel Committee will always be able to find a way to attack China. The real conditions faced by China are too complicated, and probably only history can pass the proper judgment. However, the committee now uses just an empty chair reserved for Liu to carry out its judgment on China. The China they depict is inevitably a stereotyped, false one.

….

Today’s award ceremony is not an end, but rather a real beginning of another trial: A trial by history against the Nobel Committee.

Anyone working for Global Times now, especially if they come from a democratic country, should take a good long look at themselves and what they have become: facilitators for dictatorial propaganda.

December 10, 2010 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

Liu, he said, “wants to see China completely Westernized in a way that most Chinese would not want.”

“Writing for the same magazine in 2006, Liu declined to retract his “300 years of colonialism” quip and described it as an “extreme expression” of a core conviction: “China’s modernization can only be achieved after a long period of Westernization.”

A speech by Dr Sun Yat-sen in 1923.

Wearing the traditional Chinese long gown and short coat, Sun spoke in English to the assembly. He said that he felt as though he had returned home because Hong Kong and the University was his intellectual birth place. He devoted the best part of his speech to answer the question he was oftened asked: “Where and how did I get my revolutionary and modern ideas?” To the applause of his audience he said: “I got those ideas in Hong Kong”. He went on to explain: “More than thirty years ago, when I was studying in Hong Kong, I spent a great deal of my spare time walking the streets of the Colony. Hong Kong impressed me a great deal because it was orderly calm and because there was artistic work being done without interruption. I went home to my home in Xiangshan twice a year and could immediately notice the great difference. There was disorder instead of order, insecurity instead of security. Then I compared Xiangshan with Hong Kong. Although they are only fifty miles apart, the differences impressed me so much that I began to wonder why it was that foreigners have done such marvellous things with this barren rock in only seventy or eighty years, whilst China with several thousand years of civilisation has not even one place like Hong Kong”. He thought that it was because there was so much corruption in the Chinese government. Then he said, “I was told by elders that the good governments in England and Europe were not at first natural to those places, but that men had brought about a change in themselves. In England years ago there was just the same corruption, just the same forgeries in courts and the same cruelty, but that the Englishmen loved liberty and the Englishmen had said: ‘We shall no longer stand these things, we shall change them’. Then I got the idea in my head: ‘Why can we not change it in China?’.”

And you wonder why the Chinese still worshiped Dr Sun as the father of modern China since Dr Sun also “wants to see China completely Westernized in a way that most Chinese would not want.” LOL.

December 10, 2010 @ 7:51 pm | Comment

I never read the Global Times from beginning to end, but the editorials I see make China hard to distinguish from North Korea.

Why do they put their fascist internal monologue out there in English for the world to see?

December 10, 2010 @ 9:44 pm | Comment

“The points you raise have been debunked months ago. You really have to get with the times.”

S.K. Cheung, I have been pretty busy recently and have not followed this debate that much. According to the article in today’s Washington Post, as of 2006, Liu does not retract his statement. Other than that, I did not find out much defense for Liu’s statement.

Anyway, it is time to move on. We can let next generation Chinese and history to decide for themselves whether Liu is a patriot.

December 11, 2010 @ 1:28 am | Comment

“Other than that, I did not find out much defense for Liu’s statement.”

You mean “other than the points against Liu, I have not bothered to read anything”. The simple facts are:

1) Liu’s original statement about wanting China to be ‘colonised’ was made flippantly 22 years ago. Most of his friends say he was joking – there is no evidence to show that this formed part of Charter 08 or was even an influence on it.

2) Liu’s 2006 statement distances himself from these statements, instead saying that he wanted China to ‘westernise’ (whatever this means).

3) As much as many people may not like the idea of China ‘westernising’ (nce, again, I have no real idea what this means – if it means everyone in China wearing western clothes etc., then it’s already happened), it is hardly a criminal thought. The party which currently rules China spent years saying that China should ‘Study the USSR’ and that ‘The Soviet Union’s today is our tomorrow’ – clearly at the time they thought that China should be quickly Sovietised. The same party set out a few years later to destroy Chinese traditional culture forever in an orgy of violence – something that Liu Xiaobo has not proposed at all. Yet, in the CCP’s opinion, this does not disqualify them, many of whom in their youth were Red Guards, from power.

4) Even if you disagree with this single opinion of Liu’s, something which forms only one single facet of his opinion, Liu’s main work, the work for which he went to jail, the work for which he received the award – Charter 08 – contained no evidence of seeking to ‘westernise’ China. Every single proposal in Charter 08 was something that the CCP had, at one point or another, committed itself to.

5) As for the accusations that Liu was a ‘spy’ or somesuch, go and read the verdict in Liu’s case. No accusations of spying, espionage, or collaborating with foreign organisations or individuals, all of which are separate crimes to that of subversion, were brought against Liu. His only crime, according to the record of the court, was publishing articles critical of the Chinese government online, thus ‘subverting’ the power of the Chinese government.

So, you can either go and join the people over on Hidden Harmonies complaining about how the film 127 Hours denigrates China (No, really) or you can at least recognise that there is more to Liu than two statements made twenty years apart.

December 11, 2010 @ 2:29 am | Comment

To Mark,
the CCP Chinese “justice” system being what it is, being a Chinese “felon” doesn’t have the same connotation as being a felon in a country with the rule of law and a habit of practising same. Especially when a Chinese felon is supposedly guilty of a political crime. If the CCP actually had the stones to let Chinese people judge for themselves the merits of Liu’s ideas, that would be fantastic indeed. Sadly, the CCP is not in possession of said stones. Self-preservation, as they say, is a strong motivator indeed.

As for undoing history, nice romantic concept in theory. I would say that’s unlikely to happen. If that makes a call for human rights less palatable to folks like you, so be it. Ironically, you’re probably writing from a jurisdiction where you enjoy access to such basic rights, so you’d hardly be the target demographic anyhow.

To FOARP and SP:
great quotes. I guess the cherry-pickers missed some cherries. Not the first time…and won’t be the last.

To Steve:
indeed, Chinese people should ultimately decide upon Liu’s significance in the annals of history. If they get to make that decision by the next generation, that would certainly be a wonderful thing. Ironically, and apparently, you have more faith in the CCP than I.

December 11, 2010 @ 2:35 am | Comment

oops…than I have.

December 11, 2010 @ 2:38 am | Comment

To FOARP:
are you serious? I knew the folks at HH are “different”, but they got “anti-China” out of 127 Hours? (btw, great film; I hope James Franco gets an Oscar nomination- anyone who can carry a movie playing off of a boulder and a camcorder is doing some nice acting work). Almost makes me want to go to HH just to gawk…well, not really.

As for Steve’s remarks, as I said, been there/done that. But he should thank you for bringing him up to speed.

December 11, 2010 @ 2:53 am | Comment

Mao Zedong’s comment on the Japanese was simply a comment on the contingent way in which history plays out. That should be obvious. In fact he made an analogous comment to Edgar Snow in 1970 on the US bombing of Cambodia – to paraphrase, the more the US bombs the more Cambodians will be driven to the communist cause – so the bombings can be seen as a good thing.

Sun Yatsen’s comments were simply musings on why China had fallen behind the West. But this cannot be seem to be a statement in support of imperialism in anyway whatsoever. Most Chinese were aware China had to change. But this of course did not mean they were pro-imperialist. Quite the contrary. Foreign ideas had to be adopted to drive out the foreign imperialists. The contempt that Western powers had for the China eventually drove the Chinese to the left, to support the foreign, but anti-imperialist ideology of communism.

Liu’s comments however are of an altogether different nature. He expresses a pining for the return of the Western imperialists, and unlike Sun Yatsen who clearly states that it is the Chinese themselves who should reform, Liu Xiaobo, especially in light of his later effusive endorsements of US imperialism and adventurism around the globe, leaves little doubt in my mind he would not only welcome imperialist aggression against China, but would if given half a chance actively work to bring this about. Hence his rightful imprisonment.

Note that Liu has never retracted his comment of 1988.

Also from Liu:

“The US has not been without its flaws throughout history. But at least it is a free nation with the greatest ideals and sense of mission. The US…led the fight against communist totalitarianism in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and in the end won the 50-year cold war between freedom and totalitarianism. In the Mideast, the US… has consistently protected Israel, surrounded as it is by Arab nations. Without US protection, the Jewish people, who had long suffered persecution and endured genocide during WWII, would probably have been destroyed by the hate of the Muslim world. The hatred and terrorist attacks on the US by the Muslim world is clearly related to long-standing US support of Israel…

“In response to existential threats to civilisation such as terrorism, the US should not hesitate to use force. Only resolute determination will prevent another 9/11, reduce international terrorism, and reduce the threat of WMDs [weapons of mass destruction]. This choice [first strike] is less costly than a policy of appeasement, or waiting for another attack. This is not only in the national interest of the US, clearly linked to the security and survival of freedom in the United States, but is also in the long-term interests of humanity as a whole, because it is related to the survival of world peace and the development of global democracy…”
http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/nov2010/nobel.html

So Liu not only supports US imperialism everywhere, and even Zionism, but supports the US against his own country, China, over the Korean War. This of course makes him a traitor.

December 11, 2010 @ 3:33 am | Comment

“Hence his rightful imprisonment.”
“This of course makes him a traitor.”
—well, that’s interesting, because these things do not factor into his actual conviction. So your personal interpretations differ even from the liberal interpretations of the CCP Chinese “justice” system. And we all know that system is capable of some wide berth when it comes to such interpretations. Seems you’re ahead of the curve compared to the CCP justice system. I’ll leave you to decide if that is a good thing or not.

December 11, 2010 @ 3:52 am | Comment

“the CCP Chinese “justice” system being what it is, being a Chinese “felon” doesn’t have the same connotation as being a felon in a country with the rule of law and a habit of practising same.”

China has her way of doing things, other countries have theirs. It is as simple as that. And by the way, have you heard of Guantanamo S.K Cheung?

China is not perfect, but neither is the US.

How would Americans feel if China demanded that they reduce their incarceration rate (the highest in the world and about six times higher than China’s), or China demanded that the US treat its own minorities better?

Any objective analysis will show the US and the UK are guilty of far greater abuses of human rights than China – both currently and historically. So these Westerners should stop their barkings.

Of course one way the West could promote their notion of human rights, while at the same time avoiding the charge of hypocrisy, would be to take up my suggestion detailed in post no. 12 above.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:00 am | Comment

well, that’s interesting, because these things do not factor into his actual conviction

Perhaps they did. A criminals past convictions are taken into account during sentencing, even in the West.

I’m sure Liu’s well-known sentiments, and his support for imperialism would have played a part in his sentencing. Even if this is not the way things are done in the West (in fact a defendants attitude is taken into account), that is not China’s business.

The Chinese have their way of doing things, the West their way of doing things. China does not order the West about on the West’s internal affairs. So the West should not order China about on how China is run.

To think that China should be run in the same way as Western countries like the UK and US, who became rich off the spoils of imperialist conquest, who sucked China dry for over a century, and who have had well over a century of industrial development, is ridiculous.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:08 am | Comment

China has her way of doing things, other countries have theirs. It is as simple as that.

Afraid not.

Right now in Uganda legislators are pushing a law that would make homosexuality punishable by death. Many people all over the world are shouting out about it, as they should.

Right now, the US is sneakily trying to indict Wikileaks’ Assange under the old Espionage Act, a catastrophic and immoral decision, and people around the world are shouting out.

I can go on and on and on and on.

China can’t place itself in a cocoon in which it is protected from outside criticism, just as the US cannot. China wants to play on the global stage, but if it can’t stand the heat it should get out of the kitchen. This is part of being a member of the global community.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:14 am | Comment

“1) Liu’s original statement about wanting China to be ‘colonised’ was made flippantly 22 years ago. Most of his friends say he was joking – there is no evidence to show that this formed part of Charter 08 or was even an influence on it.”

All the articles by Liu Xiaobo can be found here. http://boxun.com/hero/liuxb/

I hope you can read Chinese. I do not think it is worth my time to translate them.

I have read a few of them. My sense is that he is one fengqing on the other end of political spectrum. His position on Iraq war is the version of Dick Cheney.I will not waste my time here. Check out by yourself.

From Liu’s perspective, if US can invade China and overthrow CCP, he will most likely endorse it, because justice will overcome evil and China will be on path for freedom. This is quite consistent with his theory of “300 year colonization”.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:17 am | Comment

“China can’t place itself in a cocoon in which it is protected from outside criticism, just as the US cannot. China wants to play on the global stage, but if it can’t stand the heat it should get out of the kitchen. This is part of being a member of the global community.”

I agree with you on this. I am kind of puzzled by the aggressiveness of CCP’s reaction, from sending Liu to jail to taking a strong position on the award.

Here is CCP’s conspiracy. CCP probably realized that it is almost inevitable that a Novel prize will be awarded to some Chinese dissidents. If you cannot prevent that from happening, let them give the award to someone that is an easy target. Then Liu is chosen.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:40 am | Comment

To Mark #25,
as a matter of fact, I have heard of Gitmo. And US treatment of detainees in Gitmo is wrong. I’ve never said the US is perfect. But CCP China certainly isn’t. Besides, I’m not here to compare. CCP China indeed has her way of doing things, and in some instances her way is deplorable. Notice that no comparison is necessary in making that statement.

Undoubtedly, there are many areas in which the US can improve. However, that does not change in any way the large numbers of areas in which CCP China can improve. You’re employing the usual FQ method: the US isn’t perfect so she’s in no position to criticize. Well, in fact, the US is in a position to criticize CCP CHina, while hopefully giving a thought to the legitimate criticisms that other nations have of her. The FQ seem allergic to criticism of China- and can’t even differentiate when such criticism is legitimate.

If China has made human rights abuses, which even you seem to indirectly acknowledge, then she should do something about it. Simple as that.

#26:
“A criminals past convictions are taken into account during sentencing, even in the West.”
—prior convictions are excluded in judgments of guilt or innocence since they are prejudicial, but are considered for sentencing as a gauge for meting out proper deterrence. However, Mr. Liu didn’t have convictions for prior internet publications. So not only did his writings prior to Charter 08 not factor into his conviction, but any of his prior writings should not have factored into the sentencing either. But as I say, the CCP justice system is “interesting”. Your observation actually works against what you would like to say.

“I’m sure Liu’s well-known sentiments, and his support for imperialism would have played a part in his sentencing.”
—ok, well, I see you’ve given up on justifying the conviction. So his prior views which were not deemed illegal (in the sense that he was never convicted for them) actually helped him get 11 years? WHere in the highly-respected CCP China legal code does it suggest that? Surely even the CCP wouldn’t just fudge laws for their own benefit in order to specifically penalize one person they didn’t like, would they?? On second thought, what am I saying…..it’s the CCP we’re talking about after all.

I don’t think anyone is trying to tell China to “run” herself like any other country. However, I think reasonable people can identify when a country’s legal system is not being “run” properly. Feel free to join that group of people any time.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:45 am | Comment

As Beijing’s western conspiracy mindset is pretty well set in cement at the moment, I’m flying the following prediction. Relatively speaking, you could count the number of Chinese urbanites who know or care that LX has won this award, and in months or even a year or so, Beijing will simply deport he and his wife to the US, Norway or similar, after a bit of back channel diplomacy.

Why? In the longterm he is an international irritant which China does not need. Face will be saved and, more to the point, there are far more serious domestic problems to be dealt with such as inflation, corruption, restive minorities and the real estate market.

For mainstream China, the minorities are seen as lazy ingrates. Up to a point, corruption is viewed as perfectly acceptable/bearable.Economists cannot make up their minds about the future of the r/e market, even when about 27% of floor space is unoccupied (but where else can you park youe rightly earned or grey income).

BUT uncontrolled inflation is the social harmony killer and the bottom line threat to Party hegemony.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:52 am | Comment

“China can’t place itself in a cocoon in which it is protected from outside criticism, just as the US cannot.”

True. China can expect criticism when her actions impact in the international sphere, on other countries. And all countries look out for their own national interests. So while I may think that the US bashing China over their exchange rate is unjust, I accept it is a normal way of doing things, and most Chinese do not get too worked up over this.

However what is most definitely abnormal, is the inordinate attention given to China’s internal affairs, by the West. Liu Xiaobo is considered by China to be a danger to national security, a danger to the continued improvements in the well-being of nundreds of millions of Chinese people. The Chinese are best placed to decide on the rights and wrongs of imprisoning Liu Xiaobo. Not Westerners. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance.

Just as Americans would be outraged if the Chinese government started making noises on the imprisonment of the Cuban Five and awarded them vast amounts of money, so are Chinese when foreigners do the similar to them.

Americans are as sensitive to foreign criticism of their own internal affairs as Chinese are. Because the business of what goes on inside America, is the business of Americans only. Just as the business of what goes on inside China, is the business of Chinese only.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:08 am | Comment

“The Chinese are best placed to decide on the rights and wrongs of imprisoning Liu Xiaobo.”
—if only that were true, that would be a great thing. As it stands, the decision is strictly for the CCP to make. As with many things, the opinions of “the Chinese” don’t really matter. If and when that changes, then your point would have more weight.

Just because something is an “internal” affair does not shield you from international scrutiny. See Richard #27′s example. That’s not to say the Liu case is the same as the Uganda case. But simply as an example of a guiding principle, your contention is hardly absolute.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:21 am | Comment

“I don’t think anyone is trying to tell China to “run” herself like any other country. However, I think reasonable people can identify when a country’s legal system is not being “run” properly.”

The legal system of China, the way it is written, the way it is implemented, and one’s interpretation of how well implementation aligns with the written laws, are all the business of the Chinese people only.

However, lets assume that S.K. Cheung is correct, that yes, not all the niceties of law, even Chinese law, were adhered to when chucking Liu Xiaobo in prison.

But then. So what? We know that Liu Xiaobo is a bad person. He is cunning. And it may have been hard to pin him down using the letter of the law (and in fact if we rewrote the law to pin people like him down – surely that would be an even worse thing?) So we go round the law as it is exactly written. Again. So what?

China’s priorities are to feed and clothe 1.3 billion people, to raise the living standards of hundreds of millions of still very poor people, while at the same time guarding against attacks on her national sovereignty. These are the exigencies of the current time, and they override the rights of a few subversives to subvert.

Even Abraham Lincoln said “necessity knows no law.”

And in the West, under states of emergency, authorities arrogate vast powers to themselves, and many of the safeguards and protections of more normal more peaceful times are set aside. In South Korea, one can be imprisoned for several years just for having pro-North Korean literature or music. Perhaps understandable when one sees the precarious nature of things on the Korean Peninsular. During Hurrican Katrina, troops I believe had the right to shoot to kill in certain circumstances – essentially execution without trial.

China, it can be argued, especially when viewed in relation to the established industrialised western countries, is continuously more or less in a state of emergency, and thus there is more than enough justification for the Chinese authorities to deal with Mr Liu in the way they have done so. And in any case the Chinese do not have to justify this to anyone else but themselves.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:23 am | Comment

The fact is when the West was at a similar stage as China is now, in their industrial, social, and economic development, were they any better in terms of the commonly understood notion of ‘human rights’? Of course not. In fact they were a hell of a lot worse.

At least China is not developing through invading and plundering other countries.

The West lecturing China on human rights is somewhat like a very rich man, who can afford yearly holidays abroad for his own children, lecturing a very poor man who cannot even afford to send his children to school. Does that mean the very rich man is a better father, a more loving father? Of course not.

Given all of China’s national conditions, her current stage of economic and industrial development, her human rights record to date is actually pretty good.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:32 am | Comment

@ Mark
.
“Just as the business of what goes on inside China, is the business of Chinese only”.

Hogswash.

Quite the reverse, just as the nets chattering classes are enjoying commenting on US/Wikileaks discomfort and deranged response.

This is the nature of the new digital media: we can democratically comment on the domestic affairs taking place in neighbouring backyards with spite, spleen, rational argument, applause, praise, whatever.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:45 am | Comment

Instead of casting China in the role of enemy the countries of the world should try to find ways to solve the issue of human rights through technological innovation, more use of the Internet and more free institutions and associations.The millions of Chinese young people have better chances than their parents to bring the country on the path to democracy.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:49 am | Comment

“all the business of the Chinese people only.”
—again, it would be great if that were so. Sadly, that’s not the case, and that is much of the problem. And as I said earlier, there are still limits to the ability of an “internal affairs” claim in shielding you from criticism. Like even you suggested, Gitmo might be a US law and order issue but that hardly shields them from legitimate criticism.

“We know that Liu Xiaobo is a bad person”
—huh? Because the CCP says so? Come now.

“So we go round the law as it is exactly written. Again. So what?”
—so the CCP circumventing her own laws in order to prosecute/persecute somebody is ok by your book? This would be one of the fundamental problems with the CCP “justice” system. Are you suggesting that that is okay?

“override the rights of a few subversives to subvert.”
—I think that’s what makes cases like these of human rights abuses transcend national boundaries and claims of “internal affairs”. Besides, Charter 08 does not affect Chinese sovereignty. The one thing it does is question the CCP’s grip on power. Those are 2 very different things. And again, you’re speaking of CCP necessity; not necessarily the necessity of Chinese people. Yet again, 2 very different things.

Yes, we know about Martial Law. Even for someone like you, I’d imagine it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Liu’s Charter 08 justifies implementation of Martial Law and the suspension of rights and freedoms. It’s even more bizarre when this “martial law” disproportionately infringes on Mr. Liu’s rights and freedoms moreso than on other Chinese people. But then again, the CCP “justice” system is nothing if not colourful…and I mean that in the best possible way.

I would welcome the day when the CCP “justified” her actions to Chinese people. Better yet if the CCP would change course if that “justification” did not meet with Chinese peoples’ approval.

I’m not sure I’d characterize China’s human rights record as “pretty good”. What I would say is that it has “pretty large room for improvement”.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:55 am | Comment

Mark wrote:

The Chinese are best placed to decide on the rights and wrongs of imprisoning Liu Xiaobo

I couldn’t agree more. So let’s have the debate. I totally agree that Chinese should be allowed to discuss, argue, write, speak, and kvetch openly about their own society. Where’s the harm in lowering the restrictions on publishing, speaking, and organizing?

Surely, Chinese are rational and intelligent enough to be able to read multiple perspectives or hear different takes on a particular story, right?

I live here. I can’t think of anyone I know who would react to a televised debate on, say, human rights by throwing off their clothes and running naked through the streets shouting like a madman.

The position of the CCP regarding its “guidance of public opinion” policies actually present a false dichotomy — one which you seem to support — between absolute control and total chaos.

I’d also like to gently suggest, knowing that this is a matter of perspective, that China boasts of anti-imperialism resemble a troubled period in American history, as both 19th century American (well, before 1898…) and the Qing Empire (along with their 20th century self-proclaimed beneficiaries the CCP) were able to substitute westward expansion and the political, economic, military, and cultural integration of previously unincorporated areas within in place of overseas expansionism. There are obvious differences, and the parallels are not exact, but the “benevolent China” paradigm so beloved by the Party and its apologists looks very different if, as I have, you have spent time among the people of Tibet or Xinjiang.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:59 am | Comment

“Quite the reverse, just as the nets chattering classes are enjoying commenting on US/Wikileaks discomfort and deranged response.”

We are not talking of the contents of private chats, or the utterances of individuals who do not necessarily represent their respective governments. We are talking of the ruling class of the West attempting to impose their point of view on China, and taking concrete steps to do so.

“Even for someone like you, I’d imagine it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Liu’s Charter 08 justifies implementation of Martial Law and the suspension of rights and freedoms.”

Obviously not on its face. But the ramifications of the type of system that Liu agitates for, and his undeniable slavishness to the West, is enough to flag him as a danger to national security. But again. I am not an expert in Chinese law. I do not know the ins and outs of the case. My hunch is he deserves to be where he currently is. I could be wrong. But if I am so what? Would americans like it if the Chinese government saw fit to pass comment on every miscarriage of justice which has ever happened in the United States?

“I would welcome the day when the CCP “justified” her actions to Chinese people.”

