This extremely tendentious screed from Bill Gertz in the beloved Moonie Times is going to raise a lot of eyebrows today. It’s practically a declaration of war against China.
China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.
U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
China’s military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.
…The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.
“We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production,” a senior defense official said.
For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China’s military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines.
The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait “grim” and said the country’s military could “crush” Taiwan.
A first-rate alarmist, Gertz goes through a laundry list of China’s dazzling new weapons and military capabilities, leaving the reader wondering whether an oil-crazed Beijing isn’t about to invade its oil-rich neighbors later on this week. He also trots out an array of military experts most of us have never heard of, each expressing more angst than the last about the imminent threat China poses to the American Way.
U.S. officials have said two likely targets for China are the Russian Far East, which has vast oil and gas deposits, and Southeast Asia, which also has oil and gas resources.
Michael Pillsbury, a former Pentagon official and specialist on China’s military, said the internal U.S. government debate on the issue and excessive Chinese secrecy about its military buildup “has cost us 10 years to figure out what to do”
“Everybody is starting to acknowledge the hard facts,” Mr. Pillsbury said. “The China military buildup has been accelerating since 1999. As the buildup has gotten worse, China is trying hard to mask it.”
Richard Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 10 years, the Chinese army has shifted from a defensive force to an advanced military soon capable of operations ranging from space warfare to global non-nuclear cruise-missile strikes.
“Let’s all wake up. The post-Cold War peace is over,” Mr. Fisher said. “We are now in an arms race with a new superpower whose goal is to contain and overtake the United States.”
Let me be blunt: This is incendiary propaganda. There is no balance to this piece, no consideration of other viewpoints and absolutely no sense of perspective. By that, I mean looking at it from the Chinese perspective — if they were to do any of the things the article makes us think are imminent, their economy would instantly go to hell in a handbasket.
Just look at this crazed assertion:
“It is their surface-to-air missiles, their [advanced] SAMs and their surface-to-surface missiles, and the precision, more importantly, of those surface-to-surface missiles that provide, obviously, the ability to pinpoint targets that we might have out in the region, or our friends and allies might have,” Gen. Hester said.
The advances give the Chinese military “the ability … to reach out and touch parts of the United States — Guam, Hawaii and the mainland of the United States,” he said.
This leaves the reader with the distinct impression that China threatens US territory. Is this rubbish or what?
Needless to say, Instapuppy sends his lemmings to read this trash just in case they’re not feeling militaristic enough toward China yet.
1
By Jing
Second coming of the Third Reich anyone?
June 26, 2005 @ 2:39 pm | Comment
2
By vaara
Now we know why Adam Yoshida has been silent for so long… he has a new job!
June 26, 2005 @ 2:43 pm | Comment
3
By echo
now tell us how you really feel ; )
howard french (glimpse of the world) has an interesting article on why it doesn’t matter if china’s got the biggest military in the universe
http://tinyurl.com/bnkm8
June 26, 2005 @ 2:48 pm | Comment
4
By richard
Vaara, that Yoshida guy is truly scary.
June 26, 2005 @ 4:07 pm | Comment
5
By Other Lisa
Who’s Adam Yoshida? Or do I want to know?
Every time I read something like this, I get p.o’ed all over again that the US under Bush is doing NOTHING to develop alternative energy sources, no conservation measures, zip. It would take the wind right out of these nutballs’ sails if we weren’t so addicted to foreign oil.
June 26, 2005 @ 4:11 pm | Comment
6
By richard
Lisa, see the link in vaara’s comment above. Yoshida prides himself on being an “ultra-conservative” blogger. I’d say not to bother going to his site; I hate to give these people traffic.
June 26, 2005 @ 4:16 pm | Comment
7
By Leo
Why not a bit military buildup on the u.s. side? Why not entering into the new arms race? If we turn our thought around, we will realize this is not the end of the world yet.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:13 pm | Comment
8
By Jing
You don’t know who Adam Yoshida is? He was some crazy usenet guy whos now become a crazy blogger guy. Big American Patriot with a capital P. One salute short of the Sturmabteilung really. The funniest thing is, hes a Canadian!
