In his column today in the Wasington Post, George Will reviews Jim Mann’s new book The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression. Will’s views on China are about what you would expect them to be. He is a believer that capitalism requires the kind of free access to information and personal choice that leads to democratic changes. Mann’s book is less optimistic.

From Will’s review:

Mann warns against “McDonald’s triumphalism,” the belief that because the Chinese increasingly eat like us, they are becoming like us. That is related to “the Starbucks fallacy” — the hope that as the Chinese become accustomed to many choices of coffee, they will demand more political choices.

His most disturbing thesis is that “the newly enriched, Starbucks-sipping, apartment-buying, car-driving denizens” of the large cities that American visitors to China see will be not the vanguard of democracy but the opposition to it. There may be 300 million such denizens, but there are 1 billion mostly rural and very poor Chinese. Will the minority prospering economically under a Leninist regime think majority rule is in their interest?

There is certainly a great–and growing–gap in wealth between the urban few and the rural many. Is China really in danger of becoming two countries? What interests does the urban elite share with their country cousins? What happens when you reintroduce a stratified class system into a socialist society? Or is all of this just another stage in development with society becoming more harmonious with time?

Okay, you’ve all heard me whine about not having an internet connection, not having a computer (my cat peed on it. Really) and in general being too busy to post – thankfully only the last one of those applies at the moment – but in lieu of a post that requires actual thought or writing, I thought I’d pass along this link to a lengthy and nuanced New Yorker article by Jianying Zha about her brother, a jailed activist. It’s not the black and white bash-fest you might expect; Zha avoids howls of outrage and easy conclusions. Go have a look.

Or, I dunno, we could go back to arguing about what country is more racist, Tibetan/Taiwanese independence/splittism, and what’s that whole White guy/Asian woman/White woman/Asian man thing about, anyway?

Your call.

Michael Turton makes some fair criticism of Ted Galen Carpenter’s inability to see or unwillingness to discuss the trouble the US has caused in the saga of Taiwan defence policy, whilst also correcting some rather ridiculous comments about Taiwan doing nothing on defence.

I also found an interesting comment.

It is dubious enough for the U.S. to risk war with an emerging great power like China to defend a small client state of comparably modest strategic and economic significance.

Sorry – “client state”? Since when was the U.S. an empire? Doesn’t it respect the right of other countries to sort out their own affairs? Maybe part of the problem is that jerks like Ted Carpenter expect to be able to call the shots in Taiwan and don’t respect its right to make its own destiny, despite comments about it being a democracy.

Read Michael’s thoughts here:

The View from Taiwan

Somewhere in the blitz of articles and threads and forums going on about the Virginia Tech massacre I saw a prediction that now Americans would turn on South Koreans and lay bare their racism. I never believed it for an instant (what does the shooter’s race have to do with anything?). And when I read this a few minutes go I felt the kind of pride I used to feel as a boy about America, a feeling that, sadly, I haven’t felt in a long time.

The day before yesterday, the Student Government Association of Virginia Tech sent an e-mail of appreciation to the Korean Embassy in the United States, in spite of its own agonies after the horrific massacre at Virginia Tech. In the letter, the students acknowledged their gratitude for the compassion and condolences that President Roh Moo-hyun, the leaders of Korea and other Koreans have demonstrated.

“Our strongest feelings are those channeled towards restoring sanctity and safety for students and people of all ethnicities, faiths, and representations. We are grateful to the Republic of Korea for expressing solidarity in this common pursuit,” read the message from the SGA. It also said, “(The) actions of one man will not and do not serve as a barrier between our students and the people of Korea.”

You can say a lot of negative things about America nowadays, and I’ll agree with many of the criticisms. But it’s still a great country with great people. I know, I know – that sounds trite and mawkish. But that’s okay once in a while. After looking evil in the face, literally, all week, maybe it’s time to take a look at man’s better side, exemplified by these wonderful students.

The following is from last week’s Economist. I thought it interesting because I have always thought that if the middle classes in China object to CCP rule, it will be over things related to money and luxuries – tax is therefore a key issue.

China’s tax system: Return to sender

The well-to-do in China have snubbed their government. This year for the first time, anyone earning more than 120,000 yuan ($15,500) annually is supposed to file a personal income-tax return. Yet by the deadline of April 2nd (extended by a couple of days because of low compliance), only a small minority had done so. Threats of massive fines have gone unheeded.