Well. The Chinese revolution was undeniably a peoples revolution (as admitted even by Wei Jingsheng), perhaps the greatest people’s revolution in world history. And the CCP more or less remained popular even during the PRCs tragic GLF. And recent polls have shown that the Chinese government is overwhelmingly popular to an extent, I would be willing to put a large amount of money on, that is greater than the same for the United States.

Even that well known communist propagandist, Patrick J Buchanan thinks so:
“In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.”
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/080807_governments.htm

In fact governments like China’s are well aware that their ultimate survival depends on their ability to meet the basic needs of the people. They continually monitor public opinion, and act fast to correct areas of discontent. Faster in fact than governments of a so-called ‘democratic’ nature can. You only have to compare the effectiveness of the Chinese response to the Sichuan earthquakes, and the bumbling response of US authorities to Katrina – in spite of the fact that the USA is vastly more wealthy than China. That China does not have direct elections to public office as a test of legitimacy is beside the point. The only important thing is the Chinese have a society which suits the Chinese and which the Chinese by and large are happy with.

“What I would say is that it has “pretty large room for improvement”.

Actually I would agree with you here. China still has far too many poor people. Medical care is non-existent for large numbers of Chinese. And there is far too much corruption, especially at a local level. So yes. China needs to improve.

But relatively speaking, there is probably not a country on earth, large or small, of a similar level of industrial and economic development, which comes close to China when it comes to improving the well-being of the people. Perhaps you can provide an example to contradict my claim?

December 11, 2010 @ 7:29 am | Comment

“I totally agree that Chinese should be allowed to discuss, argue, write, speak, and kvetch openly about their own society. Where’s the harm in lowering the restrictions on publishing, speaking, and organizing? “

Because China has well justified restrictions (which in fact are not that onerous) on information flow. As they have every right to do so.

The world’s media is controlled by the West. Allowing unrestricted information flow is not freedom of information. Not when information is monopolised to the great extent it is by the West. It is fair enough that China does not allow Westerners to come and start up little fires of discontent here and there. If the Chinese government had the means, the wherewithal even, and the time and energy to sow disinformation in the West, as the West would like to do, and indeed already does in China, then your idea of ‘freedom’ of information would be more easy to justify.

The power of the Western media and entertainment history to steamroll over all other points of view can be seen in any Chinese city. Chinese are familiar with Hollywood movies, ape Western fashions, and white people are seen as so cool that they are used to advertise status products. In fact white people dominate advertising in places like Hong Kong and Singapore. Are Chinese seen in the same way in the West? Of course not. This of course shows the power of the West to manipulate the minds of non-Western peoples.

Jeremiah’s demand is akin to him challenging someone to a round of boxing, knowing full well that his own gloves are lined with lead.

Interestingly enough, Chinese abroad who have read all the Western media distortions on China’s greatest ‘hero’ are little supportive of him, and most find him to be a most disgusting example of a human being. Even in Hong Kong there is very little support for him.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:44 am | Comment

One can ‘monitor’ public opinion, without being the sole arbiter of public opinion.

I’m guessing you grew up in a place where there were fewer restrictions on information and speech than currently exist in today’s PRC. (Just a hunch…)

You feel that Westerners should maintain perspective and be thoughtful when criticizing China because these are internal matters best left to the Chinese to decide without outside interference. That’s a perfectly valid intellectual position, but I wonder what you would say to somebody, should you meet them, who has had their husband or wife or sister or daughter imprisoned for simply voicing an opinion. Would you tell them that while you were able to enjoy the privileges of an open society, they and their family cannot because you feel that somehow they and their society have not reached what you and the Party deem to be an appropriate stage of development.

As Richard clearly stated in his original post, this isn’t an argument about imposing direct elections, or Western-style democracy or even the Western Capitalist system onto the Chinese people…it’s about the Party adhering to rights already granted within the Chinese constitution and the importance of free expression.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:51 am | Comment

And to be clear, I’m not talking about rights for “the world media” (an awkward category so broad as to be nearly meaningless, but it’s the term used here), rather the right of Chinese people themselves, within the their own country, to express themselves without fear of recrimination from the state.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:56 am | Comment

“There are obvious differences, and the parallels are not exact, but the “benevolent China” paradigm so beloved by the Party and its apologists looks very different if, as I have, you have spent time among the people of Tibet or Xinjiang.”

Comparing so called Chinese ‘imperialism’ to Western ‘imperialism’ is like comparing a parking offence with the murder of a child.

This is not the place to go into it in any great detail, suffice it to say, Tibetans are about 80 to 90% of Tibet’s population, and Uighurs 45% of Xinjiang’s population. Whereas the indigenous population of Canada and the United States and Australia are around 1.5 to 2%.

Furthermore the language, folkways, and religious traditions of Tibetans and Uighurs are preserved in China to an extent that indigenous peoples under European control could only dream of.

In fact it is the very great efforts that the Chinese government has gone into to preserve, maintain, and nurture minority cultures, which encourages feelings of uniqueness and militates against assimilation, and this in turn leads to separatist sentiments which lead to repressions and which leads to condemnation of the Chinese government.

Whereas the indigenous of the West are so marginalised, their numbers so insignificant, and spiritually so demoralised that they present little threat to the ruling classes in those countries.

Anyone who objectively compares the conditions of American Indians and Australian aborigines on the one hand, with the conditions of Tibetans and Uighurs on the other hand, could not fail to see that it is the latter two groups of people who are far better off.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:56 am | Comment

@ Mark. No more of this please. Reading your posts makes me fear for my physical and mental wellbeing.

What about this widely commented on survey…scroll down.

http://sify.com/news/china-60-harlots-more-trusted-than-party-news-columns-jkmniijjhgb.html

Cant locate the original, but this link provides some of stats….probably harmonised by now.

December 11, 2010 @ 8:00 am | Comment

And by the way, I am not saying things are ideal for Tibetans and Uighurs. But my feeling is the problems we have seen in recent years have more to do with on-the-ground Han chauvinism than government policy.

In fact I believe that under the Communist Party, minorities fared far better than they would have under a KMT government. At least the communists had rhetoric on equality of peoples which the KMT did not (the KMT would have been a purely nationalist party – something along the lines of what they use to have in Japan). The KMT was actually hard on the Manchus, for example, whereas the communists made the Manchu a recognised minority and now many manchus who formerly adopted Han names and nationality have reverted to being Manchus – for affirmative action advantages.

“rather the right of Chinese people themselves, within the their own country, to express themselves without fear of recrimination from the state.”

By and large they do. How many Liu Xiaobo’s are out there?

December 11, 2010 @ 8:03 am | Comment

As I said, it’s a matter of perspective, and nor was I claiming a moral equivalency (you are a good writer, but not much of a reader…), rather I was suggesting the ‘benevolent anti-imperialist’ China needs to be considered more carefully. What you are saying, in large part is true, but I might also suggest that it smacks of the old Mencian warning about 以五十步笑百步.

December 11, 2010 @ 8:07 am | Comment

“ruling class of the West attempting to impose their point of view on China, and taking concrete steps to do so.”
—come on. It’s a NPP. Time to get less paranoid. Besides, why would the CCP worry about what so-and-so are trying to impose? Unless, of course, the CCP was actually worried that her people might actually want some of the things there are being suggested. Clearly we can’t have any of that.

“enough to flag him as a danger to national security”
—but that’s not what he was convicted of. Again, a “flag” is one thing. Your interpretation is another thing. Neither of those things should have any import when it comes to a court of law…unless you’re in China, of course, and that’s the very essence of the problem.

“Would americans like it if the Chinese government saw fit to pass comment on every miscarriage of justice which has ever happened in the United States?”
-a. I’m not sure they’d care; b. the comparison doesn’t matter. Whether the US has their own miscarriages of justices does not change the fact that China under the CCP definitely does.

“The Chinese revolution was undeniably a peoples revolution”
—I’m not sure if you’re new to these parts, but such lame excuses have been offered up and dealt with long ago. Yes, the Chinese people did have their say 61 years ago. Might they have another, pretty please? Yes, “polls” do suggest that the CCP is popular. Of course, it’s not like there were any alternatives. Here’s an idea: do a “poll” that actually counts. For shits and giggles, even offer up something other than the CCP as an alternative choice. If the CCP still comes up smelling like roses, then I’ll acknowledge that she represents Chinese people.

I agree that China has done well in improving the lives of some of her people, caveats about urban/rural disparity and huge gaps between rich and poor notwithstanding. Since it came under the CCP’s watch, she deserves some credit for what has transpired in that realm up till now. But the improvement occurred with Deng’s “opening up” in the late 1970′s. The teutonic shift that led to positive change was an economic one. That still hardly justifies the authoritarian one-party regime of the last 31 years, and certainly doesn’t justify the continuation of such a regime moving forward. Keep the economic system, sure. But if given the choice, Chinese people might be ready for something other than the CCP, as Jeremiah humourously suggests in #38.

December 11, 2010 @ 8:08 am | Comment

“rather the right of Chinese people themselves, within the their own country, to express themselves without fear of recrimination from the state.”

There are many. I’ve sat with people who had their husbands taken away for protesting the corrupt seizure of their land, I’ve spoken with Tibetan villagers threatened by authorities for contacting journalists, my wife routinely interviews people who are under house arrest or facing worse charges all for publishing or speaking their mind. To suggest otherwise is to make you sound either spectacularly naive or brazenly apologetic.

I have to say, I was taking you seriously until you said that.

December 11, 2010 @ 8:10 am | Comment

Apologies for the misquote, this was the passage of yours I wished to highlight:

By and large they do. How many Liu Xiaobo’s are out there?

You don’t need to be high-profile so-called “dissident” to suffer from the CCP’s pathological need to control information, there are many, and they are silent and you’re okay with that.

I think I would take your position more seriously if you were somebody facing a similar set of pressures, but you are not. That makes your argument somewhat untenable and what the less charitable might call unconscionable.

December 11, 2010 @ 8:17 am | Comment

To #40:
“Because China has well justified restrictions (which in fact are not that onerous) on information flow. As they have every right to do so.”
—a. there’s more to it than info “flow”. Forget about unfettered access to “western” information. How about simply unfettered access to the information, views, and ideas of other Chinese people in China? Now, you might say that some Chinese views are already co-opted by “western” ones. But that’s actually no excuse. If Chinese people, when given the choice, adopt “western fashions”, watch Hollywood movies, and perhaps share “western” ideas, that merely speaks to the desirability of those things, and more importantly, Chinese people’s desire of them. If that’s what Chinese people want, that’s what Chinese people want. At least that’s how it should be.
b. did Chinese people ask for this information flow to be so severely restricted? If so, how did they do so? If not, then on whose legitimacy and in who’s name is this being carried out by the CCP?

To #43:
“the conditions of Tibetans and Uighurs on the other hand, could not fail to see that it is the latter two groups of people who are far better off.”
—if you really believed that, then you should have no problem putting that question to Tibetans and Uyghurs.

December 11, 2010 @ 8:23 am | Comment

“There are many. I’ve sat with people who had their husbands taken away for protesting the corrupt seizure of their land, I’ve spoken with Tibetan villagers threatened by authorities for contacting journalists, my wife routinely interviews people who are under house arrest or facing worse charges all for publishing or speaking their mind. To suggest otherwise is to make you sound either spectacularly naive or brazenly apologetic. “

And you could not sit with people in America and find cases of similar injustices?

Protesting the ‘corrupt’ seizure of land. Of course the operative word is ‘corrupt’. That is an abuse of power. Just like their are police beatings in the United States. But you don’t hold that against Obama.

As for Tibetan villagers not talking to foreign journalists – the reasons for this are of course obvious.

Of course China abounds with injustices, even with horror stories, and to condemn this on one level is perfectly acceptable. Also to work to improve the rule of law. No Chinese is against this, and indeed one of the pressing concerns of most Chinese is local corruption and abusive local officials.

But problems like this happen in virtually every single developing country in the world, communist, socialist, or democratic or whatever. Does India have any less problems in this regard, in spite of being a ‘democracy’?

But that is completely different from elevating a traitor like Liu Xiaobo to sainthood against the obvious wishes of most Chinese people. And his paltry support among Chinese, even outside of China testifies to the fact that most Chinese find him to a rather disgusting individual.

For what its worth why don’t you and your wife go round interviewing the experiences of black people in the US, who have an imprisonment rate of 1 in 5 or something in that area. Whereas Tibetans for your information, are imprisoned at lower rates than Han (refer Barry Sautmann).

China’s human rights are in fact far better than the human rights of virtually every other developing country in the world at the same stage of economic, industrial and social development. That is my point. Comparing China with the West, is just completely ridiculous.

Whether the US has their own miscarriages of justices does not change the fact that China under the CCP definitely does.

Who said China does not? Where did I say that? But of course Americans would be outraged if China were to continually out to embarrass the US over these. Americans simply would not accept it. So why do you expect China to behave like a poodle to the West? Simple. Just plain racism.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:06 am | Comment

“If Chinese people, when given the choice, adopt “western fashions”, watch Hollywood movies, and perhaps share “western” ideas, that merely speaks to the desirability of those things, and more importantly, Chinese people’s desire of them. If that’s what Chinese people want, that’s what Chinese people want. At least that’s how it should be.”

That’s not true. The things people find desirable or undesirable are largely a part of what you grew up with, and what society deems desirable or undesirable.

Simply the West has a monopoly on information and culture. The so-called ‘soft power’ of the West is undeniable. And this brainwashes the rest of the world.

It is unbelievable that people can consider statues and portraits of Mao to be brainwashing, whereas they are perfectly happy with the Marlboro man on every billboard, and billboards that sell sex and feed on the fears of loss of status.

That is what the West does to the rest of the world. And it is not because the West is superior that many people, Chinese included, want to ape the West. It is because of the hegemony of the West over the minds of non-Western peoples.

Unless S K Cheung, you really believe Westerners to be superior to Chinese, and even perhaps more attractive than Chinese, therefore they have the right to define status (from reading some of your posts my guess is that is exactly what you think).

When kids in the West are exposed to Chinese heros, to Chinese cultural values, to Chinese revolutionary heroes, and indeed to a Chinese historical perspective, in the same way that Chinese kids are exposed to Western influences, then that is the day for complete unfettered flow of information. Before that day, so called free flow of information is just an invitation for coloured peoples to be buried by a slurry of Western distortions about their own culture and histories.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:16 am | Comment

“And you could not sit with people in America and find cases of similar injustices?”

I could and I have. And I know from my own experience and those of others that none of those cases would have been better served or the people done better justice if the government had swooped in and forbade reporting on those injustices or cases or imprisoned them for telling their stories to a wider audience.

The reason you know that 1/5 of black men are incarcerated,an abominable crime by the by, is because you read about in the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or saw it on Democracy Now.

I would NOT be embarrassed or outraged if China would cover these and other injustices (the imprisonment of Julian Assange, anyone?). In fact I would welcome their perspective. By the by, Julian Assange is on the cover of China Newsweekly this week and it’s a good story. There are very good Chinese journalists (my wife included) working in China, and they should be allowed to report without fear of reprisals against them or their sources and as we are all members of the same human race, Chinese journalists can, should, and do speak out on injustice in other parts of the world.

For you to say that you should be allowed these freedoms but Chinese living in China should not is the unconscionable part.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:21 am | Comment

This guy gives an excellent synopsis of ‘academic imperialism.’ I suggest all of you listen very carefully to what he has to say, because everything he says makes so much sense:

http://tinyurl.com/2vpgj77

Coloured people are supposed to read and accept their own history written by Westerners. Chinese even read books written about them by Westerners. Is there the same thing the other way round? Of course not.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:24 am | Comment

Um, 2/3 of my bibliography are Chinese-language sources, as are the bibliographies of most recent scholarly works of Chinese politics and history published abroad. Are you sure you even know what are you talking about? Do YOU read Chinese?

December 11, 2010 @ 9:28 am | Comment

“For you to say that you should be allowed these freedoms but Chinese living in China should not is the unconscionable part.”

So you are saying the same rules under peacetime should apply during times of national emergency or disaster?

Or that the captain of a ship in a storm should behave ‘democratically.’?

In principle I accept what you say. In fact I agree with you 100%. But not even Americans, I believe, if placed under the same constraints of population, resources, land, and current levels of wealth, would behave much differently from Chinese.

In fact one of the reasons, and this is just a guess on my part, that Americans place such great stock in individual freedom (in itself not a bad thing), is the amount of free and wide open spaces that they came across when hopping off their boat from England or Germany or whereever their ancestors came from.

I would submit that at least 90% of the abuses you detail are exactly that. Abuses of the system. Not the flaws in the system itself. And everyone knows that the Chinese legal system and Chinese officials are far from perfect. But replacing the system with a Western style ‘democracy’ would likely result in things becoming worse than they are. Not better. You only have to look at the situation in many other so called third world democracies to prove my case.

And in fact I do believe that the Chinese are receptive to human rights complaints – as long as they are made constructively and without an air of self-righteousness, and not made to humiliate and embarrass China. Which was exactly what this Nobel prize did. George Bush (the older one) understood this, and in fact secured the release of Fang Laizhi, precisely because he understood this. Whereas many of these do-gooders you have nowadays are more interested in elevating their own reputations, than really improving human rights. Given the individualism of many Americans and their self-indulgence, I highly doubt that many would be interested in doing something concrete which would really enhance China’s human rights situation, if it could be done without getting themselves on the news and in the public eye. It’s all about attention seeking. And how to do this? Go out and offend.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:36 am | Comment

Do YOU read Chinese?

I’m Hong Kong chinese for what its worth and of course I read Chinese. for what its worth Cantonese is my first language, and my Mandarin is so-so. But I have never read your stuff – except for a couple of articles on your website. And in truth I do not read a lot of academic history. I am not a historian or political scientist or anything like that. I read your article on the Opium War, which was well written and fair.

But the fact that they may or may not use Chinese primary sources is wildly beside the point. How well would a biography of say George Washington written by a Chinese professor from Inner Mongolia, go down in US academia, even if same Chinese professor based his information (as he would have to do) on American sources.

The point is this. Perspective. The histories that people read, the way the cultures and civilizations of non-white peoples in particular are judged, are dominated by Western perspectives. That is not to say these Western perspectives are wrong. But it does say that the overwhelming majority of works on non-white cultures out there in the public square are biased against the cultural and civilizational values of non-white peoples. There are many histories of China written by Westerners. There are few written by Indians, or Iranians. And in fact many Chinese study Chinese history from textbooks written by Westerners.

Surely, the perspective would be different if I read a history of China written by an Indian, or an Iranian, or a Nigerian? But we never get these perspectives. Partly because the West displays a curiousity about other cultures in a way Chinese perhaps do not. But more importantly because of the economic and military dominance of the West in modern history. That is the main reason.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:46 am | Comment

So you are saying the same rules under peacetime should apply during times of national emergency or disaster?

Or that the captain of a ship in a storm should behave ‘democratically.’?

Ah, the old chestnut that China is in a fragile state and its people need to be protected by a paternalistic father who chooses what they read and hear. This argument has been applied for decades now, and no matter how much China advances and its people’s lives improved this “protection” can’t be lifted. Many countries are in far less enviable positions than China is now, and they’re not afraid to let their citizens read the papers or watch CNN. You’ve fallen for the Party line, a line that exists solely to preserve their power. This mindset, that the Party is omniscient and can be trusted to choose what we read and see and hear, is cultivated with endless zeal by the Party to keep the people in its grip. It is used to keep the people hyper-nationalistic, convinced that “the West” is engaged in a conspiracy to damage China, to make them believe the West is China’s enemy, to keep them convinced that China is a ship in a tumultuous storm, and unless these mind-control devices are exercised the ship will capsize. It’s an insult to the Chinese people, presuming they are perpetual children incapable of critical thought or reason, and it is a tool for ensuring their intellectual enslavement. It is a tool used to constantly manipulate the Chinese people, to convince them that Liu is an agent of the US and a crazed imperialist. When it was convenient, as in 2005, it was used to convince them the Yasukuni shrine was cause for nationwide demonstrations and hostility toward the Japanese. In 2008 it was turned on the French. It is highly effective and it serves the Party well, deflecting attention from its own malfeasance.

Although you’re posting from Europe, your justification of mass censorship and manipulation could be straight from the mouth of a fenqing in the Mainland. You’re obviously intelligent. How could you have swallowed the Party line so completely? How can you defend a policy that hides the truth, feeds the public a stream of propaganda and keeps them in a permanent state of belligerency and paranoia when it comes to the West?

The justification is always that the Chinese people “aren’t ready” for an uncensored media. What a load of rubbish. It’s the Party that isn’t ready, because they couldn’t handle the heat of being called to account by those they are suipposed to represent.

December 11, 2010 @ 10:15 am | Comment

Actually, one of the most influential and original scholars of Chinese history is Prasenjit Duara and, while politics and history might not be your cup of cha, given your tastes you might enjoy his Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China, published about 15 years ago.

Here’s how I would make your argument and it’s a variation of a lecture I give in class:

In the “West” (and particularly the United States) the stuff of our dystopian nightmares, what really makes us afraid is tyranny and the fear of a state/government amassing too much power. Whether it is our history education (Boston Tea Party, McCarthy Communist Witch Hunts), our international ‘bogeymen’ (Stalin, Hitler, Mao), or even our popular culture and media (Darth Vader, V for Vendetta, The Matrix), what we fear most is the loss of our individuality or our free will, taken away by the ravenous state (or its popular culture analogues). The dark times of history, as Americans understand it, the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, Jim Crow South, McCarthyism, to name a few and there are more, were always accompanied by an entity, often the state or its proxies, acting to take away the rights of a group or the group. Americans thus tend to equate “progress” with “freedom” and the” despotic” state with something which is a thing to fear and loathe.

(In many ways, you reap what you sow, witness the rise of the Tea Baggers and the Birthers.)

In “China,” the great disasters of recent history have tended to occur when the central government (the state if you will) was too weak to protect its people (or: the nation): The invasions of the 19th century, the depredations of Japan, natural disasters compounded by mismanagement at the end of the Qing, the Cultural Revolution…it is not despotism to be feared, but chaos.

Now, I’m not saying I agree 100% with this view, but it is a view held by many people living in China, it certainly is part of the Chinese government’s narrative of legitimization, and considering this perspective is helpful to understanding Chinese reactions to events and rhetoric at home and abroad.

Now, both systems seek to justify themselves through education, the media, etc. Many in the “West” reject any notion that a non-pluralistic system could be considered ‘developed’ whereas the CCP plays up this dichotomy between “control” and “chaos.”

But at the end of the day, we need to watch our for false dichotomies and strawman arguments. Nobody here, not Richard nor I, is advocating for, as you put it, “replacing the system with a Western style ‘democracy.’” Rather, I think that the Chinese living in the PRC are intelligent, rational people who can make up their own minds with out the kind of ‘guidance’ (an abhorrent euphemism if there ever was one) that the CCP dishes out. That’s not the same as advocating overthrow of the system, it’s suggesting that discussion should be free and the discourse raised beyond media platitudes and enforced system justifications.

December 11, 2010 @ 10:32 am | Comment

“This argument has been applied for decades now, and no matter how much China advances and its people’s lives improved this “protection” can’t be lifted.”

People have more freedom now than they did 10 years ago, certainly a lot more freedom than 20 years ago, and unumaginably a lot more freedom than 30 years ago. Consequences for stepping out of line, as unacceptable as they may be to Westerners, are also far less severe now than before.

In terms of individual freedoms (as opposed to political freedoms) China has moved ahead in leaps and bounds. In 1996 when visiting Beijing with my wife (a Guangzhou native) I had to produce a marriage certificate when staying at a hotel. Nowadays sexual freedoms, freedom to travel, freedom to decide on a job, etc are I would guess almost at the level of many Western countries.

So it is simply untrue to say that freedoms have not increased with standard of living.

“Many countries are in far less enviable positions than China is now, and they’re not afraid to let their citizens read the papers or watch CNN.”

Perhaps that is part of the reason why these same countries are in a ‘far less enviable position’ than China. If we look at India, the country most directly and fairly comparable to China, China does far better when it comes to feeding her people, has twice the per capita income of India, one-fifth the infant mortality rate, and literacy over 90% compared with India’s 60%.