June 26, 2005 @ 6:13 pm | Comment
9
By richard
Leo, the US has been in the midst of a massive military build-up for some years now (which is understandable, in light of the 2001 attacks). It is a very, very sweet time to be a contractor for the US military.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:27 pm | Comment
10
By Leo
Canadians have some kind of (inferiority?) complex. I can well understand it.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:29 pm | Comment
11
By richard
Everyone who isn’t American has an inferiority complex. How could they not? The world is ours, and everyone else exists at our leisure, and functions only to serve us, the Great Empire.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:35 pm | Comment
12
By steve
Just like many americans are proud of their country’s military strength, I am happy to see anything wrong with china’s military buildup.
The key question is how big countries to get along. The key issue is Taiwan.
For US long term strategic interest, US should push Taiwan/mainland union. As a old saying, “castle is easier to break from inside”, a democratic Taiwan inside China will put great pressure on CCP to reform.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:41 pm | Comment
13
By DanT
I’m going to take the less attractive stance here and argue that China does in many ways resemble a fascist state, if one were to look at what constitutes a historical fascist state. Looking to the historical examples of true fascist states, Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and to some degree WW2 Japan, there are a few common denominators.
1) Existence of a National Leader and Authoritarianism
In all three historical cases, there existed a national leader who was the focus of national policy, the actor who embodied and shaped the country’s “vision” of where it was headed and what it wanted to become. Hitler, Mussolini, and to some degree Hirohito were seen in this fashion. An authoritarian government was likewise seen as the only viable form of government with which to effectively enact national policies, free from the constraints and slowness of pluralistic democratic institutions. The problem of course has been no strong leader in China today since Deng. One could argue however, that the CCP (despite its size) has assumed the singular role as the country’s leader, assigning to itself sole discretion to make national policy and envision the country’s future. All of this of course, exists within an authoritarian state.
2) Nationalism
A major binding factor in the historically fascist countries was the creation and use of nationalism by the state to create a sense of uniqueness and shared identity. Although all states to some degree are guilty of this, as a matter of degree, each of the historically fascist states engaged in state initiated campaigns to create a national identity based on state created national myths and a very skewed teaching of national history. China doesn’t seem to be very different.
3) Historical injustice, National Victimhood, and “Righting Past Wrongs”
Each of the fascist states centered they national identities to a very large degree on a sense national humiliation and injustice. A core belief in Nazi-Germany was that Germany was unfairly punished in WW1, and that extremely harsh reparations imposed on it even as a loser of the war were unfair. Mussolini’s Italy viewed itself as a victim of the other northern Western powers, not allowed to develop industrially, and held back in its quest of empire. Imperial Japan to certain extent, viewed itself as constantly viewed as an inferior of the Western Imperial powers, and unable to gain equal status in part due to race (which had something to do with Italy’s perception of itself as well). In each country, a deep sense of national victimhood was taught to the nation’s youth, and a sense that this injustice had to somehow be “righted” paved the way for quests of expansionism. Modern Chinese identity as taught under the CCP, certainly seems exorbitantly fixated on victimhood, and much of this victimhood is channeled into attacks on other countries (Japan for instance). Victimhood also provides a sense of empowerment, for it adds a sense of validation to one’s actions. Take for instance Chinese historical amnesia, that China has never done anything wrong in the past, and that its current policies are simply benign. Although Taiwan is always an issue which can draw nearly all the countries into the region into conflit, China hasn’t really risen to the level of the historical fascist states, where this sense of injustice has been projected outward projection.
4) Irredentism
In each of the three cases national identity was to a large extent based on a sense that the nation was robbed of its past influence, power, and territory. To a large extent, each of the three countries pursued policies of territorial expansion (colonies, border expansion), in the belief that it was a form historical redress, to make up for what was lost to it. China today believes it was robbed (by Japan, by the West?) of its “rightful” hegemony in East Asia (and some believe the “world”). Although many Chinese are ultra-sensitive and have a very firm and forgetful sense of what constitutes Chinese people and borders, and aside from the flashpoint territorial disputes, it doesn’t seem territorial warfare is conducive to Chinese growth. (Economic hegemony might be another thing though).
5) Militarization
Each of the historically fascist countries engaged in fast-paced, heavily funded militarization, devoting a large percentage of national funds towards the military. The impetus was a sense of national insecurity and defense, but such militarization was outward projected, and offensive in nature. Additionally there was a very high degree of
Socialization of Military Culture, whereby the average citizen was indoctrinated and made a part of the military establishment on some minimal degree. The dichotomy between the citizen and the soldier was made hazy by required introducing elements of military doctrine and training into the regular education of schoolchildren.