The problem facing the Chinese government is that they need to get more revenue from people that avoid paying full tax on their earnings, especially given the population will continue to age and more pressure will be created for them to be cared for (their children are already becoming less willing to look after them personally). The abolition of the agricultural tax and other initiatives to try to “pay off” the rural poor has also led to increased pressure on government budgets.

However, as the Economist points out, a lot of Chinese will ask why they should pay all their taxes when they get little or nothing in return from the State – they can’t even elect it.

But very few bother to pay personal income tax unless it is deducted automatically. As some Chinese newspapers have pointed out, this is partly because many Chinese believe they get little in return for their taxes. They have to pay through the nose for health care and for decent education for their children. They are also resentful that few officials pay tax, even though many have big incomes from shady dealings.

Even the words “no taxation without representation” have found their way into print, in an article in the Information Times, a government-owned newspaper in the southern city of Guangzhou. Noting that half of the delegates to China’s legislature were officials, the newspaper reported that commentators had pointed out that the parliament should have “fewer officials and more taxpayers”: an interesting distinction suggesting the taxman has struck a raw nerve.

“No taxation without representation” – is that a phrase that could be heard more and more in the future in China?

Read his brief biography and the incredibly poignant comments, several from readers in China, and tell me you weren’t moved. What a horror.

I watched in amazement as CNN showed the video clips this morning. Sickened and riveted, I wondered about the decision to air these things – something about it was so utterly foul, so filthy and revolting. I tried so hard to feel compassion for the deranged young man, and all I could feel was dread and sickness. Should they be running these tapes again and again, I asked myself? I don’t know. It seemed to cross a line from news into pornography of the darkest and most perverted kind. Yet it is news, so I understand why they ran it. Any child who sees it, however, might be traumatized for a long time. I might be, too.

To follow up on a comment posted by Nanheyangrouchuan, The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that authorities are investigating whether the Virginia Tech shooter was from China.

Authorities were investigating whether the gunman who killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus in the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history was a Chinese man who arrived in the United States last year on a student visa.

The 24-year-old man arrived in San Francisco on United Airlines on Aug. 7 on a visa issued in Shanghai, the source said. Investigators have not linked him to any terrorist groups, the source said.

An eyewitness to the shooting, Erin Sheehan, described the man as:

“He was, I would say, about a little bit under six feet (183 cm) tall, young looking, Asian, dressed sort of strangely, almost like a boy scout, very short-sleeved light, tan shirt and some sort of ammo vest with black over it,” Sheehan said.”

Obviously details are still sketchy and while police admit that they have identified the shooter, they are not officially releasing his name or any other details at this time. It’s too early to say for sure who committed this heinous act or where he was from.

CCTV was–of course–all over this story (sickeningly giddy, really) during the morning newscast with plenty of images of the violence in the USA. I do wonder if CCTV will continue to be so excited if it turns out the shooter was actually from China…

UPDATE: Got a call while at The Roots concert in Beijing (They rocked, by the way) that the shooter has been identified as a 23-year old South Korean student. Yes the American media got it wrong. Of course CCTV was already broadcasting this morning that it was a “meiguoren” who was responsible for the shooting…not sure if they’re going to apologize for their “rush to judgment.”

As for those who think we are “disappointed” that it was not someone who was Chinese–that’s simply incorrect and vile. This was a major news story and China was dragged into it by reports in the US, European, Australian AND Chinese media. That put the story into the purview of this space. There was no “wish” on anyone’s part (except perhaps CCTV) that a particular country be implicated. Our thoughts, as everyone’s should be, are with the victims and families of this tragedy regardless of the national origin of the killer.

Been a busy month…to say the least. But in my travels, I’ve come across a few conundrums all having to do with Lao Wai in China. I don’t really have an opinion on any of these things, so don’t take this post as a declaration of a particular set of positions–I’m genuinely interested in people’s ideas on these thorny little problems.