The important point is this. The vast majority of Chinese people do not care less about watching CNN or reading about Liu Xiaobo. They are however desperate to improve their standard of living, to give their kids the best education and opportunities for financial and social advancement. That is their main priority. There are few people literally suffering and groaning under the weight of political oppression. There are however many many people still groaning under the weight of poverty, and lack of medical care, and inadequate schooling.

But China is doing a lot to improve on these very areas. Far better than any other developing country on the planet. Simply on a risk to reward basis, introducing the reforms demanded by the West at this very juncture would not be worth it. It would be putting at risk the tremendous gains in living standards these past few decades, and their continuation, for some gains in political freedoms which would be abstract gains for the vast majority of people, and only benefit those academics, so called ‘intellectuals’ the like of Liu Xiaobo, and perhaps the types of Chinese who are in your social circles.

“That’s not the same as advocating overthrow of the system, it’s suggesting that discussion should be free and the discourse raised beyond media platitudes and enforced system justifications.”

But what if people do exactly that, and set up groups to do this. That will be the end result.And you won’t have to wait very long for it. Of course these groups will be abetted by Western agents bent on stymying China’s progress.

December 11, 2010 @ 11:32 am | Comment

We’ve had this argument here for years. We all know the biggest concern is food on the table. But having food on the table doesn’t preclude having fundamental human rights. Period. And we all know things in China are much better. But that’s of little consolation to Liu, the topic of this post.

December 11, 2010 @ 11:40 am | Comment

“It’s an insult to the Chinese people, presuming they are perpetual children incapable of critical thought or reason, and it is a tool for ensuring their intellectual enslavement.”

The fact is almost all the works of the Western intellectual tradition are freely available for Chinese to read, to explore, and even to write about. If Chinese wish to explore the enlightenment, the ideals of the French and American revolutions, to read Socrates, Thomas Paine, and Voltaire, and even someone like Winston Churchill, limited I suppose only by the translations available. I even bought Jung Chang’s book ‘Wild Swan’s’ for my wife, unavailable in China at that time I believe and brought it into China from Hong Kong. This was back in the late 1990s and she read it without any fear of a knock on the door let alone imprisonmnent.

There is more than enough freedom of information for any Chinese who wishes, to become fully versed in the Western democratic tradition, to even be a fully fledged and knowledgeable supporter of Jeffersonian democracy.

Jeremiah would obviously know a lot more on this than me, so please correct me if I am wrong.

The information which is not so freely available is that which is deemed an immediate threat, real or perceived, to social or economic stability. Denying the masses the right to CNN is harmless. CNN is non-stop propaganda. It is really no different from Americans being denied Pravda (in practice if not through legislation) during the Cold War, or Americans being denied 24/7 access to CCTV. In short they ain’t missing much.

Again, the overwhelming weight of the global media machine is Western oriented. Replacing what China has now, with what will surely be an unfair balance in favour of a Western perspective on current events and politics and culture and even fashion, will not result in a more enlightened, less ‘brainwashed’ populace. It will simply be replacing one set of influences for another set far more unnatural.

Already there are too many Chinese who ape the West, think that anything Western is better than Chinese, that Westerners automatically connote status, that anything a Westerner says or writes automatically has ten times the authority of the same from a Chinese. You guys still not satisfied?

December 11, 2010 @ 11:57 am | Comment

“But having food on the table doesn’t preclude having fundamental human rights.”

True. I’m asking for your opinion now, because this is something I am unsure of myself. Does the communist party have these restrictions in place out of concern only for social stability, and see it as a temporary measure to facilitate improvements in other areas, or is there, in their minds, still a fundamental ideological justification for these controls? Does the communist party still have a sustaining ideology, or are the limitations on political and other freedoms purely pragmatic, as Jeremiah’s excellent post 60 would seem to imply?

December 11, 2010 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

Pragmatic or not, you are advocating to deny people the choice to make up their own minds about whether CNN (as one example) is propaganda or not. Moreover, I am not (I’m saying this for the second time now, I hope there is no need for a third) arguing for ‘foreign media’ access, freedom, or what have you. I am talking about the Chinese people themselves having the ability to speak, write, and discuss sensitive topics openly without fear of state persecution.

To argue, Jung Chang aside, that people in China enjoy the same right to do so as you do where you are living now is either being naive or disingenuous.

I would argue, and I think Richard would agree, that the controls on information have lost their ideological aims and instead are designed to bulwark a party in power, a party which, perversely despite the gains made by society on its watch, is increasingly nervous and shrill in the face of criticism — foreign and domestic — of its policies.

December 11, 2010 @ 12:20 pm | Comment

@Mark

Please answer this question.

Why does the Chinese population need to be protected from the debate that we’re having on this website right now?

December 11, 2010 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

“To argue, Jung Chang aside, that people in China enjoy the same right to do so as you do where you are living now is either being naive or disingenuous.”

For your information most of the time I am in Hong Kong. But that is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The laws in Hong Kong suit Hong Kong’s unique situation. The laws in China are for China. Similarly the laws in America suit America. I obey and respect the laws and customs of whatever place I happen to be. That is all the consistency that is needed.

The gun laws in Hong Kong would be to the average American draconian. Does that mean a Hong Kong person visiting America is a hypocrite if he enjoys a spot of shooting, and that he should press for the same relaxed firearms laws back in Hong Kong?

In Singapore one can be hanged for 1/2 a kilo of cannabis. Does that mean a Singaporean in Holland is a hypocrite if he enjoys a joint in Amsterdam, and should only enjoy his joint if he demands reform of Singapores draconian drug laws?

Of course not.

If you let me smoke in your house, does that mean I am a hypocrite if I do not let you smoke in my house? Of course not. You have your rules, and I have my house rules (perhaps my wife is an asthmatic. Even if not I have the right to my house rules for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all, and am not obliged to explain them to you).

To simply argue that the rules in one place should be applied in all places would be a recipe for chaos around the world.

But having said all that I do in a way understand where you are coming from. You appreciate and enjoy your rights to free speech, coming from a ‘democracy’, and would feel it hypocritical and perhaps even unconscionable (as you said earlier) to deny these same rights to other people. But you are letting personal feelings interfere in a scientific evaluation of the situation. Objectively evaluating the situation should not take into account your own feelings of guilt, or of noblesse oblige. An objective and fair evaluation puts aside your own personal feelings entirely.

You are like a judge who would not sentence a criminal to a sentence he deserved because the judge feels guilt over perhaps his own ‘privileged’ upbringing. That would be wrong. Evaluating the rights and wrongs of the matter are not about you, your personal feelings. They are about an objective analysis of the facts and maximizing the well-being of those we are all concerned about. The Chinese people.

I would like to add however, that admirable as your feelings of noblesse oblige may be towards the Chinese masses, there is an inconsistency. You seem only concerned with some abstract political freedoms (and indeed to the vast majority of Chinese people these things you advocate so strongly for are abstract).

Yet you talk little of the fact that you perhaps earn 10 times more than the average Chinese, pollute about three or four times more than the average Chinese, and consume five or six times more than the average Chinese. You seem little concerned that you may work one hour to pay for a Chinese product which involved the equivalent of 50 hours of accumlated Chinese labour to produce. And your country, the United States, is absolutely merciless in putting its own economic interests over the interests of other peoples.

If of course you asked the average Chinese person, what he or she wanted, either an American life style in the economic sense, or an American system in the political sense, what option do you think he or she would choose. I can say with 100% certainty that 99.9% of Chinese would choose the former.

So if Americans were really so concerned with the well being of the Chinese people, instead of all this barkings on ‘human rights’, why not help the Chinese people along the path of what they really want – economic advancement – and voluntarily pay say twice as much for every item made in China, with the extra going to the poor Chinese worker down the end of the line.

It is incredible that Americans think that it is ‘unconscionable’ not to advocate for ‘freedom and democracy’ for the Chinese, because they themselves have it, yet live happily an expat lifestyle earning 10, 20, even 50 times more than the average Chinese worker. A rather convenient choice on your part, Jeremiah.

For what its worth, I am rarely moved by the apparent plight of dissidents like Liu Xiaobo. These dissidents generally live privileged lives in China. I am moved by the sight of grinding poverty endured by far too many Chinese still, the lack of medical care for hundreds of millions of peasants, and inadequaate schooling for millions of school aged children. That is what moves me. As for Liu Xiaobo, I really do not give a fig for him.

December 11, 2010 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

“The fact is almost all the works of the Western intellectual tradition are freely available for Chinese to read, to explore, and even to write about. If Chinese wish to explore the enlightenment, the ideals of the French and American revolutions, to read Socrates, Thomas Paine, and Voltaire, and even someone like Winston Churchill, limited I suppose only by the translations available. I even bought Jung Chang’s book ‘Wild Swan’s’ for my wife, unavailable in China at that time I believe and brought it into China from Hong Kong. This was back in the late 1990s and she read it without any fear of a knock on the door let alone imprisonmnent.”

This is one thing that non-China based journalists frequently get wrong, and is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t know how many bloggers and newspaper journalists I’ve seen who have said that “X” is banned in China, where X might be the works of Locke, Smith, Orwell, Rand, Hayek, or (insert western author critical of Communism here). The other day in Asia Times Online I saw a journalist say that “1984″ was banned in China; on the contrary, I can walk into practically any bookstore in Shanghai and buy a Chinese translation of Orwell’s 1984, or in many cases an English edition as well. Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” has been translated into Chinese; I bought a copy off Joyo for an ex-girlfriend (and I feel sorry for whoever undertook the thankless task of translated John Galt’s rantings into Mandarin). Pretty much everything that doesn’t directly address the current central government, or rag on Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping, or go on about Tiananmen… which is to say 99.999% of what’s out there- is available. Even some very critical works are for sale, such as “Poorly Made in China”; though that particular book spends little time on the government, and directs most of it’s ire at the shortcomings of the Chinese private sector.

The biggest complaint I hear is regarding the quality of many of the translations. It’s not censorship that’s the problem- it’s poor quality, machine-assisted translations that leave many of these books, which were printed for cash, less than desirable from a reading point of view. Thus many older adults are polishing their English in the hopes of reading western books in the original, or at least in English translation (which captures original meaning much better than a Chinese translation ever can, in many cases).

Another issue is that Western critics are given a much freer hand than Chinese critics. Western authors are more tolerable than Chinese authors because they are seen as outsiders, and thus their arguments can be accepted or dismissed as one likes. A Chinese critic, as an insider, is a dangerous figure.

December 11, 2010 @ 2:26 pm | Comment

@Wade

So China population doesn’t need to follow American’s cluelessness such as here: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/poll-finds-americans-favor-waterboarding-christmas-day-terror-suspect/19299536

OR here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1823/poll-wikileaks-harm-serve-public-interest-press-handling even when Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense says that there is no evidence of wikileaks of being harmful.

Not saying debate is bad, but to open up to a full debate, the US establishment media will not work since it has failed on wikileaks, Russia-Georgia Conflict, Urumqi Riots, 1989 massacre, Tibetan protests, 2 recent Korean conflicts etc as it helped most Americans grown extremely arrogant and confident that their version is always right while opponent’s version is being suppressed (not treated the same as the proponent’s version as a headline or a newsflash).

December 11, 2010 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

@ Mark
cool post…

Still wondering….

Why do Chinese people need to be protected from the debate that we’re having right now on this website.

(this is assuming that the pekingduck is still ILLEGAL in china web browsing

December 11, 2010 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

Mark,

I’m a graduate student, I hardly think my income is that much higher than the dude I just saw whiz past my bike on Heping Dongjie in his BMW…

Nevertheless, what you are saying is, “I can smoke in my house, but you can’t smoke in yours.”

You would not willingly surrender your own liberties, and yet you propose others do the same, and vocally support those who would enforce such a rule.

You would demand for other people what you would not choose for yourself.

That is unconscionable.

December 11, 2010 @ 3:07 pm | Comment

To 52:
“elevating a traitor like Liu Xiaobo to sainthood”
—oh the hyperbole. He won a NPP. He’s not being beatified by the Pope…nor some newly-minted Chinese priest, for that matter.

On what basis do you say that he has minimal support among Chinese people in China? First, no thanks to the CCP’s control of info within China, relatively few people even know about him and his Charter. Second, I have no idea how you’ve polled the relative minority of Chinese people with awareness of his Charter to conclude that a further minority among them support his ideas. Basically, you don’t like his ideas. But let’s not over-sell your POV. In fact, the CCP by their very peculiar nature precludes one from knowing just how much support Liu’s ideas would have, if such support could be offered openly and without consequences.

“Comparing China with the West,”
—as I’ve said many times before, I’m not the one making comparisons. That’s the preferred MO of folks like you. I’m not saying the “west” is better than China. I’m just saying that China under the CCP has many issues to improve upon, even in the realm of human rights, not to mention press freedom, rule of law, etc.

“miscarriages of justices does not change the fact that China under the CCP definitely does….Who said China does not? Where did I say that?”
—perfect. Then it’s about time to stop the silly comparisons, and just focus on what CCP China needs to do. I imagine there’s some other blog for you to suggest what the US needs to do.

To 53:
“The things people find desirable or undesirable are largely a part of what you grew up with, and what society deems desirable or undesirable.”
—precisely. So if Chinese people/society find something desirable, then that’s what they find desirable. It would seem whatever “western” things CHinese people have adopted are that much more desirable still, given that such uptake has occurred despite the restriction on info flow that the CCP has placed upon it. Do you blame Chinese people for wanting what they want? Why, for instance, do you choose to live in the US? If “western values” are somewhat distasteful for you, wouldn’t you be more comfortable in CCP China, where you can bask in the full glory of the personal freedoms that the CCP provides? Yet you are here…why is that?

I don’t believe westerners to be necessarily superior to CHinese in the form of a needless over-generalization. But I do believe that Chinese are smart enough and capable enough to decide what they do and don’t want. In that regard, I’m way ahead of you and the CCP.

Forget about the free international flow of info for a second. I see you have no answer for the lack of free flowing info within China itself, thanks to the CCP. One wonders why that is.

To 58:
the point is that there’s nothing stopping an Indian, Iranian, or Nigerian from writing about Chinese history. They are free to do so, and you would be free to read it (assuming you don’t live in China). However, you can’t compel an Indian/Iranian/Nigerian to write about such a subject unless they are so inclined. And you can’t compel such inclination. Besides, there may well be a Chinese history text in Hindu, Farsi, or Nigerian, but you simply wouldn’t know about and (presumably) couldn’t read it anyway.

It’s almost like you’re bemoaning the fact that English is the international language. It is what it is. How does that justify China not allowing her citizens to access outside information? How does that justify China not allowing her citizens to access information even within her borders?

To #61:
“The vast majority of Chinese people do not care less about watching CNN or reading about Liu Xiaobo. ”
—if you really believed that, then what is the CCP justification for actively preventing Chinese people from doing so? Why does the CCP have to be the dad, not letting his kids decide whether to watch CNN themselves; why can’t Chinese people make that decision for themselves? Are they all kids?

To #63:
“The information which is not so freely available is that which is deemed an immediate threat, real or perceived, to social or economic stability.”
—once again, the only group in China that can make such determinations is the CCP. And the things they object to can be better characterized as potential threats to their grip on power as opposed to actual threats to Chinese society. And therein lies the problem.

To 67:
“I obey and respect the laws and customs of whatever place I happen to be. That is all the consistency that is needed.”
—this is yet another false comparison. Americans make their laws. Hong Kongers kinda/sorta get to make their laws. Chinese people in PRC definitely don’t get to make their laws. It’s one thing to have to obey the laws that your fellow citizens have made; quite another to have to obey the laws that serve, first and foremost, the CCP. If Chinese people get to make their laws, and in that environment find Mr. Liu’s actions to be illegal, I think that would be fantastic. Likewise, of course you get to make the rules in your house. Can you then explain to me why you would deny Chinese people the right to make the rules in theirs?

And make no mistake, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings. I wouldn’t want to live under the CCP, which is why I don’t. You don’t seem to mind the CCP, yet you don’t live there either, so that’s a bit of a head-scratcher, but no matter. Shouldn’t Chinese people get to decide on the rules under which they are to live?

As for the gut wrenching story about poor workers in China, that is no doubt a concern. Not sure what that has to do with Liu. China should definitely aim for her workers attaining better wages. She could start by making laws (there’s that legal system again) to protect migrant workers, ensure minimum wage, provision of benefits, better health care, improved social safety net. That’s one way to start to help poor workers in China. Note that the onus is on the Chinese government to do those things…or in the CCP case, to want to do those things. Asking someone to go to Walmart and offer $20 for a $10 item isn’t going to have a trickle-down effect back to the poor worker in China.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:07 pm | Comment

“Why do Chinese people need to be protected from the debate that we’re having right now on this website. ”

Let me try to explain this situation form CCP’s perspective, even though I am not a member.

The short answer is that certain freedom limitation is a necessary evil. Imaging in 1989, Deng gave up the power after student movement, he, along with CCP, will end up in historic garbage can, like most leaders from eastern Europe, if not physically put into jail. However, through brutal force, he stayed on and reformed China. Nowadays and very likely in the future, people will remember him as the wise man who set the foundation for a prosperous China.

CCP got its power by force from civil war. Many years of mismanagement in economy makes it likely to lose power if free election is implemented. However, if CCP can build China into a strong prosperous nation and demonstrate its capability, his past crime/mistake will be looked at kindly. If one day China is close to the level of US and India is still lagging behind, CCP will be able to make a strong case for his legitimacy, completely lift limitations and then have free election.

Personally, I think CCP’s plan may work out and hope it will work out. Most people seems to be willing to give CCP a try.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:11 pm | Comment

[...] of Nobel prize to Liu Xiaobo grew closer, not only noted China bloggers like Shanghaiist,  The Peking Duck, and others noting the incendiary rhetoric coming out of Beijing. Jeremiah of Jottings from the [...]

December 11, 2010 @ 4:19 pm | Pingback

“oh the hyperbole. He won a NPP. He’s not being beatified by the Pope…nor some newly-minted Chinese priest, for that matter.”

I don’t think it is hyperbole at all. And gee you have a literal frame of mind.

“On what basis do you say that he has minimal support among Chinese people in China?”

Actually you are right. I have not done a scientific poll. But from my observations not many people even in Hong Kong where I live seem to give a shit about him. Nor do overseas Chinese. And I have hardly seen thousands of Chinese students overseas come pouring out in support for him in the way they did to support China over the Olympic games and China’s stance on Tibet. In Hong Kong people still are passionate, admittedly, over the June 4 events. But not over Liu Xiaobo. And many many Chinese are still angered over his comments on colonialism.

And reading his defence of American imperialism in Iraq, I would have little doubt that he would support something similar for China, if it could in his mind bring ‘democracy’ to China. So my guess is, and it is something that I would be willing to bet a large amount of money on, that Liu Xiaobo is inconsequential to most Chinese, and to those Chinese who do know something about him, they consider him a weirdo.

It seems it is only whites who think a lot of him. In fact hardly have seen a black guy, or an Asian guy come out and support him (although I think that guy from PENN?? was part African). Mostly middle class white people with nothing much to do with their time.

“So if Chinese people/society find something desirable, then that’s what they find desirable. It would seem whatever “western” things CHinese people have adopted are that much more desirable still, given that such uptake has occurred despite the restriction on info flow that the CCP has placed upon it. Do you blame Chinese people for wanting what they want? “

Come on. You can do better than this. If American kids were brought up to think Mao Zedong was a great hero, most would consider him a great hero. If you constantly advertise smoking say as cool and fashionable, more people will smoke. So while individuals may have choice, the mass will move in the direction manipulated. Why on earth do Chinese women get eye surgery, or try and look white, whereas white women hardly ever try to look like Asian women, or less still black women? Why are Chinese men perceived in a certain way in the West, and white men perceived in an altogether different way in the East? All this is down to media manipulation and brainwashing far more insidious than anything the communists ever attempted. Why do Phillipinos and Taiwanese go round with baseball caps the wrong way, and ape Western culture in a most revolting and worse inauthentic manner. And why are whites number one on a racial pecking order everywhere you go in the world?

Come on S K Cheung. Answer those questions. Or is it that white people are just so inherently superior? Not because of unhealthy media brainwashing.

December 11, 2010 @ 4:38 pm | Comment

“However, you can’t compel an Indian/Iranian/Nigerian to write about such a subject unless they are so inclined.”

Come on. If a Chinese person half fluent in english wrote his version of the history of the united states, and wrote it in a way that is typically Chinese in style and nuance, how seriously would it be taken in the West. Would Westerners hold this hypothetical work up and say this is authoritative, definitive work on the American Revolution? Of course not. Because a Westerner would say there is no way a Chinese person not brought up in the west could understand all the subtleties and nuances of America to write properly on this topic. Furthermore the Chinese writer would have to write in a Western style, to a format acceptable to Westerners, to be even taken half seriously.

Wherease a Westerner who writes on China or Iran or the Middle East, can get his stuff published in academic journals without nearly the same degree of difficulty. He does not have to prove his credibility first, that he can express himself in the cadences, tones, and style deemed acceptable by the mainly Western academics who will review his work. And of course the problem is with coloured people themselves. They have been so smashed down by Western hegemony and their minds fucked by imperialism that they themselves will often place the opinion of a Westerner on their own country, over that of the opinion of one of their own people. If you can’t see this you are almost wilfully blind.

Again listen to this video. The guy states his case brilliantly.
http://tinyurl.com/2vpgj77

December 11, 2010 @ 4:46 pm | Comment

From NYTIMES coments

K
Norway
December 10th, 2010
12:43 pm

Many Chinese people on this forum and elsewhere claim that the west “hates” China and does not want to see a strong China. They could not be farther from the truth.

Myself I have lived in China, studied the language and culture for years – and now I work with China every day in my business. I love China, it’s culture and its people. I want to see China grow strong. It will be good for my business, my friends in China, it will be good for the world.

However I also want to see China take responsibility. I want to see China develop. I want to see China grow beyond petty censorship and propaganda. Beyond heavy-handed diplomacy and threats of sanctions. I want to see a China that accepts dissent, critizism and opposition. A country that openly accepts the alternatives, not just the mainstreamers. A country in Liu Xiaobo’s image, if you will.

These are my opinions – It’s my right to have them, share them and debate them – so that we may all benefit from the positive outcomes of dialogue! May my Chinese friends one day share my freedom!

Congratulations People of China. Congratulations, demonstrators of 89′. Congratulations, Liu Xiaobo!

December 11, 2010 @ 4:59 pm | Comment

“this is yet another false comparison. Americans make their laws. Hong Kongers kinda/sorta get to make their laws. Chinese people in PRC definitely don’t get to make their laws. It’s one thing to have to obey the laws that your fellow citizens have made; quite another to have to obey the laws that serve, first and foremost, the CCP.”

You really think Americans make their laws. American ‘democracy’ is a sham. If you are poor, uneducated, without a Harvard degree, and still in spite of Obama, a minority, and without major corporate support how much chance will you get to run for office. To change things? Sweet f*$# all. Look at all the people in power today. Are they representative of the people? They seem to be mostly lawyers to me, mostly from wealthy privileged backgrounds. You don’t think George W Bush had a massive advantage over some kid born in the ghetto?

In fact even during the cultural revolution they at least put in ordinary workers, peasants, street sweepers into positions of authority, after having purged the ranks of party elite functionaries. In a way it could be argued that that was more ‘democratic’ than what the US has.

The fact is the Chinese are mostly happy with their government. That is enough. If there was widespread disconent the CCP would not last for long. And they know it. In fact the satisfaction of the Chinese people with their government is far higher than the satisfaction of the American people with their government. So it could be argued that the meritocratic system China has, with increasing levels of grassroots democracy, and collective rule at the top works better than the American system in producing a government which satisfies the needs of the people. Furthermore anyone in China can join the communist party and have a shot at being president, as long as he is smart enough.

In fact the Chinese system is endorsed by the Singaporeans –that says something for its effectiveness. Here is an excellent article by Singapores Foreign Minister George Yeo.
http://tinyurl.com/2ek5tdo

Personally I think the Singapore path is what will be in the end most suitable fo the Chinese people, and indeed will be the system towards which the current one will evolve.