6) Political Dissent Silenced
One of the distinct features of each of these regimes was—lack of political and social dissent, and therefore no controlling variables on the government. Political opposition and lack of freedom of speech and association were distinctly lacking in each of the three fascist states, thereby paving the way for a single message and single state ideology (nationalism).
7) Developmental economics
Another distinct feature of historically fascist states which combined authoritarian government, national victimhood and militarization into actual practice, was a focus on development and modernization. The way in which to address the aforementioned problems was to pursue a state-initiated policy of modernization and industrialization. Nazi-Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Imperial Japan all pursued as a center-piece of their national policies, economic plans designed to lift their respective countries out of “third-world” status and immediately into the first-tier of developed modern countries.
Although it seem politically incorrect to say so, it does seem that China today bears a remarkable resemblance to the three premier fascist countries of the past (just as for instance, the USSR once did). Who can say for certain though, that just because it seems fascist-like, that it will take the same road as the others did, after all, today’s political and economic environment is very different, with very different incentives and constraints.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:42 pm | Comment
14
By Leo
So we see it is not the end of the world, Richard.
In fact, more weaponry means less war. I am missing the old cold war days when we all felt so damn safe!
June 26, 2005 @ 6:44 pm | Comment
15
By DanT
I took a look at Adam Yoshida’s blog, and found it strangely ironic that he didn’t list Michelle Malkin alongside such “venerable personalities” as Anne Coulter.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:45 pm | Comment
16
By richard
For US long term strategic interest, US should push Taiwan/mainland union. As a old saying, “castle is easier to break from inside”, a democratic Taiwan inside China will put great pressure on CCP to reform.
Steve, please don’t hold your breath. Right now, the conservative US mentality is so anti-PRC and so pro-Taiowan, even to suggest such a thing would make them go ballistic.
June 26, 2005 @ 6:46 pm | Comment
17
By richard
DanT, I don’t remember your commenting here before, so welcome and thanks for the excellent comment.
I, too, see elements of fascism in the Chinese model, and recenlty created a stir when I said it met the definition of a police state. But I also see a rather hysterical and still fairly groundless rush on the part of the neo-cons to tar China as a great threat, when in fact many of the potential threats they point to aren’t plausible, at least not yet. Just look at all the psychological wires that Gertz’s article pulls — Taiwan is poised to invade Taiwan, to attack GUam and Hawaii…. And it never once mentions the all-important fact that so much of China’s economic miracle depends on the US. No WalMart, no miracle.
No one can deny the fascist-resembling aspects of China’s authoritarian state. But it goes against their better interests even to think about invading anyone. I see this as part of the steady tightening of the screws around the meme that China is our new enemy, a meme propagated by hardline neocons and fueled further by those preaching that our economic woes would end if only we could wipe out the threat of China’s rising economy.
I see China as a dangerous, unstable and unjust country, rife with unpardonable sins against humanity. I also think many things are getting better there for a lot of people, and that the last thing they want now or in the near future is war.
June 26, 2005 @ 7:00 pm | Comment
18
By Will
With regards to DanT’s comments:
I don’t think any of us would argue that China isn’t *at risk* of fascism. But you might also argue that China already kind of went through that and came out the other side. It sure doesn’t feel like fascism living here – far too ideologically fragmented. Also, Fascist cults of personality tend to be vested in living people. But ask me again once a bitter, economic depression sweeps through China, since that’s been another contributing factor in the rise of fascist states.
With regards to Gertz’ article:
He’s been reading too many Tom Clancy novels. He’s just regurgitated the plot from “The Bear and the Dragon”, which is probably rooted in some kind of military scenario planning, but still not really plausible. He can push the alarm bell when China’s absolute defense spending approaches anything like Americas (Don Rumsfeld’s recent comments notwithstanding).
Given that most military analysts seem less than impressed with China’s ability to successfully invade Taiwan, which is all but visible from Xiamen, an adventure into Russia or Southeast Asia seems, well, implausible for some time to come.
More plausible would be a lot of pissy, small-time naval scraps over the oil fields in the Spratly Islands. Given that the US is in the finishing stages of a deepwater berth for the USS Kitty Hawk in Singapore (you can see it when you fly in and out of Changi Airport), others may have this thought in mind as well.
China is going to become the Great Proxy for US fears for years to come. We’re only in the first rumblings.