1) A friend of ours in town asked us how common was it for arguments/altercations to flare-up or even get physical when some people encounter a Chinese woman/foreign male couple. (There was apparently some sort of small bang-up at the local IKEA over the weekend.) While it has never happened to us (Jeremiah & YJ), we’ve heard stories, caught the occasional intemperate remark, and/or received the less infrequent glare or gawk, but nothing overtly hostile. Have people had these experiences? Is there a shift in the perceptions of these couples, or is it the same old same-old?

2) We’ve discussed this in the past, but at a fabulous dinner party hosted by Jack H. last weekend, we met a couple traveling in Bejing who asked us, point blank, why so many couples in Beijing are Chinese woman/foreign male and not the other way around. It was a hard question to answer because, appearances aside, all couples are different and it would be hard to find one reason or even one set of reasons that would apply in all cases. But the demographics of the situtation suggest that this is a topic worthy of serious (as opposed to simply race-baiting) discussion.

3) There was a recent thread on an academic list-serve in which somebody casually dropped the word “Laowai” into the conversation to describe foreigners who study China. One of the other listees objected saying that “Laowai” does not mean ‘foreigner’ (i.e. Koreans and Japanese are not usually referred to as ‘laowai’*) but specifically ‘white people’ and that, furthermore, the term is occasionally used as a derogation. I’ve had my own problems with the word, but the sensitivity to it by some foreigners reminds me a little of Lydia Liu’s discussion of the usage and objections to the word (what she calls a ‘supersign’) “yi” (夷) in the 19th century. Is the term “laowai” really so objectionable? What is the general consensus on this?

4) Finally, when I mentioned to a Chinese colleague recently that many in the foreign community here in China loathe “Da Shan,” he was shocked. He asked me why and I, lacking the Chinese word for “minstrel show,” couldn’t really answer effectively. I’ve never really had feelings one way or the other about the man, so I call on the Quacking Canard community to help me out here.

——————————————————————-
*And, as the old Talk Talk China boys once pointed out, many Chinese who visit America are genuinely perplexed when some of us walk past in the airport and refer to THEM as the ‘Lao Wai.’

What a shame, that one “incident” did so much to damage the reputation of Deng Xiaoping, the man who did more than any other to set China straight after Mao killed off nearly all the remaining brain cells in the world’s most populous country. I haven’t forgiven him for the incident, but I don’t deny his greatness either, and would feel much happier were I to see his huge portrait looming over Tiananmen Square as opposed to the pig he replaced.

Which brings us to today’s article, which addresses a topic I’ve thought a lot about over the years, i.e., the achievements of Deng and Nixon in comparison to their reputations. I hated Nixon and always will, but there’s no denying his achievements, especially in terms of foreign policy. (Though there’s still a very dark side to these achievements, like the secret bombings of Cambodia and a host of other atrocities; like I said, I still hate the guy.)

I don’t hate Deng. I respect him and think if China really needs a hero to adore it should be he. Of all the scum Mao surrounded himself with, Deng was consistently the pearl among the swine, and while there are things I will always despise about Deng, I will always feel this respect and sympathy for him.

Rarely in history has one dictator held in his hands such discretionary power to choose between further enslavement of his subjects and their rapid empowerment through economic liberation.

In disassembling Maoism, Deng chose the latter route, validating both Nixon’s previous strategy and discrediting Gorbachev’s later decision to pursue political glasnost before economic perestroika in the now-defunct Soviet Union.

Richard Nixon routinely ranks as one of our nation’s worst presidents, and Deng Xiaoping appears forever doomed to live in Mao’s dark shadow, but neither deserves this historical fate.

Instead, both should ultimately be appreciated for what they were: lead architects of our globalized world, one marked by more peace and poverty reduction than ever before witnessed in human history.

You look at what Nixon did, love him or hate him, and his importance can’t be argued. And yet, the man who ended the Vietnam War and opened relations with China will always be remembered for the unforgettable line, “I’m not a crook.” Just like that other president who did not have sex with that woman. Well, he was a crook, but he was more than that, just as Deng was more than the man who gave the final orders to use live ammunition on June 4 in Tiananmen Square. I do believe he had China’s interests at heart, and I still can never, ever forgive him totally. And neither can I deny his greatness in saving China from complete annihilation in the face of the Gang of Four and suceeeding in perhaps the most astounding turn-around in all human history.

It’s the proverbial week from hell, and I’ll be away the entire week. You can use this as an open thread.