“If Chinese people get to make their laws, and in that environment find Mr. Liu’s actions to be illegal, I think that would be fantastic.”

Bullshit. You are either being disingenuous or you are plain ignorant. Iran’s stoning of that woman was likely a popular law. As is Uganda’s possible passing of a law which allows for the execution of gays. You think that would be ‘fantastic’ because it would reflect the popular will?

“China should definitely aim for her workers attaining better wages. She could start by making laws (there’s that legal system again) to protect migrant workers…”

Everytime China wants to pass new laws who jumps up and down screaming – why the Western corporates. China is caught between a rock and a hard place in this respect. If the factories close and move offshore, workers lose their jobs and return to the countryside. Its a delicate balancing act –but the priority of the Chinese government is to improve the lives of workers, and indeed wages over the past few years have risen substantially. China decided to join the capitalist world order…unfortunately there is a price to be paid for this.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:05 pm | Comment

@Mark
How would Americans feel if China demanded that they reduce their incarceration rate (the highest in the world and about six times higher than China’s), or China demanded that the US treat its own minorities better?

Hahaha. Lots of human rights activists based in America will cheer! Noam Chomsky will probably came out even harsher against his own government in America.

If Noam Chomsky and his fellow anti-establishment activist were to do the same stuff in China as they have done in America, they would have been “harmonized” long time ago.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:12 pm | Comment

“Why, for instance, do you choose to live in the US? If “western values” are somewhat distasteful for you, wouldn’t you be more comfortable in CCP China, where you can bask in the full glory of the personal freedoms that the CCP provides?”

Actually I live in Hong Kong. But regardless of whether one chose to live in the US or any part of the West, what the hell has that got to do with anything.

Most people move around in search of the best economic opportunities for themselves and their families. Moving to the US is unlikely to be a ringing endorsement of the political system in the US by a migrant family, but more a decision based on economics. Similarly many Westerners choose to live and work in China – mainly again I suspect for economic reasons, not because they endorse the CCP. The same goes for those expats in the Middle East.

The fact is the West is the richest part of the world still. Are you S K Cheung arguing that say Mexicans should simply forget about Mexico when they move to America, that Turks should simply forget about Turkey when they move to Germany, or that Brits who move to Australia and New Zealand forget about Britain?

If you do you sound like someone who would fit in really well in the Tea Party. The only problem is, given you are Chinese I guess, that you would not be too welcome.

Western imperialism sucked the East and Africa dry for fucking centuries. The West became rich off us. And you think that simply because some Asian or African moves to the West (in most cases he has to be highly qualified) that he should suddenly support Western imperialism and say his own people are bad? Man. There is only two words to describe you. 走狗

December 11, 2010 @ 5:15 pm | Comment

@Mark
It seems it is only whites who think a lot of him. In fact hardly have seen a black guy, or an Asian guy come out and support him (although I think that guy from PENN?? was part African). Mostly middle class white people with nothing much to do with their time.

Hmmm… really? I look from left to right, top to bottom, i still can’t convince myself that Navi Pillay is the so-called “middle class white people with nothing much to do with their time.” LOL.

U.N. rights chief calls on China to release Liu

“It is my view that the case should be reviewed and Liu Xiaobo should be released as soon as possible,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told a news conference.

“I hope that the Chinese authorities will come to recognize the positive contribution that peaceful advocates like Liu Xiaobo can make to China’s development,” she added.

Pillay also voiced dismay that China had clamped down on “an ever-widening circle of associates” of Liu Xiabo, including his wife Liu Xia and other activists and critics.

At least 20 activists had been arrested in recent weeks and more than 120 people placed under house arrest or travel restrictions, measures which contravened Chinese law, she said.

“I am engaged in a constructive dialogue with the government of China on all these matters,” added Pillay.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B83PB20101209

December 11, 2010 @ 5:19 pm | Comment

Speaking here for a bit of civility, calling somebody a “走狗” or any name because they disagree with you and you believe them to be of a certain heritage is really the worst form of ad hominem, surely we can keep it more civil then that.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:19 pm | Comment

“I have not done a scientific poll.”
—you’re not alone. At the very least, you’re in the same boat as the CCP. To some people, that might be considered good company. Of course, “scientific” polls are great, replete with 95% confidence intervals. However, a different kind of “poll” would be even better. But the CCP definitely wouldn’t know anything about that.

You are also correct that “some” overseas Chinese seem to share your view. Some of them once lived in China, though I know of at least one who was never a PRC citizen at any time, who also shares your view. It seems the CCP lessons, once inserted between one’s ears, have a long shelf-life. I am surprised if not more Hkers find Liu’s Charter to resonate with them, particularly since quite a number of them have issues with the system the CCP has on tap for them. Then again, they aren’t exposed to the CCP way in all its glory, and one can’t extrapolate the HK position upon PRC Chinese citizens since their circumstances are so disparate.

What you would wager is amusing, but also fairly meaningless. The important thing is what Chinese people in China would think of his views. Explain to me again why the CCP has tried her darndest to prevent Chinese people from learning about them?

“If American kids were brought up to think Mao Zedong…”
—now you’re passing judgment on what other people should think. What puts you in a position to judge on other people’s behalf? If American kids were brought up to think Mao as great by being told only of the good things he did (whatever they may have been) while not being told of the bad things he did, and for whatever reason they had no way of seeking out more information for themselves, that would be a problem. But if some American kids think he’s great on the balance of his entire record, well, that’s what they think. If you sell smoking on “coolness” and not divulge “cancer”, that’s a problem. But if people smoke thinking it’s cool but knowing they’ll get cancer, that’s their problem. So I agree that people should not be given selective information. But that’s the point. They don’t need to be “given” information; simply have it available and accessible, and allow people the freedom to seek it out for themselves. Then if you still think Mao is great or that smoking is cool, well, that’s what natural selection is for. And this is the CCP’s problem. They don’t allow outside information, while trying to sell off their own to Chinese people. So at the very least, if you were the least bit consistent in your principles, you should find that extremely distasteful. Of course, none of this even begins to address the CCP’s restriction within CHina on CHinese-sourced information, about which you have remained notably silent. Why is that?

I’m aware of Chinese women getting surgery to look younger; I’m not aware of Chinese women getting surgery to look whiter. So I have no answer for that. I’m not aware that there is a “racial pecking order” the world over. I judge people not on race but on merit, so I’m not familiar with your concept. Young folks wanting to look gangsta might be a social phenomenon. That’s not what we’re talking about here. Equating how one wears a baseball cap with one’s political freedoms, speech freedoms, or human rights is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?

I find it amusing when people ask me to answer questions, when my habit is to do almost line-by-line responses anyhow. Since you approve of the concept of answering questions enough to demand it of me, surely you would adhere to it yourself. On that note, you should review #71 to answer all the questions posed to you. You can identify them by the question mark at the end of certain sentences. By my quick count, starting at where you left off in my response to your #53, I note 10 more question marks. I look forward to your responses.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:22 pm | Comment

@Mark
Most people move around in search of the best economic opportunities for themselves and their families. Moving to the US is unlikely to be a ringing endorsement of the political system in the US by a migrant family, but more a decision based on economics. Similarly many Westerners choose to live and work in China – mainly again I suspect for economic reasons, not because they endorse the CCP. The same goes for those expats in the Middle East.

The difference is that people like Mark is almost certain to apply for a US green card and some of them even apply to become American citizens with US passports. The Western expats just get a temporary work permit to work in China and other countries with almost no intention to get a Chinese/Middle eastern passport.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:24 pm | Comment

@Mark
Actually I live in Hong Kong. But regardless of whether one chose to live in the US or any part of the West, what the hell has that got to do with anything.

It has alot hell got to do with almost everything. It’s like a salesman telling you how good a skincare product is, just that he/she is not using it on their faces. How convincing will that be? lol.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

“However I also want to see China take responsibility. I want to see China develop. I want to see China grow beyond petty censorship and propaganda. Beyond heavy-handed diplomacy and threats of sanctions. I want to see a China that accepts dissent, critizism and opposition. A country that openly accepts the alternatives, not just the mainstreamers. A country in Liu Xiaobo’s image, if you will.”

See. Typical western arrogance. Just because he has lived in the place for a year or two or perhaps more, he sees fit to present a list of demands as to how china should be run.

Of course a country in Liu Xiaobo’s image will likely have US troops running round the place. Afterall he thinks the American invasion of Iraq is quite OK.

You see. The West still thinks the world belongs to them. That is the problem. They still have an imperialist mindset. They want the entire world to be made in a way where they would feel at home, no matter where they went in the world. The rest of the world must be made to ‘conform’ in the way the West wants. Failure to do so of course brings down incredible pressure and perhaps even invasion.

Westerners would love to see China turn out like those paradises of Phillipines, Thailand, where the natives are seemingly happy, willing to bend over (both figuratively and physically) for any white man, where the white man is king, and all the local woman (and horrifically even kids) are willing to provide any service to him, no matter how sick. That these countries are a mess, with kids living off rubbish dumps is of little concern to the white man. There are elections which ensure continual chaos, which again is beneficial for Western interests.

But happily more and more people are waking up to this. My views in fact are quite mainstream among Chinese. My views are not radical, and I’m sure even Jeremiah and Richard would attest to the fact that many, if not most Chinese would agree with most of what I have to say. So would I guess, many Africans, Middle Easterners, Russians, and even Indians (many I have spoken to deplore the mess that country is in and say it requires a bit of authoritarianism).

So you see, Western hegemonic ambitions of so many of the people on this site will not hold sway forever.

Now. Is there a Western conspiracy against China? No. Not in the sense of a group of Western leaders sitting down and actively plotting the downfall of China. But yes in the sense that racial angst many whites have over China’s rise will manifest itself in policies which are hostile to China.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:31 pm | Comment

@Mark
The fact is the West is the richest part of the world still.

Mark is essentially telling us: I love China, but i love the opportunities to make money in the West even more so much so that i would leave my “beloved motherland” for the “wretched” West.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:32 pm | Comment

“It has alot hell got to do with almost everything. It’s like a salesman telling you how good a skincare product is, just that he/she is not using it on their faces. How convincing will that be? lol.”

Bullshit. So you advocate democracy for China. Does that mean you have to live there? Of course not. Why don’t you live in India since you think democracy is so great? So you see. Your pathetic argument can work both ways.

The correct logical question to ask is this. If you had no choice but to live in China, would you rather China be run the way it is now, or simply follow the Western prescription as India has, as South Africa has. My answer (and my dad and uncles and cousins still live in China) is I’d rather the way things are now.

Where would you rather live sp123 – China on the one hand, or India or the Phillipines on the other? I’d choose China over the other two any day of the week.

And it is not as if whites have never followed the wealth round the world. That is what Asians and Africans and Latin Americans are doing now. There are shitloads more whites living outside Europe than there are Asians living outside of Asia.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

@Mark
Westerners would love to see China turn out like those paradises of Phillipines, Thailand, where the natives are seemingly happy, willing to bend over (both figuratively and physically) for any white man, where the white man is king, and all the local woman (and horrifically even kids) are willing to provide any service to him, no matter how sick. That these countries are a mess, with kids living off rubbish dumps is of little concern to the white man. There are elections which ensure continual chaos, which again is beneficial for Western interests.

Of course Mark would not tell you that corrupt leaders like Mugabe, Suharto, Than Shwe had a more important role in pauperizing their own people and then blame everything on the “West”.

As Thailand, the “mess” we are seeing is that the minority (the conservative monarchist elite based in Bangkok) refused to accept a democratic outcome where the majority based in the rural areas have generated, thereby lurching Thailand into a constitutional crisis. You know nuts about Thailand.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:41 pm | Comment

Mark is essentially telling us: I love China, but i love the opportunities to make money in the West even more so much so that i would leave my “beloved motherland” for the “wretched” West.

I live in Hong Kong. But yes many Chinese live in the West. For economic reasons. And those with greater opportunities to make money in China tend to stay in China.

In Hong Kong there are a heap of expats who have stayed on after the handover and made this place their permanent home. I work with quite a lot. But they still go to the HK sevens and cheer on England, Australia, or New Zealand or whatever place they originated, and are proud of their home countries.

Just like Irish Americans, and Italian Americans, and Mexican Americans, and German Americans all like to keep links to their respective homelands. You think these people are a bunch of hypocrites sp123. Or does that apply only to non-whites?

December 11, 2010 @ 5:42 pm | Comment

@Mark
Where would you rather live sp123 – China on the one hand, or India or the Phillipines on the other? I’d choose China over the other two any day of the week.

I will take Brazil, Cape Verde, South Korea, Taiwan, Chile anytime over life under the CCP. At least there is no melamine milk or “My Dad is Li Gang” in those countries. Hahahahaha.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:46 pm | Comment

Come on SP123. If you had to be born, where would you take your chances. “Democratic’ India or authoritarian China? Come on. Do bear in mind however that India’s child mortality rate is five times that of Chinas, you have only a 50% chance of being literate (compared to 90%) in China, and you are much more likely to go round perenially hungry than in China.

And of course you are expected to live 10 years shorter in India than China.

So come on SP123. India or China?

December 11, 2010 @ 5:46 pm | Comment

@MArk

In Hong Kong there are a heap of expats who have stayed on after the handover and made this place their permanent home.

But those same “heaps of expats” in Hong Kong still have their US, UK, Canada, Australia passports with them and let their children attend international schools.

You are probably too ignorant as someone who claims to stay in HK.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:49 pm | Comment

And of course you are expected to live 10 years shorter in India than China.

Of course you are right after you discount the Chinese who perished under various manmade Maoist disasters from 1950-1976. LOL.

Mao or Nehru?

Of course Nehru.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:51 pm | Comment

Expats who have worked here 7 years automatically get residency. Of course they have their passports. Just as many Chinese from the PRC keep their passports, even those who reside overseas.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:51 pm | Comment

Of course you are right after you discount the Chinese who perished under various manmade Maoist disasters from 1950-1976. LOL.

Actually I prefer Mao. You see the most dramatic increase in life expectancy in history happened under Mao. As did the most dramatic increase in literacy. This is in spite of the disastrous Great Leap Forward years.

In fact by the time of Mao’s death in 1976, China’s life expectancy was already higher than what India’s is today.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:53 pm | Comment

But yes many Chinese live in the West.

That’s fine. But it is altogether different for this same group of people to blast the West for its “human rights” and democracy as they leave China to stay in the West and claim that dictatorship is “good” for China when some of them are eligible to even vote in elections in the West.

December 11, 2010 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

Just as many Chinese from the PRC keep their passports, even those who reside overseas.

It seems that Chinese mothers want the US passport even more.

More Chinese are traveling to America to give birth

Wang Rong, who is six-months pregnant, is about to leave Beijing for California so she can give birth to her baby in the United States and give the child its first gift – US citizenship.

http://www.china.org.cn/china/2010-07/03/content_20411756.htm

December 11, 2010 @ 5:58 pm | Comment

this same group of people to blast the West for its “human rights” and democracy as they leave China

when the fuck do they ‘blast’ the West for the way the West is run? Give me an example of where Chinese have ‘blasted’ the West for its ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’. I remember a couple of years ago overseas students all over the world protesting in support of the olympics. But I have not heard of any Chinese movement to overturn democracy in the West.

Care to substantiate your claim with a link?

December 11, 2010 @ 6:00 pm | Comment

In fact by the time of Mao’s death in 1976, China’s life expectancy was already higher than what India’s is today.

Mark is just like the typical Ah Q in Lu Xun’s book. As long as there is some perceived worse case, Ah Qs like Mark would self-congratulate their own plight. LOL.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:01 pm | Comment

Mark is just like the typical Ah Q in Lu Xun’s book. As long as there is some perceived worse case, Ah Qs like Mark would self-congratulate their own plight. LOL.

You gave me two choices only. I made the more sensible choice.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:04 pm | Comment

To Mark,
looks like you’re answering #71 in installments. So ignore my last paragraph of #81.

To #74:
“Wherease a Westerner who writes on China or Iran or the Middle East, can get his stuff published in academic journals without nearly the same degree of difficulty.”
—you’re still making false comparisons. If a Chinese author writing on American history wants to get published in an American journal, then there is every legitimate expectation that the work has to meet American academic standards. If a Chinese author managed to do that, you’re making unfounded accusations of racism to say that such a work would not be published.
So the actual proper comparison would be something like this: could an “American” author writing on Chinese history using crappy Chinese get published in a Chinese academic journal? I would hope not.
Now, could a Chinese author using good Chinese but writing poorly on American history get published in a Chinese journal? Possibly. Could an American author using good English but writing poorly on Chinese history get published in an American journal? Again, quite possibly. But once you frame the comparisons properly, and compare things that are comparable, there is little difference. So you might want to rethink #74. And you might want to give that victim mentality a rest.

To #76:
“The fact is the Chinese are mostly happy with their government.”
—oh, more polls, I presume. But as I said earlier, give me some poll results of Chinese people who are given a choice, then we’ll talk.
It is certainly true that not every American can serve in office. But every American has the opportunity to put in his 2 cents worth in determining who ends up there. I’m not big on direct democracy, but am quite satisfied with representative democracy. And a chosen representative making the laws is infinitely better than the CCP making them on my behalf.

Your third paragraph sounds eerily similar to many posts I’ve read before. You guys seem to share punch-bowls.

Now, I already said in #33 that the Liu case is not the same as the Uganda case. If you’re not capable of recalling conversations from 12 hours ago, you should probably declare that now. If Chinese people (and not just the CCP) felt that propagating stuff on the internet critical of China was not acceptable, I can live with that; though I would still have a problem with such a “crime” justifying 11 years in jail. Regardless, that is substantially different from stoning women and killing gays. If the differences are unclear to you and you need me to elaborate, just say so.

“Everytime China wants to pass new laws who jumps up and down screaming – why the Western corporates.”
—are you saying that the CHinese government is listening to “western corporates”? BTW, your labels are amusing.

“unfortunately there is a price to be paid for this.”
—then go easy trying to hang stuff on “westerners” every chance you get.

To #78:
“But regardless of whether one chose to live in the US or any part of the West, what the hell has that got to do with anything.”
—actually, the fact that you claim to live in HK (though Richard earlier said you’re posting from Europe, but I’ll take your word for now) makes your view slightly more respectable since you at least get a taste of the CCP in some measure. Many CCP-lovers express their love from the comfort of their American homes, while decrying the American system that gives them the right to make such declarations. Those are real hypocrites. I just wanted to know if you were one of them. BUt if you wanted full measure of that which you support, you still really need to go to the source.

Now where did I say people should “forget” where they’re from? However, it would serve people well to “remember” why they left. Sometimes, people seem to get a romanticized recollection of how things were in the old country. Let’s also not forget that while some people move for economic reasons, others move for other reasons, including political ones.

So congrats on answering most of the questions from #71. Here’s some you missed:
“How does that justify China not allowing her citizens to access outside information? How does that justify China not allowing her citizens to access information even within her borders?”
“if you really believed that, then what is the CCP justification for actively preventing Chinese people from doing so? Why does the CCP have to be the dad, not letting his kids decide whether to watch CNN themselves; why can’t Chinese people make that decision for themselves? Are they all kids?”
“Likewise, of course you get to make the rules in your house. Can you then explain to me why you would deny Chinese people the right to make the rules in theirs?”
“Shouldn’t Chinese people get to decide on the rules under which they are to live?”

I imagine it was just a oversight on your part, since you already addressed the last paragraph about Chinese workers. I’m sure it’s not owing to the fact that those are questions for which you have no answers. No need to beat yourself up though. You’re not the first of your kind to avoid difficult questions.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:06 pm | Comment

when the fuck do they ‘blast’ the West for the way the West is run? Give me an example of where Chinese have ‘blasted’ the West for its ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’.

My conversation with a Chinese in UK.

Me: What do you think of the strikes in UK recently? Looks like more is to come.

Room mate from Beijing: Very messy. These people have too much time. (chi bao fan mei shi gan). Only the UK system allow these people to do all these nonsense. All this crap about democracy and right to strike in the UK. If these people do it China, they will be swiftly dealt with. That’s China is strong and UK is declining.

Me:………… (thinking: then why the hell are you studying and plan to work in the City of London?)

December 11, 2010 @ 6:07 pm | Comment

You gave me two choices only.

Haha. Mark has very little faith in the Chinese people. Once China becomes democratic, it will become another India ( i mean he was the one who think India is the bogeyman, not me). China will not be like Chile, South Korea etc. That’s how much faith Mark have in the Chinese people.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:11 pm | Comment

About academic imperialism: the fact is academics all over the world have to publish in English to reach a maximum audience. And the facts are coloured people themselves often read stuff that Westerners write about them, and accept the point of view of Westerners over that of their own people. So someone like Jonathan Fenby, Jasper Becker etc are respected not only by whites, but also by Chinese as writing the authoritative version of whatever area of Chinese history they write about.For fucks sake, they don’t even have to write in Chinese. Whereas it would be extremely difficult for a Chinese academic writing a book about the American Civil War to find the same degree of acceptance among American academics. Whey is this. Academic imperialism of course. This is not just something whites do to us. It is what we do to ourselves. As Mohamemed Marandi said on the video, what is most fucked up is how coloured people have been brainwashed to think that what the West thinks of them is more important than how they view themselves.

Similarly coloured people often try to do things to look like white people, whether it is black women straightening their hair, Asian women getting eyelid surgery or sleeping with any loser white guy for elevated social status. Imperialism resides in the minds of all too many coloured people and that is what is really fucked up.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:16 pm | Comment

There is only two words to describe you. 走狗

There is also a two words to describe those who support a dictatorship to terrorize his/her countrymen: 奴才。

December 11, 2010 @ 6:18 pm | Comment

“If you had no choice but to live in China”
—that’s actually not a bad question. However, rather than posing that to Mark, or SP, or to me, or to anyone who can actually access this site, that question should instead be posed to those who can’t (ie the ones who live in China). Furthermore, the “choices” should also be decided upon by Chinese people themselves, rather than being imposed by Mark (though he does seem to enjoy imposing on other people). Then we’d be talking.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:19 pm | Comment

Imperialism resides in the minds of all too many coloured people and that is what is really fucked up.

Yang Jiechi to his ASEAN neighbours, “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact”.

Now that’s naked imperialism.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:20 pm | Comment

“Very messy. These people have too much time. (chi bao fan mei shi gan). Only the UK system allow these people to do all these nonsense. All this crap about democracy and right to strike in the UK. If these people do it China, they will be swiftly dealt with. That’s China is strong and UK is declining”

SP123. This is just a private conversation. He is not demanding the UK change for him. The irony of it though is many British people would probably agree with your friend. On issues such as crime control, the Chinese government behaves far more democratically than the West. A majority of people in the UK I think support capital punishment. Will they get it? Not likely. Whereas the Chinese government justifies the death penalty by sayin the public will not accept its abolition at this state of development. Which is quite true. So who is more ‘democratic’ here?

And guess what? Lots and lots of British people came out and supported the excecution of tha Akmal Shaikh last year by China for drug trafficking. Read the comments on their newspapers. Many thought that Britain should have similar laws. Will they get them? Not likely.

In any case thanks for confirming what I have said all along. Most Chinese think democracy as practiced in the West is not suitable for China. Those who support ‘democracy’ in China are very few in number. Hence the ‘democratic’ way of doing things in China is to not have ‘democracy’.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:22 pm | Comment

Similarly coloured people often try to do things to look like white people, whether it is black women straightening their hair, Asian women getting eyelid surgery or sleeping with any loser white guy for elevated social status.

I am Asian and i do none of those things. Looks like Mark hangs out too much with people of inferiority complex. LOL. Birds of the same flock.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:23 pm | Comment

By the way have any of you bothered to address my first post? Here it is again:

The main reason why developing countries such as China resent Western intereference is not so much the fine words on human rights and the principles of human rights, but the actual underlying motives of the West in pushing their so called ‘human rights’ agenda.

It’s simply an upgrade of the way the Bible was used in the past – the coloured man got Christianity, the white man gets the land. Nothing wrong with Christianity in itself, but it was used as a cover to advance imperialist interests.

Now if the West really was concerned about human rights, it would do everything possible to gain credibility with developing nations, to assure them that they really meant no harm.