June 26, 2005 @ 7:00 pm | Comment
19
By steve
“Existence of a National Leader and Authoritarianism”
Ever since Mao put so many of his colleagues through ordeal, there is a consensus that no leader in CCP should have too much power.
There is a fair amount of consensus building process within CCP. Granted, CCP is a authoritarian state, but is far from Nazi state.
“A major binding factor in the historically fascist countries was the creation and use of nationalism by the state to create a sense of uniqueness and shared identity. ”
Rising nationalism is indeed a concerning trend. That is especially important for western country to be sensitive on Taiwan issue. Push Taiwan independence is just like adding fuel to a fire.
“Socialization of Military Culture, whereby the average citizen was indoctrinated and made a part of the military establishment on some minimal degree. ”
If you read news, there is a problem in recruiting soldiers in China recently. This statement is just plainly wrong.
June 26, 2005 @ 7:37 pm | Comment
20
By Leo
Richard, I agree with your statement about the superiority. I think it better now to sort out than later who is inferior and who is superior. To make this clear can avoid (a) unnecessary psychological stress in case one is not sure how to behave himself accordingly (b) a muddy war in case one has the illusion that issue is not yet settled and he/she still has a chance in a fierce fight.
Steve, Taiwan is a trap! If the PRC absorbed it, the Taiwanese would always be whining about all the advantages of being a small countries (think of Isle of Man, Virgin Islands, Taihiti, etc. etc., and all the other tax evaders’ paradise). They would always have a grudge against you, make you troubles, and be liable for betrayal. If the PRC kept the state quo, it just keeps on being a headache for anyone who want to protect it. They must always descipline it, while hearing it complain how its rights is hurt by them. And it will always be a pawn held by the PRC, who can threaten it from time to time and back down when it gets a bargain. Some people may argue the fact is opposite. Look, the Western Allies have no idea how to protect this peace of rock sticking out of the water, they have no idea how to fight Chinese. The mountainous China is not sandy flat Iraq. And they have absolutely no idea how to manage a postwar China. And such a situation is esp. always a sore pain in the ass of the White House residents, as what important happens here, it will always be sleep time in the states. Even if Taiwan really declares independence, don’t hurry to grab your gun, Chinese, trust your great motherland who is capable of silencing any countries who dare to make a fuss about this fact.
Have I also some advice for Taiwanese? Yes. They either get a propeler on their piece of rock and sail it to the other end of the Pacific, or, for the sakeness of greater securiy, to the Atlantic, to the Medditeraneans, to the Baltic, to the Black Sea, to the Azure. Wait, which point is the farthest from the evil, greedy, Chinese Empire? Or better into the Qinghai Lake. I’ve heard from some smart Taiwanese say the safest place is the one on the enemy’s side. If you don’t take up my tip, then stay there and wait to be taken as a trophy. It may happen in 10 years, in 100 years, in 1000 years, and why not in 10000 years? Anyway, it’s your fate. Taiwanese, get my point and whine. Even those treacherous Chinese bad eggs tell you they will recognize your independence, remember, I won’t remind you twice, never, never, trust these Chinamen. They are born evil, they born chauvenists, they are born shameless thugs who humilates small guys like you and enjoy it. OK, now, Taiwanese, it’s time to weep your tears and write the cheque for the purchase of the weapons.
June 26, 2005 @ 7:51 pm | Comment
21
By steve
“Right now, the conservative US mentality is so anti-PRC and so pro-Taiowan, even to suggest such a thing would make them go ballistic.
”
Recently Kissinger has an editorial at IHT titled “Conflict is not an option.” Back in early 90s, he said in a interview to suggest Taiwan to go with one China policy.
Overall, I think the cool head in Republican party will prevail. Neo-con’s credibility is damaged from Iraq invasion.
June 26, 2005 @ 7:59 pm | Comment
22
By Laowai 19790204
Leo, maybe I’m just tired, and I’m really really sorry to say this – but I didn’t understand your last thread at all. Can you paraphrase with bullet points?
okay, I’m off to bed now that it’s 4 in the morning. (I was working)
June 26, 2005 @ 8:50 pm | Comment
23
By Jing
Interesting theories there DanT, but unfortunately the characteristics you describe in and of themselves does not make any nation neccessarily fascistic. Even then, some of your characteristics you ascribe to China are not neccessarily perfect fits. One or more definitions you listed can be proscribed to any number of random nations, even some democracies.