The first thing to do of course would be to apologise unreservedly for the crimes of colonialism. European colonialism killed over 50 million Africans and Asians in the 20th Century alone (at a bare minimum), and many millions more of course before that. Westerners still cling to the same flags, symbols, under which these atrocities were carried out.

By any measure, European colonialism killed far more than the Nazis in Europe. In fact Nazi race theories had their antecedents in Western racial ‘science’ and the justification of extermination of native peoples for living space for white people.

What should happen of course is the West thoroughly goes through a period of pennance for the Opium war, King Leopold, the genocide of Phillipinos, the genocide of the Hereros …etc. All symbols associated with colonialism should be expunged from public life, the monarchies under which imperialist genocides carried out abolished, text books written which openly face up to the crimes of colonialism – in short a period similar to that which Germany was forced to go through – a thorough denazification.

And renditions of ‘rule britannia’ should invite the same opprobrium as the ‘horst wessel’.

Compensation should be paid out to countries which were victims of imperialist aggression (China should consider its legal options in demanding reparations from Britain for the Opium War).

Once the West has done all of the above, its message on ‘human rights’, if they are still so shameless as to want to peddle this stuff after all they have done, will resonate far better than it currently does and cause far less offence.

At the moment the West lecturing the developing world on ‘human rights’, is as absurd as say a non-denazified Germany lecturing the United States on the latter’s incarceration rate.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:25 pm | Comment

SP123. This is just a private conversation. He is not demanding the UK change for him.

The problem is he is planning to stay in UK for good with his girlfriend and in the process of fulfilling the five year stay to apply for the UK’s indefinite right to remain. I would have no problem with his comments if he is going back to China after his studies.

Hypocrisy is indeed a powerful disease.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:26 pm | Comment

Well Mark, you seem to be responding to me little piece by little piece. So you’ve still got most of #81 and all of #100 to get to, not to mention all the questions you “overlooked” from #71. So I’ll check back later. But man, it’s like everything is “imperialism”-this and “imperialism”-that. Or else it’s “white man”-this or “white-man”-that. It might be time to check the victim mentality into rehab, and look beyond race. English is the international language of choice. No use bemoaning it. Not much more useful than crying over spilled milk.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:28 pm | Comment

The problem is he is planning to stay in UK for good with his girlfriend and in the process of fulfilling the five year stay to apply for the UK’s indefinite right to remain

So what? He thinks soft on crime is bad. So do most British people. His views align with the views of most British people, if not their government.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:29 pm | Comment

The first thing to do of course would be to apologise unreservedly for the crimes of colonialism.

I second that. So for the CCP to have a clean bill, the CCP leaders today should also have the courage to “apologise unreservedly” for the crimes of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and start China on a fresh page unburdened by historical tragedies.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:30 pm | Comment

He thinks soft on crime is bad. So do most British people.

LOL. Don’t digress. He is blaming the democracy in UK for giving people the right to strike.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:31 pm | Comment

To 109:
gosh you have a short memory. Try #20.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:34 pm | Comment

S.K. Cheung: I have answered all your questions even if not on a question by question basis. the answers are found in my posts.

And yes imperialism is a big deal. The last British gunboat got driven out from China only in 1949. White people under extraterritoriality could kill Chinese with impunity up until 1946. And of course Chinese or dogs could not use certain parks in Shanghai. But actually this is small stuff compared to the plunder of China and her pauperization for well over a century by the West. The West became rich off imperialism and we became poor. So yes it is a big deal. A fucken big deal.

It was only in 1949 that China’s economic growth, industrialisation, and life expectancy began to rise. Refer Hans Rosling’s awesome demonstration. It was only in 1949 the Chinese people truly stood up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

December 11, 2010 @ 6:36 pm | Comment

OL. Don’t digress. He is blaming the democracy in UK for giving people the right to strike….sorry I missed your point… I was thinking of ‘strikes’ in three strikes like in the US.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:37 pm | Comment

It was only in 1949 that China’s economic growth, industrialisation, and life expectancy began to rise.

Mark is of course willing to overlook China’s millions of deaths, economic stagnation and destroyed cultural artifacts from 1949-1976 in order to whitewash his political idols in Beijing.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:39 pm | Comment

gosh you have a short memory. Try #20.

Not a proper answer. Would you trust a Germany which had never de-nazified or considered the slaughter of jews a good thing, or did not even admit to it?

December 11, 2010 @ 6:40 pm | Comment

Mark is of course willing to overlook China’s millions of deaths, economic stagnation and destroyed cultural artifacts from 1949-1976 in order to whitewash his political idols in Beijing.

Actually mortality rates declined dramatically under Mao, the exception being the years of the GLF. There was no economic stagnation – in fact there was steady economic growth except for the years of the GLF and the first year of the Cultural Revolution. The increase of China’s life expectancy over the Maoist period was the most dramatic increase in world history – in fact China’s life expectancy in 1976 was greater than what India’s is today. This has been confirmed by a plethora of Western researchers including this Stanford study:

http://tinyurl.com/24wg3f3

Economic growth rate was significantly better than the world average over the Maoist period – refer Minqi Li page 29.

There were also dramatic gains in literacy during the Maoist period, especially during the Cultural revolution, which is rather ironic. I will dig up the stats some other time.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:51 pm | Comment

Huh, you’re asking me to answer your suppositions? Germany did “de-nazify”, and no longer “consider the slaughter of jews a good thing”. Find a question about something that actually exists, then we’ll talk.

As for your answers, where did you answer these questions:
“How does that justify China not allowing her citizens to access information even within her borders?”
“of course you get to make the rules in your house. Can you then explain to me why you would deny Chinese people the right to make the rules in theirs?”
“Shouldn’t Chinese people get to decide on the rules under which they are to live?”
“The important thing is what Chinese people in China would think of his views. Explain to me again why the CCP has tried her darndest to prevent Chinese people from learning about them?”
“Equating how one wears a baseball cap with one’s political freedoms, speech freedoms, or human rights is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?”

Since you didn’t find it obtuse to cut and paste an entire post, I imagine you would be fine with cutting and pasting some of your earlier answers to those questions, which I have apparently overlooked. My apologies.

December 11, 2010 @ 6:55 pm | Comment

“How does that justify China not allowing her citizens to access information even within her borders?”

“The important thing is what Chinese people in China would think of his views. Explain to me again why the CCP has tried her darndest to prevent Chinese people from learning about them?”

Cut from previous post:

China’s priorities are to feed and clothe 1.3 billion people, to raise the living standards of hundreds of millions of still very poor people, while at the same time guarding against attacks on her national sovereignty. These are the exigencies of the current time, and they override the rights of a few subversives to subvert.

Even Abraham Lincoln said “necessity knows no law.”

And in the West, under states of emergency, authorities arrogate vast powers to themselves, and many of the safeguards and protections of more normal more peaceful times are set aside. In South Korea, one can be imprisoned for several years just for having pro-North Korean literature or music. Perhaps understandable when one sees the precarious nature of things on the Korean Peninsular. During Hurrican Katrina, troops I believe had the right to shoot to kill in certain circumstances – essentially execution without trial.

China, it can be argued, especially when viewed in relation to the established industrialised western countries, is continuously more or less in a state of emergency, and thus there is more than enough justification for the Chinese authorities to deal with Mr Liu in the way they have done so. And in any case the Chinese do not have to justify this to anyone else but themselves.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:08 pm | Comment

“of course you get to make the rules in your house. Can you then explain to me why you would deny Chinese people the right to make the rules in theirs?”
“Shouldn’t Chinese people get to decide on the rules under which they are to live?”

The fact is the Chinese are mostly happy with their government. That is enough. If there was widespread disconent the CCP would not last for long. And they know it. In fact the satisfaction of the Chinese people with their government is far higher than the satisfaction of the American people with their government. So it could be argued that the meritocratic system China has, with increasing levels of grassroots democracy, and collective rule at the top works better than the American system in producing a government which satisfies the needs of the people. Furthermore anyone in China can join the communist party and have a shot at being president, as long as he is smart enough.

In fact the Chinese system is endorsed by the Singaporeans –that says something for its effectiveness. Here is an excellent article by Singapores Foreign Minister George Yeo.
http://tinyurl.com/2ek5tdo

Personally I think the Singapore path is what will be in the end most suitable fo the Chinese people, and indeed will be the system towards which the current one will evolve.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

“Equating how one wears a baseball cap with one’s political freedoms, speech freedoms, or human rights is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?”

I missed this one.

It betrays a slavish mindset. An aping of Western ways, not because of the merit of the action, but simply because a white man does it.

Whereas those who play classical music, read Shakespeare are different. Because there is inherent merit in Beethoven and Shakespeare.

But not in Western popular culture or the obviousl aping of Western actions just because they are Western.

Perhaps you are too obtuse to recognise this.

That is sad. Because then that would confirm that you truly do have the mentality of a zou gou.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:14 pm | Comment

There is an easy comparison of economic growth since 1949.

Just compare ROC with PROC, SK with NK, DDR with GFR.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:17 pm | Comment

Germany did “de-nazify”, and no longer “consider the slaughter of jews a good thing”. Find a question about something that actually exists, then we’ll talk.

Do you not get it? We do have the equivalents of a hypothetical non-denazified Germany. These are Britain, France, Belgium and other Western powers who have never even offered something so simple as an apology for their colonial crimes, which in many cases exceeded the horror of the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people.

Before these countries go through a process similar to the denazification of Germany, they have no right to lecture others on human rights.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:18 pm | Comment

If they are so happy. Why censor them? Left their happiness flow the internet in facebook, twitters and peking duck.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:20 pm | Comment

ROC with PROC

What a pathetic thing to bring up.

Running Taiwan is about the same as ruling Shanghai. Shanghai is in pretty good shape eh? Anyone who thinks ruling 20 million the equivalent of 800 million is just plain stupid. The two cases are not remotely comparable.

Mainland China in 1949 basically had almost zero industrial base. Literacy was less than 20%. Couldn’t even produce a paper clip.

This was clearly not the case in Taiwan. When Chiang fled to Japan Taiwan had already enjoyed half a century of industrial development – that’s half a century head start over mainland China. Furthermore the Taiwanese were already the most educated people in all of Asia, after Japan, with literacy rates near 70% compared to less than 20% on the mainland.

As this Taiwanese government source says: “Though Taiwan was under oppressive Japanese imperialism, it has lived through half a century in a highly developed industrial capitalism. Its [Taiwan’s] consciousness, social institutions, and political inspiration all came out of an industrial society. China, by comparison, was still an “underdeveloped” agricultural society.”

http://tinyurl.com/3yj233a

So you see, the challenge facing the communists on the mainland was entirely of a different scope and nature than that faced by the KMT on Taiwan. Taiwan was in fact in far better shape than many Western European countries immediately after WWII.

Only an agenda driven fanatic or else someone incredibly stupid would be so daft as to compare PRC with Taiwan.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:28 pm | Comment

@Mark #86
“There are shitloads more whites living outside Europe than there are Asians living outside of Asia.”

That’s true, but the overwhelming majority of them are only living permanently in states they control, or in states where they exercise disproportionate influence on the ideology and government under which they live. And for the most part, when they have lost power over a given state or jurisdiction and the ideology and practices of the state they live in becomes alien to them, they tend to move elsewhere.

Whites in America or in other settler states they control can’t really be compared with Overseas Chinese living in Western countries in which they form a tiny minority and have little influence on the ideology and system of government under which they are ruled, but rather to Singapore and Taiwan, to which Chinese have emigrated and made distinctively ethnic Chinese in their character.

White Americans, Australians, Argentines, South Africans and so forth didn’t leave Europe to be ruled over by the natives. They brought their own ways of government with them. Sometimes these ways were not quite the same as that of the countries they had left – a good example would be the Pilgrims who went to America to flee Anglican persecution – but never (at least until recent decades, when for the first time, we see large populations of whites living for generations under non-white dominated governments as global Western supremacy began to fail – but it’s safe to say that whites find this uncomfortable, hence white flight) did whites voluntarily leave their own civilisations to live under the rule of Asians or Africans, barring some very specific exceptions.

On the other hand, we see many, many Chinese and other Asians voluntarily settling in the West and willing to live under political and social systems very different from their native countries.

Such as yourself.

Whites didn’t go to Africa or Asia to enjoy the wealth of other societies as immigrants. They went there as settlers, and established copies of or extensions of their own societies on the shores of every continent on they laid anchor. And if you will forgive me for daring to point this out – these societies were usually if not always more efficient and prosperous than their neighbours, as Sun Yat-sen himself was willing to admit.

December 11, 2010 @ 7:44 pm | Comment

And sk and nk? And ddr and west Germany?

If it is so difficult to manage 800 millions, why were the ccp so eager to get to power?

The living conditions in China under kmt rule, with all its catastrophes was far better than any time under mao rule

December 11, 2010 @ 7:47 pm | Comment

@Steve -

“I have read a few of them. My sense is that he is one fengqing on the other end of political spectrum. His position on Iraq war is the version of Dick Cheney.I will not waste my time here. Check out by yourself.”

I already knew about his position on the Iraq war, and to be frank, am open to the idea that his views are held with a high level of conviction, right or wrong. But these were not the views for which he went to jail. These were not the views that the CCP found worthy of punishment when published on the internet. Instead the CCP chose to punish him for his advocacy of democracy, alleging that this ‘subverted state power’, they made this obvious in the verdict that was brought against him, and in their other statements.

Liu Xiaobo is not a spy in the eyes of PRC law. Liu Xiaobo is not a traitor in the eyes of PRC law. The PRC still maintains the presumption of innocence de jure if not de facto

One thing which has been totally lost is if there are others in China more deserving of the award – I am totally open to the idea that, for example, Xu Zhiyong’s Gong Meng (公盟) might have been a more deserving subject. I am also totally open to the idea that Liu Xiaobo might be a “Fenqing” of some kind, indeed, to maintain a position to the point where you are willing to go to jail for it and have your wife put under house arrest does display an extreme level of commitment and conviction. However, if Liu is one, he makes his comments in a public arena rather than anonymously on a website as you and I do.

@SKC – Yes, really. Apparently a throw-away line in the film about a made-in-China multi-tool drove Allen to write a medium-sized essay on the subject of China-bashing in Hollywood films. This, of course, whilst De Wang’s way of explaining the North Korean shelling of South Korea is to say “The bully has been stabbed by the smaller kid”. Sigh.

December 11, 2010 @ 8:16 pm | Comment

@Mark –

“Mainland China in 1949 basically had almost zero industrial base. Literacy was less than 20%. Couldn’t even produce a paper clip.

This was clearly not the case in Taiwan. When Chiang fled to Japan Taiwan had already enjoyed half a century of industrial development – that’s half a century head start over mainland China. Furthermore the Taiwanese were already the most educated people in all of Asia, after Japan, with literacy rates near 70% compared to less than 20% on the mainland.”

So, are you suggesting that China needs 50 years of colonisation?

December 11, 2010 @ 9:26 pm | Comment

Am I the only one around here who is neither a Westerner nor Chinese?

I actually think Mark is doing well to dump on the small European countries with genocidal inclinations (yes, I’m looking at you, Britain!) Pride comes before the fall, and we are actually doing all these people a Christian favor by giving it to them in bucketfuls. (I’m looking at you too, America!)

Still, Mark, my ‘own’ informal poll among my non-Western, non-Chinese brethren suggests that while we view, erm, ‘Westerners’ with great distrust, we like CCP China even less.

At least the English by and large seem to have evolved. A great many of them looked at me through the years as just another human being. My experiences with Chinese folk however… eh… not so great.

I would like to end this post by stating without reserve that my ‘own’ people are doubtlessly far more retarded than both the ‘Chinese’ and the ‘Westerners’ and whatever judgments I make come from my perspective as a human, not as a citizen of such and such country. (I’m putting all these labels in quotes to showcase the fact that they are, in fact, nothing but silly labels, often empty of all real meaning. What is a ‘Westerner’ anyway… Are Russians Western? They sure are very white, very Christian and very acquisitive…)

And again, Mark, Jeremiah, Richard, sp123, Cheung, Steve, Tubby, everybody, you rock my world. It is a privilege to read a debate these days that involves multisyllabic words and stays civil for the most part. It’s as if you guys went to school or something.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:41 pm | Comment

Oh, I had forgotten you, FOARP. You rock my world too. But I still claim your family.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:43 pm | Comment

“I already knew about his position on the Iraq war, and to be frank, am open to the idea that his views are held with a high level of conviction, right or wrong. But these were not the views for which he went to jail. ”

Good. You are aware of Liu’s view on Iraq war. Given his warmongering position, doesn’t it make a mockery of Nobel peace prize to award Liu this year?

“Instead the CCP chose to punish him for his advocacy of democracy, alleging that this ’subverted state power’, ”

Simple advocacy of democracy will not lead to jail. Even Wen Jiabao stressed his desire for more democracy. His position on China is consistent with his position on Iraq. In his view, CCP is an evil entity and needs to go. If force is needed, fine. The claim of democracy by Liu is just a cover.

If US can invade China and overthrow CCP, Liu will be celebrating. You can read from his article that his hatred for CCP is as strong as, or even stronger than his hatred for Saddam.

“However, if Liu is one, he makes his comments in a public arena rather than anonymously on a website as you and I do.”

I agree Liu is courageous. In fact, Liu never takes compromise over CCP. He will be against anything that CCP is for. If you read all his writing, let me know one place that he agrees with CCP. CCP may be evil. But given China’s progress, CCP must be doing something right. But Liu can not see any of it. That is why I call him a Fengqing.

Then Nobel peace prize is award to such a person. I have to wonder whether this is a setup by CCP.

December 11, 2010 @ 9:49 pm | Comment

I don’t know about this hateful, war-mongering Liu Xiaobo.

Let me quote from him as well:

“For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress to freedom and democracy. I hope therefore to be able to transcend my personal vicissitudes in understanding the development of the state and changes in society, to counter the hostility of the regime with the best of intentions, and defuse hate with love…

Your love is sunlight that transcends prison walls and bars, stroking every inch of my skin, warming my every cell, letting me maintain my inner calm, magnanimous and bright, so that every minute in prison is full of meaning. But my love for you is full of guilt and regret, sometimes heavy enough to hobble my steps. I am a hard stone in the wilderness, putting up with the pummeling of raging storms, and too cold for anyone to dare touch. But my love is hard, sharp, and can penetrate any obstacles. Even if I am crushed into powder, I will embrace you with the ashes.”

Wow. It’s as if this guy was a complex person or something, and cherry-picking quotes from here and there were pointless!

December 11, 2010 @ 10:07 pm | Comment

“I don’t know about this hateful, war-mongering Liu Xiaobo.”

Liu’s all writing is here. http://boxun.com/hero/liuxb/

I am not sure whether you read Chinese. Check out this one: http://boxun.com/hero/liuxb/65_1.shtml

“倒萨之战就是对普世道义的又一次践行,即便没有联合国的授权,也仍然是正义的。现在,美英西三国不再寻求联合国的授权,起码可以尽快终止萨达姆长期玩弄的欺世盗名的游戏,也可以不再浪费机会和增加倒萨的成本。”

“Overthrowing Saddam is to implement universal value. Even without UN resolution, it is still justified. Now, US/Britain won’t seek UN approval, it will stop Saddam’s game as soon as possible, and won’t waste the opportunity and increase cost.”

I think it is a waste of my time to translate his paper. Try to read yourself.

December 11, 2010 @ 10:29 pm | Comment

@Resident Poet – I’m afraid my family will not be made available until the Italian family that is scheduled to make reparations for Britain’s colonisation by the Roman Empire has been and gone, however, unfortunately they are still waiting for a family of Huns to arrive from central asia . . .

@Steve – Mere advocacy of a particular war at one point in the past does not disbar someone from winning a peace prize for work unconnected to a previous pro-war position. I would have thought that point obvious, but perhaps it isn’t, so let me expand on it:

- Nelson Mandela, surely a worthy winner of the Nobel Prize for his peaceful work against Apartheid, previously advocated terror attacks against white South Africans.

- F. W. De Klerk, Mandela’s co-laureate (is this a word?), was also involved in the enforcement of Apartheid in various ministries before becoming the South African president. Just as with Mandela, it was his latter work of peace that was awarded, not his previous work of violence.

- Yasser Arafat, also a Nobel laureate for the Camp David accords, was at at various times during his career undoubtedly a terrorist.

- George Marshall, who won the prize for his post WW2 re-construction program, surely a great work for peace, was also the chief organiser of the allied onslaught against Japan and Germany.

So please, try to re-consider this argument – Liu was neither awarded for his support for the Iraq war, nor was he imprisoned for it.

“Simple advocacy of democracy will not lead to jail.”

Except it does, and has every time anyone has attempted to organise a pro-democracy movement. Look at the case of Guo Quan – jailed for doing exactly that. In Liu’s case, the verdict was very clear that it was his publishing of articles advocating democratic reform on the internet that constituted ‘subversion of state power’.

“Even Wen Jiabao stressed his desire for more democracy.”

. . . and, as Li Rui pointed out in his letter, was censored for it. Even the Chinese Premier cannot speak entirely freely in the People’s Republic, it would seem.

December 11, 2010 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

Well, nothing wrong with wishing Saddam gone.

Liu was wrong just in thinking that the US was competent to effect regime change in a way that would overall improve the lives of the locals. That’s an understandable mistake. Doesn’t make him evil or anything. Sure doesn’t justify locking him up!

I wanted Iraq invaded too. I would have liked the Jedi to do it though, because they’re the ones with the experience and legitimacy. (Whereas Bush just sent in a bunch of bumbling morons with high-powered weapons… )

Look, Liu’s got all the right instincts, and if he’s bitter from time to time, do forgive him. After all the CCP did fuck up most of his life. I’d be bitter too in his place. Hell, I am, and the CCP didn’t even do much to me!

I say there’s just enough proof to call him a loving and deeply patriotic man as there is to call him a hate-mongering traitor.

December 11, 2010 @ 10:52 pm | Comment

The increase of China’s life expectancy over the Maoist period was the most dramatic increase in world history – in fact China’s life expectancy in 1976 was greater than what India’s is today.

As if it will change the fact that millions of Chinese people lost their lives prematurely due to manmade famines and violent purges. ROFL.

Mark is one of those nutcase out there trying to prove that the Chinese had never had it so good during the Maoist reign of terror and hunger.

This denial of his countrymen’s suffering is a testimonial to his “patriotism”.

ROFL.

December 11, 2010 @ 11:25 pm | Comment

“Well, nothing wrong with wishing Saddam gone.

Liu was wrong just in thinking that the US was competent to effect regime change in a way that would overall improve the lives of the locals. That’s an understandable mistake. Doesn’t make him evil or anything. Sure doesn’t justify locking him up!”

Yes. Lots of people want to see Saddam gone. But the person who advocate using force without UN resolution is in minority. You can hardly call those people peace loving.

You are talking about effecting regime change to improve people’s life. But what is the price? How many people will die during the change? In his article, he never show any humanity concerns about the potential damage, not a bit.

“Look, Liu’s got all the right instincts, and if he’s bitter from time to time, do forgive him. After all the CCP did fuck up most of his life. I’d be bitter too in his place. Hell, I am, and the CCP didn’t even do much to me! ”

I can understand his hatred to CCP. Lots of people suffered a lot, such as my parents. The problem is Liu is against everything that CCP is for. He is against 2008 Olympic, and bad-mouth it. He supports Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang independence. For western people, you will say, oh, that is good, I like this guy. For Chinese people, how many people will actually share his view. I will say, definitely in minority.

Now, back to Richard’s question, “is it a conspiracy against China?” Perception is reality. I will not be surprised that many people will say, sound about right?

December 11, 2010 @ 11:32 pm | Comment

@Mark
Running Taiwan is about the same as ruling Shanghai. Shanghai is in pretty good shape eh?

Because Shanghai is a direct municipal city so there is a need to keep up appearances. But then you still have the Shanghai clique who ran the place as though they owned the city. Just look at Chen Liangyu and the Shanghai pension fund scandal as well as corrupt reputation of Huang Ju and Jia Qinglin.

And the CCP can’t even run small villages properly that villagers of Xiashuixi cheered the teenager who stabbed the corrupt local party boss Li Shiming to death.