Authoritarianism in and of itself is not a sign of incipent fascism. Authoritarian governments have been the norm for human society since the dawn of civilization. China today is no longer a dictatorship (I know, technically its a dictatorship of the prolitariet) and no one living individual is glorified and/or idealized. The PRC, much as the former Soviet Union, has witnessed a succession of leaders who have had less and less political influence and a decentralization of power from a single individual to a massive state bureaucracy. You may consider this fascism, but to me, this seems like the government of any run of the mill authoritarian developementalist state.
Nationalism as you yourself acknowledged is a matter of degrees not kind among nations. Every nation has nationalist sentiments to a certain extent and China is no different. Ironically, America is consistantly the most nationalistic of all first world developed nations and even developing states. The educational curriculum, culture, and government all serve to reinforce this. Yet not altogether many Americans would readily acknowledge this truth. Nationalism takes many forms, and I would postulate that American society as a whole is even more nationalistic than China’s where the manifestations of it are less nuanced and more amateurish. American citizens by virtue of being democratic citizens are by nature political and this political awareness percolates down to all levels of society. For all the seething Chinese nationalists one can find, you can easily find another 5 more who are more or less apathetic about politics due to being disenfranchised from the system. Certainly China’s 700 million peasants are far from the nationalistic youth of China’s cities.
Likewise victimhood and a historical narrative reflecting a national sense of being wronged is not unique to fascism. You can find this everywhere, even in fully functioning democracy. September 11th anyone?
Irridentism is again, not by itself indicative of fascism. Lots of countries have border disputes and territorial conflicts. China’s just happens to be more prominent. India, a vibrant democracy by all accounts continues to have issues with Pakistan over Kashmir and does not appear willing to relenquish its military hold on the territories it occupies. India’s annexation of Sikkim can certainly be considered irridentist. Few people are even aware that democratic India militarily invaded Goa and annexed the region against the will of its populace. Irridentism again.
On the issue of militarization, Im afraid here you are simply out of your element. The government budget for the PLA officially stands at 30 billion, now it is speculated that the actual figure maybe far higher. Yet even given the higher estimates, Chinese military spending as a percentage of GDP is actually still lower than Americas. That China’s military budget has grown by leaps and bounds in the past decade, brimming with double digit growth rates isn’t some grand Nazi re-armament, it is due to the simple fact that the PLA was entirely neglected during the 80’s. Military modernization was far and away the last of Deng Xiaoping’s priorities and budgetary allocations for the PLA during that decade were virtually stagnant. The increase in the PLA budget is partially to make up for the decreased military spending during the 80’s. As I mentioned, despite the impressive growth, China’s military spending per capita is still than Americas and compared to earlier periods, the percentage of the PLA in the overall budget is at a historical low point in the PRC. As for the role of the military in society, I concede that in China it is far more prominent than in most countries. Yet even then one has to look at the broader picture and analyze historical trends. Is the role of the PLA now in Chinese society more or less than it was a few decades ago. The answer should be self-evident, the PLA is greatly diminished. That recent pronouncements in state media and trends have seem to foster the notion that the army and society are coming closer together is erroneous. The trend is inverse as these manifestations are actually reactionary and meaningless acts to prevent what is an observable liberalization and demartialization of society. In contemporary China, when college students are sent to attend military style drills, the idealized notion is to foster a martial attitude and patriotism, but the result is far from it and the causes are because the government recognizes the fact that society as a whole is moving away from the more regimented society of yesteryear.
As for freedom of expression and developemental style economics, well again, those are hardly unique or indicative of a fascist state. The problem with your characteristics is that they are too broad and judgeing by your gauge, any state can be fascist if they fit one or more qualifiers.
The principal reason why I am skeptical of any notions of calling China a fascist state is a fairly expedient one. Those to do so are/were the most staunch of anti-communists and now that they can no longer denounce China as a communist state and maintain any sense of reality, denounceing them as fascists will do nicely as a rhetorical weapon.
June 26, 2005 @ 9:42 pm | Comment
24
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Apologies for not reading all this thread thoroughly. There seems to be quite a lot of quality commentary here, but I seem to be coming down with the flu, and the splitting headache is making it hard to concentrate. Just like to say welcome back to Jing and Vaara. Looking forward to crossing swords with you in future.
June 26, 2005 @ 10:50 pm | Comment
25
By vaara
Thanks, FSN9. Though I was never really “away,” actually — just not posting here as much as I used to, because Richard is mostly posting about China, and China isn’t really my “thing,” so to speak.