Zhang Xuping, China Teen, Seen As Hero For Killing Local Official
BEIJING — When Li Shiming was stabbed through the heart by a hired assassin, few of his fellow villagers mourned the local Communist Party official many say made their lives hell by seizing land, extorting money and bullying people for years.

Instead, villagers in the northern town of Xiashuixi have made Li’s teenage killer something of a local hero. More than 20,000 people from the coal-mining area petitioned a court for a lenient sentence.

“I didn’t feel surprised at all when I heard Li Shiming was killed, because people wanted to kill him a long time ago,” said villager Xin Xiaomei, who says her husband was harassed for years by Li after the two men had a personal dispute. “I wanted to kill Li myself, but I was too weak.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/zhang-xuping-china-teen-s_n_430147.html

CCP can’t even run villages properly. What do you expect? LOL.

December 11, 2010 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

@Steve
You are talking about effecting regime change to improve people’s life. But what is the price? How many people will die during the change? In his article, he never show any humanity concerns about the potential damage, not a bit.

If you live in the 1940s during the Chinese Civil War, you will find your exact same words criticizing Mao and the CCP for killing millions of people to effect regime change in ousting Chiang Kai-shek. As if Mao and CCP showed any humanity concerns and the lives lost in their quest to wrestle power from Chiang.

Hahahaha. That is so laughable.

December 11, 2010 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

@Steve
For Chinese people, how many people will actually share his view. I will say, definitely in minority.

Well and good. In that case, the CCP, with such a righteous argument and cause, should debate Liu face to face on CCTV and demolish him point by point, sentence by sentence in the full view of the entire Chinese population in a nationally telecast debate. Then Liu will lose all his credibility and probably live in obscurity. But what is the CCP is afraid of a person who seemingly lost all his credibility with the Chinese people to warrant them to blackout all news about his Nobel prize? Why is the CCP afraid of this Liu? Why?

December 11, 2010 @ 11:45 pm | Comment

Mark is Merp and Hong Xing, with a patina of politeness. Anyone who could overlook all the horrors of Mao and laud him for increasing Chinese people’s life expectancy as though that is his main legacy is ‘t to be taken seriously. The CR wiped out the minds of a generation. Another few years of life expectancy is wonderful, but it pales in comparison to the havoc Mao wreaked on his people, scores of millions of whom died well before they should have. He may be from Hong Kong, but he is hard-wired with the most obnoxious Party talking points, straight down the list. We aren’t going to get anywhere.

December 11, 2010 @ 11:56 pm | Comment

Mark: Only an agenda driven fanatic or else someone incredibly stupid would be so daft as to compare PRC with Taiwan.

Mark, you’ve been mainly civil, but I want to request that you not address commenters like that. It robs you of the little credibility you may have, and will get you banned if you continue.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:07 am | Comment

@Mark
We do have the equivalents of a hypothetical non-denazified Germany

Sorry, if there is really an equivalent of a hypothetical non-denazified Germany, the most likely candidate is the the CCP.

It NEVER apologized for the atrocities committed since 1949 and continue to worship Mao, the mastermind of the atrocities as a national “hero” of sorts. That’s your “hypothetical non-denazified Germany” — the Chinese Communist Party.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:14 am | Comment

“If you live in the 1940s during the Chinese Civil War, you will find your exact same words criticizing Mao and the CCP for killing millions of people to effect regime change in ousting Chiang Kai-shek. As if Mao and CCP showed any humanity concerns and the lives lost in their quest to wrestle power from Chiang. ”

Indeed. I do not dispute your claim here. I never say Mao should get Nobel peace prize. We have already known how damaging a violent revolution can be. One is more than enough. Let’s find a peaceful route.

“Well and good. In that case, the CCP, with such a righteous argument and cause, should debate Liu face to face on CCTV and demolish him point by point, sentence by sentence in the full view of the entire Chinese population in a nationally telecast debate. ”

Well, I do not think Liu does not deserve that. Look, in western country, there is no restriction on information flow. How many oversea chinese support Liu and share Liu’s position? Very few. In fact, many people does agree with CCP, this award is a political tool and is a farce.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:21 am | Comment

Well, I do not think Liu does not deserve that. Look, in western country, there is no restriction on information flow.

It’s quite funny that you claimed that Liu has no credibility with the Chinese people and yet afraid to debate him face to face to demolish him. It’s very funny that the CCP had to use so many diplomatic channels and blackout news about such a supposedly insignificant and discredited person. Hahaha.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:28 am | Comment

@Mark
Most Chinese think democracy as practiced in the West is not suitable for China.

Never mind that those who think so have US, UK, Canada, Australian passports and enjoy their lives in those “Western” democracies.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:42 am | Comment

“It NEVER apologized for the atrocities committed since 1949 and continue to worship Mao, the mastermind of the atrocities as a national “hero” of sorts. That’s your “hypothetical non-denazified Germany” — the Chinese Communist Party.”

Apart from the period of the GLF the overall mortality rate during Mao’s time declined significantly. And to get your millions of deaths during the GLF you have to accept that mortality had declined in the years between 1949 and the years leading up to the GLF. If you do not it is mathematically impossible to get the tens of millions of excess famine deaths.

The thing is Mao doubled life expectancy and the population of China. He gave China the atomic bomb. He defeated the Americans in Korea, the biggest and first defeat of the US armed forces in history. In fact the population of China under Mao increased by more than it had in the previous century up to Mao? Why is this sp123? Can you tell me the answer?

Mao of course kept China independent not only of the United States, but also the Soviet Union.

That is not to say he did not fuck up badly during part of his rule. The 70-30 verdict is about right.

Without Mao there would be no new China, there would not be the China of today which is strong and feared by the West.

As for the Nazis, nothing comes close to the European conquests of the Americas and Africa. The Nazis managed to kill 2/3 of European Jews. The European conquerors of America killed about 95% of Native Americans. The greatest sustained genocide in human history.

Just two examples of colonial King Leopold of Belgium killed 10 million Congolese on his rubber plantations. The British in the 1950s interned 1.5 million Kenyans in the 1950s, out of a population of 7 to 8 million. Up to 300,000 died. This is the equivalent of 20,000,000 deaths in China

Note there is a difference between Mao and the deaths mentioned above. Mao was responsible for famine deaths – but were unintended. The deaths of Africans and Asians killed by colonialism were largely intended.

You should also take time to read up about the American genocide of Phillipinos.

Go to Steve’s links to Liu Xiaobo’s writings. These are the people (Britain and America) who Liu calls the most kind, benevelent people in the world, whose troops he mourns for in Iraq.

And how many excess deaths were caused by the opium wars sp123? China’s life expectancy was 33 in 1949. How many excess deaths does that represent? And how many lives did Mao save by indisputably doubling the life expectancy of China, in spite of the GLF tragedy?

Wake up sp123. The white man does not have any compassion for Chinese people. The white man for well over one hundred years has pillaged China and made himself wealthy. He treats you like a dog. Any Chinese regime which is looked on kindly by the West would in fact be a regime of traitors. If China is disliked and feared by the West that is good. And it means the government, at least in some respects, is doing a good job for China.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:50 am | Comment

“Anyone who could overlook all the horrors of Mao and laud him for increasing Chinese people’s life expectancy as though that is his main legacy is ‘t to be taken seriously”

So the huge number of Chinese people who revere Mao, like my Dad, like my late mother-in-law, even though her father died in the Great Leap are not to be taken seriously?

I find that to be rather orientalist and just a little patronising.

Sort of like those Western commentators who call Ahmandinijad a nutcase. Yet he won an election. So calling him a nutcase is really by extension calling the majority of Iranians nutcases.

Again, the 70-30 verdict on Mao is about right.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:58 am | Comment

Centuries-old genocide performed by the West doesn’t mitigate what Mao did in the 1950s. The US has made many apologies to the American Indians and given them all sorts of protections. A shameful, inexcusable chapter in US history. But you know what? In our social studies classes we are taught that it was the most shameful moment. Most young Chinese hardly know the GLF ever occurred, and certainly don’t know the scale of the tragedy.

This pattern of drawing false parallels is the tactic of choice of fenqing who, unable to justify the horrors of Mao, can only point to others and say, “They did it, too.” Even it it was more than a hundred years earlier. And even though it’s irrelevant, as bad deeds by one don’t justify bad deeds by another.

Mark is reminding me more and more of Merp.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:01 am | Comment

“Never mind that those who think so have US, UK, Canada, Australian passports and enjoy their lives in those “Western” democracies.”

No. It seems like it is the Chinese inside China now who are by and large happy with their leaders.

“In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.”
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/080807_governments.htm

86% approval is pretty good. Better than the US.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:03 am | Comment

@FOARP

Hah! That was such an elegant comeback to my dig. Bravo!

Apparently now I have to go and claim someone else’s family.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:03 am | Comment

Wake up sp123. The white man does not have any compassion for Chinese people.

Looks like one of those who need to “wake up” must be former Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa.

Lord MacLehose, a British diplomat and China scholar who was London’s longest-serving governor of Hong Kong, from 1971 to 1982, died on May 27 in Ayrshire, Scotland. He was 82 and had run a sheep farm at Beoch outside Maybole since his retirement.

His term as governor of Hong Kong spanned its transition from a backwater trading post to a fledgling economic powerhouse. The colony reverted to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, an event he had anticipated by working to clarify the ambiguous and often testy relationship between Britain and mainland China.

His pragmatic, hands-on approach drew a tribute from Tung Chee-hwa, now the former colony’s Beijing-sponsored chief executive, who said he was saddened by the death of a good friend of Hong Kong.

Mr. Tung said his colonial predecessor had helped root out police corruption, build a mass transit system and provide public housing for those who lived in squalid shantytowns. He also was credited with improving social conditions for the poor and with curbing illegal immigration from mainland China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/12/world/lord-maclehose-82-governor-of-hong-kong-and-china-scholar.html

December 12, 2010 @ 1:08 am | Comment

“The US has made many apologies to the American Indians and given them all sorts of protections.”

Sort of a bit late. The Tibetans and Uighurs are far better off, by any objective measure.

“This pattern of drawing false parallels is the tactic of choice of fenqing who, unable to justify the horrors of Mao, can only point to others and say, “They did it, too.””

Not false parallels. Because the deaths Mao was responsible for were largely unintended. Unless one thinks that he started the GLF for it to fail. He, and many others from the ground up thought that it would actually work and create a paradise for all, where peasants could eat all they want for free.

I don’t think the European colonialists had in mind the welfare of the Herero, the Indians when they cleared them out of the way for lebensraum.

Mao committed evil for good. The imperialists committed evil for evil’s sake. So there yes. I suppose there is a ‘false parallel’ there.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:08 am | Comment

“In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.”
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/080807_governments.htm

86% approval is pretty good. Better than the US.

That is not stopping Chinese mothers going to US to give birth. LOL.

http://www.china.org.cn/china/2010-07/03/content_20411756.htm

December 12, 2010 @ 1:10 am | Comment

Sort of a bit late. The Tibetans and Uighurs are far better off, by any objective measure.

And you once again become a self-appointed spokesperson of these people without any representativeness and basis. LOL.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:12 am | Comment

Lord MacLehose: Yes. There are exceptions. Note that he was also quite understanding of the Chinese government, and disapproved Patten’s ‘democratic’ reforms in the 1990s. A sensible white man.

But he is one man, and he does not make up for the evil Britain did to China for well over a century.

I suggest you go to the link to Hans Roslings video I posted. When did things start to improve for China. Under Mao China’s population increased by more than it had in the entire century preceding 1949. Does that not say something to you?

December 12, 2010 @ 1:13 am | Comment

Mao committed evil for good.

Even Japanese ultra-nationalists can say the same for Tojo: He committed evil for the good of Japan.

Stop kidding us.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:14 am | Comment

And you once again become a self-appointed spokesperson of these people without any representativeness and basis.

Well certainly with some basis. One very important one. Tibetans make up 90% of Tibet’s population. Uighurs 45% of Xinjiang.

What is the percentage of aborigines in Australia. What is the percentage of American indians in America?

You tell me sp123.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:16 am | Comment

That is not stopping Chinese mothers going to US to give birth. LOL.

So what? The US is a rich country. Most people go there for economic reasons.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:18 am | Comment

I When did things start to improve for China. Under Mao China’s population increased by more than it had in the entire century preceding 1949.

Then by the same measure, Deng must be making a bad mistake for slowing China’s population growth. Mao good, Deng bad. I like that warped reasoning of yours.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:19 am | Comment

Well certainly with some basis. One very important one. Tibetans make up 90% of Tibet’s population. Uighurs 45% of Xinjiang.

Mark, when did you become Tibetan or Uighur to speak for them?

December 12, 2010 @ 1:20 am | Comment

“Then by the same measure, Deng must be making a bad mistake for slowing China’s population growth. Mao good, Deng bad. I like that warped reasoning of yours.”

It is your reasoning that is warped. It is not so much the population growth under Mao that is good in itself, but rather what it indicates. That there were major health improvements during his time.

Stanford researchers are investigating this period:
http://tinyurl.com/24wg3f3

I suppose sp123 will trust the opinions of these researchers because they are white people.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:23 am | Comment

So what? The US is a rich country. Most people go there for economic reasons.

Read: The mothers want US citizenship for their unborn child. Which means giving up Chinese citizenship since China does not allow dual citizenship.

Economic reasons? Stop the bullshit.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:23 am | Comment

Economic reasons? Stop the bullshit.

Well if not for reasons of political democracy, they could have gone to the Phillipines or Panama. Do you think if the US was a poor country, but with the same political system, they would have gone there to give birth? Get real!

December 12, 2010 @ 1:25 am | Comment

“It’s quite funny that you claimed that Liu has no credibility with the Chinese people and yet afraid to debate him face to face to demolish him. It’s very funny that the CCP had to use so many diplomatic channels and blackout news about such a supposedly insignificant and discredited person. Hahaha.”

Look. Liu’s position is very clear. We do not need debate to clarify his position. If you read his article, he basic repeat the follwoing:

1. CCP is an evil dictatorship.
2. Evil dictatorship should go.
3. Saddam is an evil dictatorship. Overthrowing it by force is justified. He is a fervent supporter for Iraq invasion.
4. He support Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet independence.
5. He deplores the action by KMT to lower cross-strait tension and view it as surrender.
6. He abhors 2008 Olympic, celebrating every mis-step.
7. China need democracy. China need have a cleansing of past bad influence.

Liu is nominated by Dalai for Novel. The only chance to Tibet to get independence is that CCP falls and Liu or his ally took power.

Given Liu’s position on #1, #2, #4, #6, how can western people not love him? They need some Chinese to speak for him. Liu is the perfect candidate!

December 12, 2010 @ 1:26 am | Comment

By the way sp123, why do you love white people so much, while at the same time hate Chinese people? Do you want China to be ruled by white people?

December 12, 2010 @ 1:26 am | Comment

Lord MacLehose: Yes. There are exceptions. Note that he was also quite understanding of the Chinese government

So understanding of Beijing that MacLehose was the one who floated the idea that Britain could continue to “administer” Hong Kong after the crucial 1997 deadline for the leased New Territories expired.

What an “understanding” man indeed who harboured intentions of colonialism beyond 1997.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:28 am | Comment

Correction:

Given Liu’s position on #1, #2, #4, #6, how can western people not love Liu? They need some Chinese to speak for them. Liu is the perfect candidate!

December 12, 2010 @ 1:29 am | Comment

By the way sp123, why do you love white people so much, while at the same time hate Chinese people? Do you want China to be ruled by white people?

Mark called MacLehose, the one who want Britain to administer HK beyond 1997 “quite understanding of the Chinese government”.

And you wonder who was really the one who want China to be ruled by “white” people?

LOL.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:31 am | Comment

Given Liu’s position on #1, #2, #4, #6, how can western people not love him? They need some Chinese to speak for him. Liu is the perfect candidate!

Then all the more CCTV should broadcast the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony throughout China to let people see how Liu and the clowns disgraced themselves. Why the blackout?

December 12, 2010 @ 1:35 am | Comment

Well if not for reasons of political democracy, they could have gone to the Phillipines or Panama. Do you think if the US was a poor country, but with the same political system, they would have gone there to give birth?

Hoho. Looks like Mark is one of those retards who thinks that poverty is not a serious problem in the US. You don’t even know how many homeless people are there across America. And Chinese people who go to America are already well-off in China. The poor Chinese can’t even a train ticket during the Golden Weekends, what’s more of a plane ticket to the US?

Hahaha.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:39 am | Comment

Hoho. Looks like Mark is one of those retards who thinks that poverty is not a serious problem in the US. You don’t even know how many homeless people are there across America.

Whats the average income in American compared to China?

So you think they went there because they can vote?

December 12, 2010 @ 1:44 am | Comment

By the way sp123. I want to ask you this important question.

If the USA went to war against China, over say Taiwan, and you had to fight for either the USA or China, who would you fight for?

December 12, 2010 @ 1:45 am | Comment

Whats the average income in American compared to China?

That shows how retarded you are. In America, you need a much higher income to survive because the cost of living is several times higher than China.

Economics 101, pls.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:50 am | Comment

If the USA went to war against China, over say Taiwan, and you had to fight for either the USA or China, who would you fight for?

If Mark is a Chinese whose mother travelled to US to give birth to him as a US citizen, who will he fight for?

December 12, 2010 @ 1:53 am | Comment

Come on sp123. Don’t evade the question. Who would you fight for? If you cannot say China you are a traitor and running dog.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:56 am | Comment

@Mark

If the Chinese go to America purely out of economics reasons, then they must be really retarded, especially those who want their child become US citizens purely out of economic reasons. Because they are saddling their US-born child with the fiscal shit of Uncle Sam: over 30,000 dollars of debt as calculated by the US national debt clock.

How dumb.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:59 am | Comment

If you cannot say China you are a traitor and running dog.

I am neither a Chinese or American citizen. Sorry, looks like you gotta answer that question as a fenqing with a US passport. Hoho.

And should a war break out in Taiwan and that Ma Ying-jeou and Lien Chan do not surrender to the PLA, they too will be traitors and running dogs. LOL.

December 12, 2010 @ 2:02 am | Comment

Mark is the “running dog” for the “white” man because he openly calls MacLehose, the colonial governor of Hong Kong, who came up with the notion that Britain should administer Hong Kong beyond 1997, an exceptional “white man” who is “quite understanding of the Chinese government”.

Dogs? Strange that those using that name on humans is calling out for his own species. LOL.

December 12, 2010 @ 2:07 am | Comment

To Mark 124:
I had responded to that earlier. So you’re equating what Liu wrote with something that would justify Martial Law? In most places, Martial Law is introduced rarely, in extraordinary circumstances. But in China, that’s every day? If that’s the case, Martial Law is the Law (for what it’s worth) in CHina.

As Richard had also suggested, you’re embodying one big continuous victim mentality. What is a “continuous state of emergency”? What is the “emergency”? That kind of thinking is exactly what the CCP thrives upon, I would guess. Let’s make people think that we’re constantly under attack, and that way it will justify allowing us to do whatever the heck we want to whoever the heck we want. Here’s the other thing: you assume Chinese people are afflicted as much as you are. And you have no way of knowing that, or basis for assuming that, as you’ve already acknowledged. You may say many people you know/see feel the same way you do. I’d say that’s merely a reflection of who you know and see. I know many Chinese people who fortunately do not carry around the baggage you have.

To 125:
addressed that as well. By the CCP’s very nature, you DON’T know that most people are happy. Resigned, perhaps. Apathetic, maybe. But you can’t know that the CCP would be what they would choose unless you give them the choice, and at least one alternative. Sure, the lemmings can join the CCP. But what if one has ideas that…umm…don’t mesh well with the CCP way? Your answer is like Henry FOrd saying you can have your Model T in any colour, as long as it is black.

What you personally think is fantastic…and meaningless. I’d be far more interested in how Chinese people would choose to govern themselves.

And really, on principle, you would have no answer to someone smoking in your house. You also haven’t answered why you think Chinese people shouldn’t get to make the rules they are to live by, except to say you “think” they’re happy and you “think” Singapore might be a good model.

To 126:
again, already addressed that. You’re extrapolating a “slavish mindset” in how one wears a hat to how one might feel about freedom of expression, governance, and human rights. If there is a mosquito flying around me, I will try to kill it. A mosquito is a living thing. That doesn’t mean I will try to kill all other living things around me. Your extrapolation has no basis, and makes no sense. In addition, you’ve yet to relate it to the topic of this thread, except to pass it off as some “mindset”. That’s weak stuff. BTW, call me what you want, cuz in your mind that might make up for a lack of an argument. I assume you to be an FQ anyway, so we’re square.

To 128:
as I’ve also (again) said, they have, do, and will continue, to lecture China on human rights, because CCP CHina has, does, and sadly will continue to abuse them. Various countries did various bad things in the past. Doesn’t change the fact that CCP CHina does some bad things today, nor does it excuse them. To suggest that China shouldn’t stop doing bad things unless others apologize first is the attitude and behaviour of a pre-pubescent child, and certainly not befitting of a nation that would see herself as a budding superpower (when she is not hiding behind the victim mentality, of course).

December 12, 2010 @ 2:23 am | Comment

To FOARP 133:
that is precisely why I don’t go to that esteemed blog. Its purveyors are…interesting, for lack of a better or more polite word. ***SPOILER ALERT*** If you saw the movie, you may have noticed him reaching around for his Swiss Army multitool in the dark, and not being able to find it. To me, just a product placement shot. No one in their right mind would think that the fact that he couldn’t get a huge boulder off of him was because of the little hand tool he was using. Besides, that made-in-CHina tool did something later in the movie that saved the guy’s life. I guess Allen missed that part of the movie.

With those 2 clowns, the answer is that China is being bashed. The question is what is the situation. When you live your life thinking that China is being bashed, I imagine you will self-fulfill that prophecy everywhere you look, read, hear, touch, and smell. Those 2 guys aren’t stupid per se (in fact, likely anything but). But they sure are afflicted with something fierce.

December 12, 2010 @ 2:36 am | Comment

To 159:
it seems your principles are becoming a little bit “flexible”.

When it comes to Liu, the CCP is justified to do whatever she wants because securing prosperity for the country allows for doing whatever is necessary to the “subversives who subvert”. So the ends justify the means.

But when it comes to Mao, he apparently tried to do good but ended up committing evil, and that’s ok. So the means justify the ends.

Nice to see that you can fit your principles to the situation at hand in order to fulfill your preferred narrative.

December 12, 2010 @ 2:55 am | Comment

Weird to see people using increased life expectancy under Mao as a measure of his success. Due to improvements in medicine, life expectancy increased all over the world after WWII. Anyone who credits communist rule for the rise in life expectancy in Tibet, for instance, should look across the border in Bhutan, where it is at the same level.

December 12, 2010 @ 3:09 am | Comment

“When you live your life thinking that China is being bashed, I imagine you will self-fulfill that prophecy everywhere you look, read, hear, touch, and smell. ”

“China is being bashed” is not hallucination. For pete’s sake. Otherwise, we would not have huge backlash from Chinese community during the runup time to 2008 Olympic, and you have anti-CNN websye.China is last viable communist government. It’s success could potentially shake peopl

December 12, 2010 @ 3:27 am | Comment

To Steve,
I admire the CCP about as far as I can throw them. However, even I wouldn’t characterize them as “communist”. They are almost as free market as the next guy. If China didn’t stop being communist in the 1980′s, she wouldn’t be where she is today.

In fact, I wouldn’t even characterize them as socialist per se, since they have a paltry social safety net and it’s very much every-man-for-himself financially. It’s one of many areas that definitely needs to improve.

However, if you say “authoritarian”, then you’re talking. In that regard, she’s actually not alone, which is unfortunate on several levels.

China isn’t being bashed. Some people do prefer to unilaterally perceive her as being bashed. There is a significant difference between those 2 things.

December 12, 2010 @ 3:56 am | Comment

Mark. You have now proved to be an expert on a range of histories (Chinese, Western colonialisms), demography @ epidemiology , comparative political @ legal systems, global media and a few other things beside. Such erudition. I’m certainly impressed and all done without pesky things like citations.

Are you the modern reincarnation of Franz Fanon? When you write your biography can I have the movie rights, being a non-caucasion myself.
Working title: My strike hard campaign against western whitey on behalf of all the oppressed around the world. I can see it now. My very own Confucious Prize. Mrs Tubby will be pleased.

December 12, 2010 @ 4:27 am | Comment

“Such erudition. I’m certainly impressed and all done without pesky things like citations”

What piece of factual evidence do you disagree with?

December 12, 2010 @ 5:16 am | Comment

The fact is traitor Liu Xiaobo is a disgusting individual who supports the murder of up to one million Iraqis by US and British imperialism.

And he is given a ‘peace’ prize.

That shows the racist nature of the white West.

December 12, 2010 @ 5:19 am | Comment

Now y’all just cussin’ and dissin’ each other.

December 12, 2010 @ 5:26 am | Comment

“Weird to see people using increased life expectancy under Mao as a measure of his success”

If you refer to the link below you will see that Mao did a helluva lot better than many other developing nations in this regard:
http://tinyurl.com/3actadu

Note that these Western commentators who say Mao is a mass murderer equivalent to or even worse than Hitler, do not say the same of Yeltsin for three million excess deaths under Yeltsin during the transition to capitalism (equivalent to 24 million deaths in a country of China’s size).
http://www.progressive.org/mag_apb042707

No one says that Churchill is as bad as Hitler (or even 2/3 as bad as Hitler) for 4 million deaths in the Bengal famine. In fact hardly anyone has probably heard of the Bengal famine, in which Churchill deliberately blocked timely famine relief:
http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2005/07/forgotten-holocaust-194344-bengal.html

December 12, 2010 @ 5:46 am | Comment

“But when it comes to Mao, he apparently tried to do good but ended up committing evil, and that’s ok. So the means justify the ends.”

You need a class in critical thinking. I did not say it was OK. I said it made him not as bad as those who did evil for evil ends. That’s all I said.

December 12, 2010 @ 5:58 am | Comment

“China isn’t being bashed. Some people do prefer to unilaterally perceive her as being bashed. ”

Different people certainly could have different perception regarding whether there is bashing or the degree of bashing. It will be presumptuous to claim to have definite answer to that.

CCP certainly utilizes this difference in perception for its own use. The people who perceived bashing will be more likely to think that the west is trying to use Nobel peace event to get China. This difference in perception will also affect people’s answer to Richard’s original question.

December 12, 2010 @ 6:14 am | Comment

“Otherwise, we would not have huge backlash from Chinese community during the runup time to 2008 Olympic, and you have anti-CNN websye.China is last viable communist government. It’s success could potentially shake peopl”

Steve. You are 100% correct. It was inspiring to see how Chinese people everywhere, in Hong Kong, in mainland China, in South Korea, in the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, all over the world unite to come out in support of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the fury and indignation of Chinese everywhere over the West’s attempts to humiliate the Chinese people over Tibet.

It was a real demonstration of popular support, not for the CCP, but for China.

Yet now we have China’s so called greatest ‘living hero’ by the West, a man who fawns over British and American imperialism, who is given a Nobel Prize, and the Westerners demand that Chinese people should be proud of him. The sheer arrogance of it is just laughable.

But if Liu Xiaobo is such a great man where is the support for him? Even in Hong Kong hardly anyone gives a shit about him. This is true. Why are the overseas students not coming out in his support, the way they supported China over Tibet?

The simple fact is white people care about Liu Xiaobo a lot more than Chinese people do. And that speaks volumes as to whose interests he really serves.

December 12, 2010 @ 6:24 am | Comment

To Steve:
agreed. It’s to-MAY-to or to-MA-to. Different people will perceive things differently, and understandably so.

Also agree that the CCP is more than happy to exploit such differences.

December 12, 2010 @ 6:26 am | Comment

Mark,

As an administrator of this site, I’ve already warned you once about using ad hominem based on race (See your comment #182). If you have an argument, make it, but attacks based on perceived ethnicity simply reveal a bankrupt intellect. Be better than that.

(That said, seeing comment #194 I think we’ve all seen this movie before…and know from whence it springs and how it usually ends.)

December 12, 2010 @ 6:57 am | Comment

To 197:
“I did not say it was OK.”
—alright. In order to salvage your principles, you had to ditch Mao and admit that what he did was bad. Of course, you still had to revert to old ways and “compare” to try to make him look “less bad”. Old habits die hard, I see. But if I was faced with your conundrum of saving Mao or saving your principles, I certainly would’ve gone with the latter as well. Good choice there.

I think I’ll come over to your place and light up a cigarette now.

To 199:
if you want to know how much and how well Liu’s ideas resonate with Chinese people in China, you’re pretty well stuck with allowing Chinese people to freely examine his ideas first, then asking them. You don’t seem to support the process. So one wonders how much you really care about what Chinese people in China think. Like many others, you seem quite comfortable in prescribing for Chinese people while not living as one (obviously I mean being in the PRC).

I know you enjoy your extrapolations (whether they’re appropriate or not, as it would appear based on the last 24 hours). But what overseas Chinese may or may not think is a poor facsimile for the real thing.

December 12, 2010 @ 7:03 am | Comment

@ SKC. If Mr Liu’s ideas were ever given the opportunity to resonate or be discussed domestically, I believe they would come a poor second to foodbasket inflation at the moment. Thats a topic which is really exercising the minds of average Chinese wage earners presently, and there is pretty good coverage of this issue also. Beijing has been very successful in hiving off Charter 08 propositions and simply demonised Liu as a national traitor.

The ability/inability to provide basic things like affordable food, shelter and healthcare to the critical mass of citizens will determine the future of the CCP. To date it has done a pretty good job to put it mildly, but to continue this upward trajectory, it will need to restructure the economy, halt inflation and provide a more agreeable environment for small scale business enterprises. (Not everybody can get a govt or SOE job.)

I applaud the fact that average person in China is strongly aspirational, but serious inflation kills off such sentiments in quick time. Only then will Liu’s propositions as well as extreme nationalism, a dose of millenianism in rural areas, etc will burst into the public conversation.

December 12, 2010 @ 7:48 am | Comment

Guys, this thread has really melted down. Note how Mark started off as a borderline sane, polite commenter, and has now fully showed his cards. And it’s not pretty.

The fact is traitor Liu Xiaobo is a disgusting individual who supports the murder of up to one million Iraqis by US and British imperialism.

I would love to see where Liu said he was in favor of the deaths of 1 million Iraqi civilians. Many people supported the war, which hardly means they supported the slaughter of a million innocents, nearly all of which happened during the post-invasion insurgency, an utter disaster (though the 1 million number is definitely disputable). That’s like saying anyone who thought the Allies should have retaliated against the Axis powers in WWII supported the wanton slaughter of tens of millions of innocent civilians. Bullshit. Anyway, show us where Liu said he supported the murder of civilians. This shows you are willing to go to virtually any length to smear Liu.

This has crossed the line into absurdity. At least now we all know about Mark, who I suggest listens to Jeremiah and cut the ad hominems.

December 12, 2010 @ 7:54 am | Comment

@ Richard. That was apparent midday yesterday. The only thing missing was a reference by Mark to oppressed penguins in Antartica.

December 12, 2010 @ 8:09 am | Comment

This demonstrates what a good job the CCP has done in smearing Liu. A “traitor” for seeking democratic reforms, despite his long record of public service in China? I can understand not liking Liu, for seeing him as a shit-stirrer, for being put off by his remarks 20 years ago about colonization. But a traitor? You don’t do what Liu did if you don’t't feel a deep love for your country, to the point of putting its welfare above your own.

December 12, 2010 @ 8:24 am | Comment

Okay, now it’s all making sense. A friend of mine just sent me the following:

Richard, a nasty message from ‘mongol warrior’ got caught in my spam filter – gloating about slipping under the radar as ‘Mark’ on your site

Mongol Warrior, AKA “Wayne,” is one of the most lethal and repugnant trolls I’ve ever dealt with. He not only writes hateful comments, but then he sends you personal emails filled with obscenities. I really apologize – if I had had any idea not one of his comments would have posted. I’m sure the hateful emails to me will follow. The joys of being the webmaster.

December 12, 2010 @ 8:29 am | Comment

To KT:
I agree that Liu’s ideas may not be a priority for Chinese people right now. They are certainly not the only priority. The thing that irks me is that Chinese people as you describe would know what their priorities are, and need not be spoon-fed them by the CCP. If the CCP types felt so strongly that the economy is such an overriding priority for Chinese people today, then why do they seem so afraid that the mere discussion of Liu’s ideas would so readily alter those priorities? It’s like strongly believing in something while simultaneously not believing in that exact same thing.

Of course, at some future point, China’s growth will spill over to the point where those basic priorities should be covered. I don’t know how much faith you have in the CCP to alter her governance accordingly when that time comes, but I certainly don’t have much. On the other hand, for Liu’s ideas to only gain traction in an environment where China’s growth is sputtering would seem to set up the implementation of his ideas for failure.

December 12, 2010 @ 8:42 am | Comment

To Richard,
what is with these people? He didn’t sound completely nuts like some of the others either, though as KT notes, things were devolving over the course of about 12 hours.

December 12, 2010 @ 8:46 am | Comment

You can see it was strategic, starting off like someone who wanted to engage in a serious dialogue. I was a little suspicious 12 hours ago, and that suspicion just kept on growing. He is now banned, so the fun may be coming to an end.

December 12, 2010 @ 8:57 am | Comment

China shouldn’t blame “the West”, it’s the Jews. China has been on their list of conspiracy victims since the portent of the birth of great leader Mao Zedong. They saw him and his great economic and cultural reforms of the 50s and 60s as a threat to their global hegimony. They’ve been planning a response for decades.

The Nobel Prize is just stage 1. Stage 2 will see the KFCs and McDonalds in China lace their products with mind-control substances to make them more obedient to the World Order.

December 12, 2010 @ 9:03 am | Comment

I’ll take a contrarian stance, I think that trolls like Mark/Mongol Warrior and even my old nemesis Merp actually do want to have a reasonable debate because it’s clear they feel strongly about the subject and want their opinions respected and heard.

The problem occurs when their arguments are shot full of holes, as their comments become increasingly vapid and full of logical fallacies, factual inconsistencies, and evidential limitations. Faced with the prospect of withdrawing gracefully from the field, they instead devolve into race-baiting and name-calling, ultimately revealing their motivations to be both intellectual and, at the same time, the working out of various psychological foibles and inadequacies.

Sad, he was amusing for the first few hours.

December 12, 2010 @ 9:20 am | Comment

Crap, this comment about “Western racism” was written by Mongol Warrior, too, posing as Jeremiah. I was wondering how Jeremiah could have written that.

Richard

December 12, 2010 @ 10:20 am | Comment

@ SKC. My last. Two points if I may, bouncing off your following:

“If the CCP types felt so strongly that the economy is such an overriding priority for Chinese people today …”.

CCP types do not have an overriding concern about the economy, as they have already carved up between themselves all the important sectors – banking and finance, manufacturing, petroleum, communications, r/e etc -into impregnable SOEs, which are then divvied up between the red phone set (about 400 individuals, their families and cronies). ***Holding on to these conquests at all costs is what really counts***.

I should put in references, but my novice understanding is that present inflation is a product of the structural characteristics of the economy, excessive liquidity, the inflow of hot money, plus reduced land tillage. I recommend John Lee’s Will China Fail.

I have little to no faith that the CP will be able to alter (for the better) its mode of governance. It will need a serious economic trigger before the populace is forced to consider a viable alternative.

Xi Jinping forthcoming task is to manage the various interest groups in the leadership, see that the economic rewards are divvied out in a manner as to prevent dissatisfaction and internal division. (One of the wiki Huntsman cables captures this perfectly). Xi has no ideology or policy direction, purely a managerial/referee function. Don’t want a recurrence of what happened to the Shanghai set after Hu became maximun leader.

I admit to being an old fashioned economic determinist when it comes to China.

December 12, 2010 @ 10:30 am | Comment

Jeremiah, is it really racism you’re referring to? People who say they want China to fail (and I don’t know of any myself – I’d hope most Americans understand how dire that would be for the US) may be idiots, but I don’t see the racism. Sinophobia maybe, but that’s not necessarily race-based. Are they driven by hatred of the Chinese race, or is it about economics, or maybe fears of a “China threat”? I certainly hope it’s not racism.

December 12, 2010 @ 11:43 am | Comment

To Jeremiah:
your last statement seems very perceptive to me. There was a blog I used to visit whose raison d’etre was to bridge the gap and increase the understanding of people on the two sides, and hopefully in so doing bring those positions closer together. It seemed a noble goal. But the more I heard of what the other side was selling, and the more I saw of the manner with which they tried to sell it, the more inclined I became to back further from that fence than move closer, and the more convinced I actually became in my own position.

I find it quite plausible that a segment of the population might be apprehensive about CHina. If your job just got outsourced there, you might harbour some personal resentment. If your industry is in direct competition with China, there might be cause to feel some angst. So some people on some level might feel some animosity towards China. And although it is impossible to select out the exact cause of such feelings, I feel a racially-based prejudice is but one possibility.

Ironically, the people who seem to make the biggest deal wrt race are guys like “Mark”.

To KT:
looks like we share about the same amount of faith in the CCP.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:17 pm | Comment

“James Fallows describes how many Americans he talks to about China will eagerly ask when China will crash, obviously hoping for this to happen soon.”

This may hint at a vestige of logical fallacy, but the extent to which some non-Chinese long for a China collapse is (in my experience) eclipsed by the (proportional, and necessarily numerical) weight of similar sentiments among Chinese towards the ‘west’, and the US in particular.

This is entirely in line with China’s FP towards US interests, stated or otherwise.

December 12, 2010 @ 12:19 pm | Comment

There is another criterion for judging a country. Who do you hang with internationally? Non-attendees at the NPP ceremony: DPROK, Myanmar, Afganistan, Eygpt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia – global role models one and all.

Croatia would have been in the line up, until it got the message that that would kill its EU prospects. Crikey, even the hapless Phillipines joined this posse of unsavory regimes.

For posters who have not yet had the good fortune, read McGregors The Party. Particularly instructive are the diagrams in the front and back sleeves showing how the party apparatus and its organs oversight/controls all aspects of govt, courts, PLA, media, communications and large chunks of the economy from behind the scenes. Refined, polished and extended over time from Beijing to the provinces.

Well-intentioned cadres may come and overtly corrupt ones may land in the slammer,but it is the structure of this bio-political machine which is the obstacle. (God, if Foucault was alive today and had an interest in contemporary China, he would have the subject matter for a killer tome.)

December 12, 2010 @ 12:55 pm | Comment

To KT:
LOL. Great list. I guess the CCP’s threats really put the fear of god into a lot of front-line players.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:17 pm | Comment

Hey guys, after Richard reveals Mark’s real identity, i went on a little search on the Net about this “mongol warrior”. A little glimpse at the mental state of this fenqing:

Mongol Warrior Says:
October 13th, 2010 at 1:15 pm

If you think that a bunch of Western countries who have never expressed regret for their past aggression and misdeeds against China (and a host of other countries around the world), let alone an apology, who only in 1949 were booted out of China (HMS Amethyst) with their tails between their legs, and who only relinquished their extraterritorial rights in China (under wartime duress), really give a shit about the well-being of the Chinese people you are either utterly deluded or disingenuous, more likely the latter. ‘Human rights’ is just a tool used by the West to bash China over the head with. No matter what China does, short of handing over their country lock stock and barrel to the West, as was the case in the not so distant past, will never ever be enough.

Even if we had elections, Westerners would probably moan about the under-representation of homosexuals, the fact that there is no Chinese woman married to a white man as leader (that’s why they support Aung Sung Sukyi – because she sucks white cock), and that they cannot get the right brand of peanut butter in Beijing.

—————————–
Mongol Warrior Says:
September 26th, 2010 at 9:52 pm

The guy is just a trouble making punk. Wish they would just blow his fucken head off.

The very reason why China is progressing so well on all fronts is precisely because we do not have the sham system of government this running dog agitates for.

Western style democracy would only bring disaster to China.

The country directly comparable to China of course is India – that largest ‘democracy’.

China’s life expectancy in 1976, at the time of Mao’s death, was already higher than what India’s is today (Mao doubled Chinese life expectancy)

Read more if interested
http://foundinchina.com/2010/10/08/a-nobel-winner-china-can-be-proud-of/
http://foundinchina.com/2010/08/27/another-chinese-free-speech-advocate-joins-roll-of-honour/

From the above, it is clear that Mark/Mongol Warrior is a schizophrenic troll who went all over the Net to spew the same old fenqing venom over and over again at different websites. He seriously need some medical attention.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:34 pm | Comment

Evil comment from Mongol Warrior, posing as Jeremiah. Deleted with pleasure.

Richard

December 12, 2010 @ 1:35 pm | Comment

Last comment wasn’t me folks, not sure what the hell is going on…but I didn’t write it.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:42 pm | Comment

And neither was #213. If anybody else wants to pose as me and finish the last 15 pages of this chapter I’m working on, I’ll let them do so while I go decorate the Christmas tree.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:44 pm | Comment

#
Mongol Warrior wrote:

…You anti-China people are fucking so low IQ it is great – each of your arguments are so easy to just whack out of the park. But that is because you have no valid arguments. You are all pathetic asiaphile losers who can’t get white women.
Friday, April 4, 2008 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
http://www.blackandwhitecat.org/2008/04/01/separatism-and-tibet/

Reading this MongolWarrior’s comments is really disturbing for his comments are almost always violent and sexually explicit and sexually degrading.

December 12, 2010 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

Evil comment from Mongol Warrior, posing as Jeremiah. Deleted with pleasure.

Richard

December 12, 2010 @ 2:04 pm | Comment

Actually this Jeremiah (the real one, not Mark posing as me) hasn’t left a comment since #203. But if Mark wants to pose as me and grade these student finals, he’s welcome to it.

December 12, 2010 @ 2:14 pm | Comment

Hahaha, so pathetic that one has to resort to being an impostor #223.

December 12, 2010 @ 2:19 pm | Comment

Evil comment from Mongol Warrior, posing as Jeremiah. Deleted with pleasure.

Richard

December 12, 2010 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

@Mongol Warrior

You need a straitjacket. Really.

December 12, 2010 @ 3:05 pm | Comment

Yo Mongol Warrior.

On an artistic level, I gotta give you a 10. Well done. Well done! You fooled me too.

December 12, 2010 @ 4:09 pm | Comment

Holy s..t. This reminds me of Samuel Fuller’s movie Shock Corridor. Look it up people….not that many, or ***even*** any here, have a grasp of cult cinema circa ’60s. Come on, lighten up people, life recreates net-art.

Since my post record on our deranged buddy here is pretty good, I am requesting a few ritual self-sacrifices. Don’t be shy, step up to the plate guys. Kitchen knives of me.

December 12, 2010 @ 4:38 pm | Comment

My bad. A more appropriate cinematic reference would be the beautiful Bette Davis and George Sanders in All About Eve….its about an ambitious understudy.

Mr Mongol Warrior, pls spare me a description of your depraved sexual desires. I’ve read Reay Tannahill’s 1982 Sex in History which advises me that the Mongols had a thing for female deer,…tied up deer, I should add.

Sir, you are a commie prevert.

December 12, 2010 @ 5:08 pm | Comment

@Richard – You up?

Yeah, the same guy seems to be coming up with all this trollish shit. Mark appears to be Wayne Lo, the same guy who emailed me this nice little missive:

“one day we are going to sweep down, and just really flay fuckers like you alive and rip the breasts off your whore mother and and fuck your sister with a shotgun up the pussy. And you are going to watch while I deal to your girlfriend with a claw hammer. And then smash your head to a pulp with a baseball bat you white motherfucker.

The real ‘world’ true ‘global’ opinion does not hate China or the Chinese. They hate your lot.

Rise of the Coloured Races.”

There are some sick people out there.

December 12, 2010 @ 6:25 pm | Comment

An interesting story:

“TWO British scientists awarded the Nobel Physics Prize have caused shock by condemning the decision to give the peace prize to Liu Xiaobo. ”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/liu-xiaobo-wrong-man-for-nobel-peace-prize-say-laureates/story-e6frg6so-1225969772275

Critical thinking mind does process information differently from the people who are brainwashed by the media.

December 12, 2010 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

@Steve
Critical thinking mind does process information differently from the people who are brainwashed by the media.

I dare say that you are the one without any trace of critical thinking in that numbskull of yours. Yes, go ahead to say your piece if you feel that Liu is not a good choice for the Award. You are free to criticize the choice of the recipient. But what is not acceptable is that the CCP intimidate the Prize Committee prior to their final decision on who will be this year’s winner of the Peace prize. It’s one thing to disagree/criticize someone’s actions but it is another thing when you act like a thug with all that threatening and intimidation. Better still, put Liu’s wife under house arrest when she has do nothing wrong.

Critical thinking? Steve is definitely low on that count.

December 12, 2010 @ 10:46 pm | Comment

I just went back and deleted the comments from Mongol Warrior pretending to be Jeremiah. My sincere apologies to Jeremiah – I fell for it because the troll used a clever device to get around my spam filter, which would normally have held the comment for moderation.

This is yet another example of the dark side of Web 2.0, where conversations can be manipulated and hijacked, and anyone can create an identity and do mischief.

FOARP, he wrote similar emails to me and to friends of mine, replete with incredible obscenities and threats. He must be grinning now. He must have a very happy and fulfilling life.

December 13, 2010 @ 1:35 am | Comment

“Critical thinking? Steve is definitely low on that count.”

Do not get mad. Let’s improve our critical thinking skills together. Here is another article from Telegraph for thought.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/praveenswami/100067890/china%E2%80%99s-right-the-nobel-peace-prize-was-a-political-message-for-its-own-good-it-needs-to-listen/

“China’s right: the Nobel Peace Prize was a political message. For its own good, it needs to listen ”

“In this case, the answer is simple: the Atlantic order believes that China’s authoritarian system, and the populist nationalism it is feeding on, are a potential threat to the world order. ”

That is the real message of Nobel peace prize. The message can be delivered by different method. Instead, Peace prize is used to deliver this message. Conspiracy or not, you can certainly judge for yourself.

December 13, 2010 @ 3:04 am | Comment

@Richard and the “dark” side of Web 2.0

Well, I still think the web has enriched our lives enormously, wouldn’t you say so? Isn’t being exposed to the thoughts of obscene trolls a small price to pay in order to be exposed to the thoughts of, well, all the great people on the planet (almost in real-time)?

I just hope the web won’t ever bring us worms that can blow up nuclear power stations and that kind of stuff…

Besides, maybe there’s an argument to be made that the web keeps a lot of angry disturbed young men so busy that maybe they go out less and therefore do less harm in real life. Remember, the more time Mongol Warrior spends here crafting elaborate posts the less time he has available to, well, rape women in real life.

That is just one of your many contributions to the welfare of humanity, Richard :)

December 13, 2010 @ 4:49 am | Comment

If you really care about Liu 300 years (nickname for him). You should feel concerned about his wife. All these years Liu 300 years has been arrested, she had been all alone, without companion. There’s a saying in China, “A 30 year old woman is like a wolf, a 40 year old woman is like a tiger.”. Has anyone thought about her?

Many foreigners here can help her in this regard, this is your strength anyway.

December 13, 2010 @ 5:06 am | Comment

Resident: Isn’t being exposed to the thoughts of obscene trolls a small price to pay in order to be exposed to the thoughts of, well, all the great people on the planet (almost in real-time)?

That’s why I keep the blog open. But the really vicious trolls are a huge nuisance, especially when they intentionally sabotage threads and make fools of all the participants. I guess they find this titillating.

December 13, 2010 @ 5:42 am | Comment

I still hold out hope that somebody, somewhere, somehow, and someday, can adequately justify the manner in which the CCP proposes to control Chinese people. Unfortunately, people like Mongol Loser do diminish and dampen such hopes. Here’s hoping that working through one Mongol Loser’s drivel brings me closer to finding someone who can actually make an intelligent argument for the other side. Paying it forward, if you will.