Anyway, the reason I brought up Yoshida (and I apologize to those of you to whom I have exposed his unique prose stylings for the first time; I should have warned you!) is because he’s been shrieking about the Chinese menace for years — that is, when he’s not too busy shrieking about the gay menace or the pop-culture menace, or meddling in U.S. politics by, well, shrieking about the Kerry menace.
June 27, 2005 @ 12:52 am | Comment
26
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Having read through the article, I’d say it’s main problem is this: facts and conclusion are not connected to each other. Yes, China’s military is modernising. But the stuff he extrapolates from it? Then’s no causal chain.
June 27, 2005 @ 1:50 am | Comment
27
By echo
“For US long term strategic interest, US should push Taiwan/mainland union. As a old saying, “castle is easier to break from inside”, a democratic Taiwan inside China will put great pressure on CCP to reform.”
yeah it’s not necessarily plausible, but it’s an interesting idea, isn’t it. been reading lately that the us has been making statements about ‘getting to know china’. someone ought to give em steve’s phone number.
but if it happened, how would it be qualitively any different than the current situation?
June 27, 2005 @ 2:11 am | Comment
28
By shulan
China a facist state? Has that Gertz guy ever touched a history book? Has he ever been to China?
Where are the mass organisations that march the streets and intimidate their fellow citizens ( can one be so stupid to compare those anti-japanese protesters with the SA)? Where is the graet leader? Where is the thought police that has a spy behind everyones back telling you how to live and with whom to speak?
Sorry but this is just ridiculous. As Jing said, Dan T’s points are so broad some apply to a lot of states including the USA.
If you want to demonise someone in the West today, just call him a Nazi or say he is about to start a new Holocaust. This is propaganda and lacks every criteria that I would expact from a serious political analysis.
June 27, 2005 @ 3:43 am | Comment
29
By bellevue
Gertz has zero guts. The China threat is in no way simulating the Nazi-Germany’s. Except for IBM and a few other volunteers, Germany didn’t have Corporate America on her side.
China threat is more paralell with the Osama bin Laden one, but much more systematic, gravitas and therefore leathal to America.
With 19+ men and a budget of 1m or even lower, bin Laden launched attack on 4 US targets, with the leverage of everything US: aviation education, code of conduct for airlines, US passengers/planes/fuel, US skyscrapes, and above all, an open society and its civil liberty at its best in the US.
With the hostage labors, China is waging an undeclared war against US leveraging everything possible US: US insatiable needs for cheap comodities, US equally insatiable needs for export market, Wall Street’s obsession on buttom line, budget deficit, Corporate America’s greed, corrupt lobbying, cheap traitors like Henry Kissinger, and in one word, the free market and the way capitalism is running.
Military threat is a yesteryear’s thing. Bill Gertz doesn’t get it at all. He got one thing right: it’s not Communism vs. Capitalism, it’s Nazism vs. Capitalism, or if you want, it’s Capitalism vs. Capitalism.
June 27, 2005 @ 4:57 am | Comment
30
By Imagethief
China Buying Unocal? Here’s an Idea: Get Over It
June 27, 2005 @ 4:59 am | Comment
31
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Bellevue … the nazis were National SOCIALISTS. It wasn’t just a name.
June 27, 2005 @ 5:00 am | Comment
32
By bellevue
The MSN censor thing, the Google thing, and CISCO’s role in GFW, all are just symptoms of this China attack.
Look at Howard’s Australia: this ‘staunch’ ally of US pretends that it’s sovereign, but in fact Canberra can’t lift a finger to make Beijing unhappy, only for Beijing’s order for Australia’s mineral wealth!
With Beijing’s evil yet cunning scheme, who needs Adolf Hitler’s army?
June 27, 2005 @ 5:07 am | Comment
33
By bellevue
FSN9,
This brand of Socialism, or Sozialimus, actually involved private ownership, and a quasi-nationalized heavy industry.
Remember Volkswagen? It’s exactly what in Beijing’s mind today.
June 27, 2005 @ 5:11 am | Comment
34
By vaara
“the nazis were National SOCIALISTS”
And North Korea is a democratic republic.
June 27, 2005 @ 5:23 am | Comment
35
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Belleve, yes you’re right … but their economic system was more akin to socialism than capitalism. Vaara, I already addressed your point. Some names reflect their true nature, even if others don’t. The modern “left wing” is so busy accusing the “right wing” of being nazis that they forget that ideologically the nazis had a lot more in common with the left than the right.