To Steve #234:
I think it’s fantastic that 2 apparently very intelligent people can harbour the views on this subject that they do, and are allowed to share it without prejudice or consequence. It’s one of the virtues of this system of ours. It’s one of the great flaws of the system you apparently admire.

But here’s the thing about critical thinking. Just because 2 eminently intelligent people feel a certain way about something does not mean that theirs is the right opinion, or the only feasible opinion. In fact, if you were to think critically, the answer lies not in what others think, but simply in what you think. If you think the opinion of those 2 scientists lends credence to yours, that is in fact the epitome of not thinking critically.

However, I certainly support your call for everyone to be allowed to think critically. No doubt you will point out this deficit of the CCP system to the unelected powers that be.

To RP #238:
agreed. Much better that people like Mongol Loser spew his vitriol virtually, rather than fulfilling his unique brand of racism and misogynistic fantasies IRL.

December 13, 2010 @ 5:54 am | Comment

As this (at times sordid) chapter draws to a close I leave you with this: I think a more appropriate question given the shifting geopoloitical balance of power that we are witnessing, is this:

Is there a Chinese conspiracy to strategically, covertly, and deniably seek the downfall of the US (the ‘west’) in the pursuit of long-term regional and global dominance?

In considering the answer, think about this: if global influence stretches as far as Beijing craves, the free ‘back and forth’ of ideas that is a feature of the discussion on sites like this will become a thing of the past; and Jeremiah’s long-awaited thesis will first be subject to revision by the CCP before it can be published.

You think this is an exaggerstion? Maybe. But as long as it remains a ‘maybe’, people ought to be a lot more cognisant of the lessons that history brings us about unbridled, dictatorial power, especialy when such power is coupled with web 2.0 capabilities. The analogy here would be like giving the ring to the dark lord Sauron …

December 13, 2010 @ 6:32 am | Comment

@John – No, they aren’t. Wayne/Mark/Mongol Warrior doesn’t even come from Mainland China. These pathetic trolls who get a vicarious high from their racial identification with China’s success as a counter-point to their own failings in the main don’t come from China. Instead they seem to be ethnic Chinese living in societies in which there are a significant number of people of non-Asian descent. Their main motive seems to be to blame their own failings on the perceived prejudice of others, and gloat over the empowerment that they believe China’s rise will give them.

In the main, the people of China are friendly towards foreigners. Apart from some a couple of bar fights (which were fuelled by alcohol and the sight of foreign men with Chinese girlfriends) I never experienced any violence in nearly five years of living in China.

December 13, 2010 @ 6:40 am | Comment

@ Stuart. Aren’t you being a bit over melodramatic with your Tolkien (?) metaphor. There is quite a gap between ambition and real world realisation.

@ FOARP I quite agree with your #244 last paragraph. Having spent even more time in China, I’ve never experienced violence of any type, if I discount incidents involving aunties elbowing me at the local supermarket checkout. Southern China is a very low booze orientated society and good for them. Excessive alcohol and women in bars is a dangerous combination in any part of the world.

@ Richard. Maybe a delay moderation button even if it very time consuming for you and Jeremiah.

This creature will be back, but his posting pattern should now be quite obvious to all.

I don’t know what others think, but this weeks round two of the wikileaks cyberwar cannot be reduced to black and white hats, and should be welcomed as a positive citizens initiative.

December 13, 2010 @ 7:43 am | Comment

@King Tubby – Yes, no doubt we will see even more posting by people using one-syllable generic names who pretend to be reasonable at first and then quickly take the slide towards crazy town.

The first stage is usually some neutral-ish question/statement, which is then followed by some “yes, but, actually *insert western nation here* is guilty of *insert historical fenqing-esque grievance here* and therefore Chinese people are justified in hating white people”, which is then swiftly followed by abuse of the kind which can only come from a diseased mind.

December 13, 2010 @ 8:19 am | Comment

Guys, I am pretty sure “john” is Mongol Warrior as well. Sorry to make everyone paranoid, but here are my hints:

“And if the West really is sincere about these things (which I believe it is), surely what harm can come from apologising for the crimes of colonialism?”

“Mark is undeniably a madman, but his post #12 is actually quite good. China can hardly be blamed for doubting the sincerity of the West when it comes to human rights”

“are past Western crimes against China (and these crimes should not be swept under the carpet – as they unfortunately are in the West – not many British schoolchildren have even heard of the opium wars) still a stumbling block to getting the message across to the Chinese on the need to adhere to some ‘universal’ standard, when this ‘universal’ standard is something which undeniably comes from Western civilization”

This is exactly how “Mark” started out at the beginning of this thread, eager to learn, solicitous, open-minded, and then WHAM. And it’s a polite version of “Mark’s” “philosophy.”

John, I’ll give you a chance to prove me wrong, but I’m holding your comments for moderation until I know you better. Please don’t take it personally, and apologies if I’m wrong. I just have to be careful after yesterday’s catastrophe.

December 13, 2010 @ 9:10 am | Comment

@John
“However are past Western crimes against China (and these crimes should not be swept under the carpet – as they unfortunately are in the West – not many British schoolchildren have even heard of the opium wars) still a stumbling block to getting the message across to the Chinese on the need to adhere to some ‘universal’ standard, when this ‘universal’ standard is something which undeniably comes from Western civilization.”

I think you’ll find there are many British school children who would have trouble telling you who Churchill was, etc. Many of us better educated Britons do know – after all, that’s how Hong Kong came about etc etc. I dare say there are probably more Chinese school children that dn’t know why the Opium Wars came about and have no idea of the events by the Chinese government at the time that precipitated the sacking of the Summer Palace.
I also would like to point out that the events of the 1840s can’t really be pinned on the British people as there was no universal suffrage at the time – we could not, like teh mainland Chinese today, pick the government we wanted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

No one has a spotless history – and some really hide their history and blame others. How much of your history have you learnt from other sources (other as in non-Chinese and not biased?). You have to admit that the UK educational system does not actively try and suppress the learning of past events that do not paint the UK in a good light. They might not teach them, I admit, but they do not suppress them. There is a difference.

December 13, 2010 @ 9:37 am | Comment

“@ Stuart. Aren’t you being a bit over melodramatic with your Tolkien (?) metaphor. There is quite a gap between ambition and real world realisation.”

Sure, but once you get to realisation it’s too late. Plus, the ambition alone is reason enough to be wary of what happens in the coming decades. My point is that if the Chinese leadership in its current manifestation ends up running the global table our basic rights are going to get flushed. And if there’s a ‘conspiracy’ against the possibility of that happening, then it’s entirely justified.

December 13, 2010 @ 9:42 am | Comment

My point is that if the Chinese leadership in its current manifestation ends up running the global table our basic rights are going to get flushed.

Very happy to hear you feel this way. When China ascends, in order to re-create a harmonious world, be sure there will be a thorough accounting of a millennium of crimes committed by the Anglo-genocidists. You should hope that you won’t live to see this day.

December 13, 2010 @ 11:47 am | Comment

“My point is that if the Chinese leadership in its current manifestation ends up running the global table our basic rights are going to get flushed. And if there’s a ‘conspiracy’ against the possibility of that happening, then it’s entirely justified.”

That is a fair statement. That probably is what some westerner have back in their mind. Therefore the hypothesis of “there is a conspiracy against China” is not totally unfounded.

To go one step further, the honest answer to the conspiracy question probably is: yes, there might be a conspiracy, because the Atlantic order believes that China’s authoritarian system, and the populist nationalism it is feeding on, are a potential threat to the world order.

Then we can find out how to reduce using populist nationalism to maintain power in China, while at the same time the west reduce supporting splitting activities that increases nationalism. Right now, both sides are doing things that they do not want to admit publicly. Well, I guess that is what politics are about.

December 13, 2010 @ 1:10 pm | Comment

@ HongXing. Ah man, you’ve been misunderstanding your Thomas Hobbes once again. All this wishfull thinking. Try an analytical post for once.

Dreary, boring. No pocket money for you and Stuart this week.

December 13, 2010 @ 1:39 pm | Comment

I’ve been told some recent comments have disappeared – I’m trying to figure out how. Apologies.

December 13, 2010 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

@Hong Xing
When China ascends, in order to re-create a harmonious world, be sure there will be a thorough accounting of a millennium of crimes committed by the Anglo-genocidists. You should hope that you won’t live to see this day.

If that is going to happen, then Hong Xing is proving the “China Threat” theorists right. What Hong Xing is saying is that a resurgent China under the CCP will be a revisionist power, one that would aggressively take actions to change the existing world order in ways that it want and pursue irredentist claims against neighbours. So Hong Xing is telling us that a vengeful China is emerging under the CCP, the very same vengeful Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. So basically Hong Xing is saying that Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabo are full load of shit when they keep regurgitating “peaceful rise”.

December 13, 2010 @ 3:12 pm | Comment

@Steve
because the Atlantic order believes that China’s authoritarian system, and the populist nationalism it is feeding on, are a potential threat to the world order.

You are completely out of touch if you think only the “West” is concerned about the nationalistic fervor whipped up by the CCP. Just ask China’s neighbours. Even Lee Kuan Yew argues for continuation of US presence as a hedge against China.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1058034/1/.html
US military presence remains crucial to the balance of power in Asia, says Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

East Asian security still needs the presence of American forces, so the region can continue its economic growth and balance the emergence of China, a country that is also important for this balance as there is no one country that should dominate Asia.

Then we can find out how to reduce using populist nationalism to maintain power in China, while at the same time the west reduce supporting splitting activities that increases nationalism.

This is another brainless rant. The CCP is chiefly responsible for whipping up and instigating populist nationalism, more often than not to divert attention away from its own inadequacies. So it must be the CCP that should contain it and put the genie back into the bottle.

December 13, 2010 @ 3:24 pm | Comment

@ Stuart: “My point is that if the Chinese leadership in its current manifestation ends up running the global table our basic rights are going to get flushed.”

Talk about irony, look’s like UK’s basic rights have been flushed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

December 13, 2010 @ 5:14 pm | Comment

Why do mindless nationalists retain the right to comment here? I’m sure the first Hong Xing (Mongol Warrior etc) comment years ago made it clear that nothing worth pondering would ever come from them.

December 13, 2010 @ 9:13 pm | Comment

@slim

Because censorship is extremely dangerous and should be inflicted only with the utmost care, in the rarest of circumstances.

Besides, just because someone is wrong, doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from his argument! I’ve learned something even from this thread and the Mongol dude’s impersonation of Jeremiah… Not something pleasant, but lesson learned, nonetheless.

December 13, 2010 @ 11:08 pm | Comment

Half of Red Star’s comments never show up. Sometimes I let them in for comic value.

December 13, 2010 @ 11:27 pm | Comment

@Jason
Talk about irony, look’s like UK’s basic rights have been flushed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

Hoho. I am glad that newspapers like Guardian are free to report on things that put the Prime Minister of the country in a negative light. Would the People’s Daily dare to report it if a child wants to picket the CCP’s office in Zhongnanhai?

The child in question would probably be locked up for 11 years for “subverting state power” if he was in China by one of those kangaroo “people’s” courts manipulated by the CCP.

December 14, 2010 @ 1:35 am | Comment

I take your broad point, RP, and there is indeed a guilty pleasure or comic relief element to reading FQ/5mao comments. But I’m not sure a private site filtering out gratuitous insults or full-on propaganda rises to the level of dangerous censorship.

At the same time, China’s Nobel footshooting performance reminds us that sometimes silence when dealt a losing hand is a better choice. Letting a hundred pug-sters bloom has arguably hurt the nationalist cause because these guys have become both scourge and laughing stock of all China-watching fora.

December 14, 2010 @ 2:32 am | Comment

Ahhh, Jason #255, once again, did you read the article to which you linked? Cuz if you did, it is highly unlikely you would have concluded that “UK’s basic rights have been flushed”.

You see, if you link to something, you have to assume someone is going to read it. So if you say something that is not even substantiated by the very article on which it is based, you’re going to come off looking like the way you do now.

The UK police seemed to cross the line. To interview a minor without his parent is wrong (and the presence of his teacher certainly doesn’t count). And to want to talk to him at all BEFORE a planned legal protest is certainly an intimidation tactic that is abhorrent. If you said that, I’d be fine with it. But of course, folks like you over-reach, and make more of a story than is there in an attempt to fulfill your preconceived notions. His rights haven’t been flushed. He is still free to pursue his protest. He just has a better idea of some potential consequences. However, as the organizer of a protest, he would’ve been in line for some trouble if the protest turned messy in any event. SO the UK police aren’t threatening him with anything new or unique to him. Flushing his rights would require a prohibition of his organizing a legal protest, or threats of penalties not prescribed by law. That has not happened. You would’ve realized that if you read your own link.

Of course, the even better part is how you use “western media” like the UK Guardian to try (and fail) to make your point. It seems “western media” is fine and good when exposing “western” wrong-doing, which it does here and elsewhere. However, that same western media is the thing you types disapprove of when it exposes CCP wrong-doing, which it does all the same. It’s a nice hypocritical double standard that folks like you employ, and are too indoctrinated to realize.

To RP and Slim,
since this is Richard’s site, people leave comments at his pleasure. Leaving comments here, however, is a privilege and not a right, and he is the final arbiter as to who can and cannot exercise that privilege.

That said, i agree that it is useful to know what people on the other side think. And if not useful, at least it is enjoyable and at times comical, which in itself serves an important purpose.

I do agree that the CCP needs to find some better representatives, cuz the ones she has now haven’t been able to convey her message in an effective and reputable way.

December 14, 2010 @ 4:00 am | Comment

It is great to see that fusty old Fabian paper The Guardian virtually reinvent itself in the last couple of weeks with precise and insightful journalism on the recent Assange/wikileaks events. I dumped it in the 80s due to the animus it displayed towards French historians and the post-Marxist set. In its treatment of this info insurrection, it is now well ahead of the curve.

December 14, 2010 @ 4:32 am | Comment

@sp123 and @SKC

You mean like this one in China where 15-18 years old wrecked their school’s cafeteria as a protest for high prices. I certainly do not see China’s anti-terrorism unit question these little minds of creating havoc. Here’s the Chinese media reporting yet. http://news.163.com/10/1125/06/6MAKHS1O00014AEE.html

December 14, 2010 @ 10:22 am | Comment

@Jason
You mean like this one in China where 15-18 years old wrecked their school’s cafeteria as a protest for high prices. I certainly do not see China’s anti-terrorism unit question these little minds of creating havoc. Here’s the Chinese media reporting yet. http://news.163.com/10/1125/06/6MAKHS1O00014AEE.html

You don’t even know what you are rambling on. Remember the Guardian link you posted? It’s about a UK child being questioned by the security unit for planning to picket the Prime Minister’s constituency office over his plans to cut funding to a local youth centre. Guardian’s article is hardly flattering to the Prime Minister’s image.

The garbage link you have provided is about angry Chinese students smashing the school canteen in protest against food prices. Did they smash any local CCP government offices? Did they plan to picket any CCP local branches? Nope. If they have done what the UK kid had done in China, i.e. to challenge a political office holder directly by picketing his office, you should have no doubts about the school kids being “harmonized” swiftly by the CCP authorities in charge of that county.

That’s what 5mao like you lack: coherent reasoning and critical thinking.

December 14, 2010 @ 11:56 am | Comment

@Jason

Tell you what. Find a People’s Daily article that reports Chinese people picketing outside Zhongnanhai for us and reasons why they picket CCP offices. Till then, next better troll pls.

December 14, 2010 @ 12:12 pm | Comment

To Jason #263:
I know folks like you can’t get out of bed in the morning without making some comparison. Nonetheless, if you must compare, you should compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. Trying to compare apples and oranges, as you’ve done here, just makes you look silly. Actually, #255 made you look silly. This one makes you look…like whatever the next level down from “silly” is.

Otherwise, I think SP says it all.

December 14, 2010 @ 1:17 pm | Comment

@King Tubby – Wait, so you ditched the Grauniad because they were critical of Foucault?

December 14, 2010 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

That, the crappy birdwatching column and the fact that they wrote a piss-poor Philby obit.

December 15, 2010 @ 1:19 am | Comment

@SP123 and @SKC

Your fangs are showing. I’ll admit that it is not similar of the location of the protest but certainly the reason of the protest is similar.

I would like you to point out where students protest on budget cuts by the state-owned schools where they sacrficed something valuable to the community and get questioned beforehand by an anti-terrorism squad.

December 15, 2010 @ 12:27 pm | Comment

To Jason:
even the reasons for the protest are not similar. Your “example” is of students protesting high food prices in the cafeteria. Sure, they gotta eat, but if they wanted to save some money, they can bring their own food.

The British boy was protesting a cut to a social program that arguably (and certainly in his mind) had redeeming societal value. They’re hardly of comparable significance.

Well, at least you had the good sense to realize that the cafeteria is not quite the same as Hu Jintao’s office. Like I said, apples and oranges.

Listen, I know you types like to compare. As SP suggested in #265, if you really want to compare, show us an example of someone in China trying to stage a protest about some social injustice in front of Hu Jintao’s office and not run into a world of hurt, then you’d be onto something.

Again, I think what the UK police did is ridiculous. But this kid’s rights were not violated. The prospects of what would happen to a person in a similar scenario in CCP CHina is beyond compare.

December 15, 2010 @ 4:31 pm | Comment

@Jason
I’ll admit that it is not similar of the location of the protest but certainly the reason of the protest is similar.

You know the cure to all this talk of “comparing” on your part is for you to do a practical experiment: You lead a bunch of placard-holding protesters shouting anti-Cameron slogan outside the gates of 10 Downing Street and then you lead a bunch of placard-holding protesters shouting anti-Hu Jintao slogan outside Zhongnanhai.

God bless you and your fellow protesters on the latter.

December 15, 2010 @ 5:10 pm | Comment

@Jason

LOL. Sorry to disappoint you, Jason, the UK police finally apologized for their quizzing of the boy.

http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/8736991.Police_say_sorry_to_12_year_old/?ref=mr

Police say sorry to 12-year-old

Chief Inspector Jack Malhi, the police commander for West Oxfordshire, said: “With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been far more appropriate to have made the inquiries from Nicky in the presence of his mother.

“I deeply regret and apologise for the impact that it might have had on Nicky and his family.”

He added: “I would like to reassure people that our contact with Nicky was primarily to make him aware of the risks and have an idea of the scale of the protest.”

Mr Malhi phoned Ms Phelps on Monday to apologise personally.

Headteacher, Andrew Hamilton, also apologised to Ms Phelps on Monday.

He said a “mistake” had been made by the school because it presumed Nicky had already spoken to police with his mother the previous day.

Mr Hamilton said: “If there was one element we could have got better, it was to make sure that Ms Phelps had been contacted before the interview within the school took place.

“We accept that it was a mistake on our part, that we assumed the interview had taken place and that this was a follow up.”

Ms Phelps, of Pelican Place, Eynsham, said: “Last week, I was absolutely raging.

“I was very, very angry about the police speaking to Nicky without me being there.”

She said she was “pleased” that police had apologised but wanted a written apology.

She said: “Forgiving them just means that they have been totally let off.

“I have received a verbal apology, but what about a written apology?”

She said had forgiven the school, which was “very supportive”.

Nicky was protesting against proposed funding cuts to 20 youth centres across the county. …
———————-
The day the Chinese police (known as gong an) will what the UK police had done in the above will be when the sun rises from the west. Sorry jason, you must be bitter and disappointed now. LOL.

December 15, 2010 @ 6:00 pm | Comment

I notice that Mongol Warrior linked to my blog. He might recall that among the vast quantities of offensive vitriol spewed out from various sides in the comments to that post, he achieved the distinction of being the only person to have an entire comment deleted for violating all aspects of decency – including racism, obscenity and aggression against other commenters.

December 16, 2010 @ 7:58 pm | Comment

@SKC

“show us an example of someone in China trying to stage a protest about some social injustice in front of Hu Jintao’s office and not run into a world of hurt, then you’d be onto something”

@sp123
“You lead a bunch of placard-holding protesters shouting anti-Cameron slogan outside the gates of 10 Downing Street and then you lead a bunch of placard-holding protesters shouting anti-Hu Jintao slogan outside Zhongnanhai.”

To satisfy your criteria with the addition of comparing apples to apples, I certainly can not find a similar protest regarding budget cuts on education.

@SP123

Sorry to disappoint you but where’s the individual’s apology from the anti-terrorism who order the police to question the boy?

Until that is being done, your “rubbing on my face” statement is moot.

December 19, 2010 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

@Jason
To satisfy your criteria with the addition of comparing apples to apples, I certainly can not find a similar protest regarding budget cuts on education.
—————————-
And you wonder how the term “no balls” had came about. hahahahaha.

December 20, 2010 @ 8:09 pm | Comment

@Jason
Until that is being done, your “rubbing on my face” statement is moot
————————–
The police apologized, the boy carry out his picket as planned at Cameron’s local office and the boy is not arrested. Don’t implode with bitterness just because things didn’t go the way you think it would. Hohohoho…

December 20, 2010 @ 8:11 pm | Comment

The police and school apology doesn’t do anything. The primary character who is the anti-terrorism unit who instigate this tactic should apologize to the boy and his family so the government is largely responsible not just school and police who follow orders that gets the blame.

December 20, 2010 @ 10:16 pm | Comment

@Jason
The police and school apology doesn’t do anything. The primary character who is the anti-terrorism unit who instigate this tactic should apologize to the boy and his family so the government is largely responsible not just school and police who follow orders that gets the blame.
————————————-
Curiously, fenqings like Jason didn’t display the same zeal in demanding justice with regards to cover-up of SARs, AIDS blood scandals, the melamine milk and tofu buildings in Sichuan earthquake disaster. Surprisingly, fenqings like jason will love to uphold every other government to the highest standard of conduct except the one in Beijing. Strange isn’t it?

His mother said of the apology: “I really appreciate it because that’s what you want. It can’t be left up in the air. He [Malhi] phoned me and has invited me and Nicky to go and have a cup of tea with him. He went through everything and he was a really nice guy.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/16/police-apology-questioning-schoolboy-protest
—————————
See that? Even the angry mother of Nicky was appeased. I suggest you get a life then whine about things that didn’t quite turn out the way you want to. ;P.

December 21, 2010 @ 9:28 pm | Comment

To Jason:

I agree that the “apology” SP linked to falls short. It seems the police apologized for questioning the boy without his parent being present. However, they did not apologize for the questioning itself. I think that “questioning” can still be construed as intimidation, and I disapprove of it. That said, there is still nothing to substantiate your claim that this boy’s rights were trampled upon. There was no injunction against his protest, and he was still allowed to go his merry way. The police themselves did not do anything illegal.

Any police body is a government institution. Based on your reasoning, anytime any police unit makes a mistake, the government would have to apologize. Where is the precedent for that? The article, to my reading, suggests that it was members of a special unit of this police body that questioned the boy: “Wishart said that after the school was contacted by anti-terrorist officers, he was taken out of his English class on Tuesday afternoon and interviewed by a Thames Valley officer at the school in the presence of his head of year.” So if members of that police body erred, then it’s reasonable for that police body to apologize on their behalf. I think you’re way over-reaching to expect an apology from the British government, or whomever else you had in mind.

But since you like to compare, and as SP suggests, it would be great to see any CHinese police body apologize to anybody after any incident where they overstepped their bounds and tried to intimidate someone. Or better yet, for the CCP to apologize after every incident of police intimidation of PRC citizens. Better still, for the CCP to apologize after CCP screw-ups to the satisfaction of the citizens involved. I don’t understand your fascination with “comparing”, as I’ve said. If the Brits do something wrong, then call them on it. If the CCP does something wrong, them call them on that. The Brits screwing up one thing does not justify the CCP screwing up something else. But if you must compare, as I’ve said, at least find similar and comparable fruit.

December 22, 2010 @ 9:32 am | Comment

This thread is still going on??

To say Jason applies a double standard is a gross understatement. But that’s what’s at at the heart of the FQ mentality.

December 22, 2010 @ 10:05 am | Comment

Brotip: Global Times isn’t news. It’s not even supposed to be news, it’s tabloid. Think FOX. Now magnify by 100x. That’s Global Times.

January 23, 2011 @ 2:05 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.