June 27, 2005 @ 5:25 am | Comment
36
By vaara
Ultimately the “left/right” dichotomy isn’t useful when it comes to evaluating totalitarian governments. Back in the early ’90s, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, the media commonly referred to the hard-line, old-skool Communists as “conservatives,” since they were the ones implacably opposed to any sort of evolution toward political and economic freedom.
To the extent that Hitler & co. believed in a great deal of state intervention in the economy, they were “socialists.” But to imply that the Nazis, just because they had the word “socialist” in their official name, were somehow akin to modern-day European socialists, is nothing more than cheap sophistry. Sweden and Spain currently have Socialist governments — does that mean those governments somehow have Nazi-like characteristics?
(For the record, I have always shied away from using the N-word when discussing the Bush gang.)
June 27, 2005 @ 7:06 am | Comment
37
By JFS
I believe that Dan T and Bellevue have some rather strange ideas of what consitutes fascism, assuming fascism means something other than a perjorative to throw at ones opponent.
I would posit a more rational definition that I have come across lately. To sum up the various components parts, I will list just three items:
1) Economic structure. The three original fascist states, Italy, Germany, and Japan, all exihibited a ommon structure, commonly referred to as Corporatism. This is not to suggest all Corporatists were fascists, but all fascists are Corporatist. Corporatism consists of a corporate body for all industry. The Corporate body consists of representatives from the Industry, the Labor movement, and Government. This Corporate body would determine pricing of the product, wages to be paid to the workers, and the quantity to produce. The Government, in connivance with Labor, would control the private industrialists. This is not free market or capitalism at all.
2) Philosophical foundation. Fascism also used a common theoretical structure legitimizing their state-a previous (mythical) state where the pure culture existed, but was corrupted by the modern world. The Germans created a mythical age where the pure German existed untill corrupted by Roman civilization. The Italians created an idealized Roman state (before it was corrupted by the invading Germans?), and the Japanese created a combination of an idealized Heian state and Samurai state in one.
3) The core believers. Eric Hoffer (the San Francisco Longshoreman philosopher of the mid 20th century) wrote two small books, one titled “The True Believer”, I forget the other one. He identifies a group he call “Losers” . Most of us never achieve the greatness that we think we able to achieve, but we put this to either bad luck, bad timing, lack of inititave or drive, or just better competition. But some ascribe this to a conspiracy against them by the system, some system. The Nazis had the Jews, the Facists had Capitalists and Western Europeans, the Japanese had traditional Liberals and Western nations, etc.
In none of these categories do I see China. There are many things we can be critical of China, fascism is not one of them.
June 27, 2005 @ 7:06 am | Comment
38
By JFS
Politics is complex, to say the least, and the Taiwan-China issue is no different. I would suspect that there are many factions in both countries that are at the extreme (China will have a military faction wishing to invade, Taiwan a indepence faction wishing to separate). But presently neither faction is sufficient to do one or the other.
My own view is that there is an element in Taiwan that wishes re-unification, but on their terms. And they have a powerful base to position themselves (Taiwan was and is not a colonly of anyone, Taiwan is wealthy, and Taiwan has a powerful military, larger than is necessary for their own self protection, and Taiwan has powerful and wealthy friends). So all this so far is just the foreplay between two hagglers trying to make a deal, one wanting to get the highest price for their service and the other attempting to give the least for that service. Sometimes hagglers come to terms, sometimes they come to blows. Let us hope they come to terms.
June 27, 2005 @ 7:16 am | Comment
39
By JFS
Richard:
I do not picture myself as a Liberal, that is a liberal of the progressive pursuasion; but rather a classical liberal (yes, Grover Cleveland was the last great President we had in the USA). I see or hear considerable wailing from the right about leftist propaganda and from the left about rightist propaganda. I have yet to understand the reasoning about the whinig against the propaganda or the propagandist as a propagandist. What is the issue does the right wish to censor the left and the left wish to censor the right? What is more useful is identifying the accuracy, the inaccuracy, or the relevance of the propaganda.
A while back, perhaps two years or so, perhaps longer, I retured to the USA for R and R. When Stateside, I usually watch Book TV and Cspan. I saw a couple of shows that I found rather startling. I have been living and working in Asia quite a bit and do not watch all that much TV, although I read about somethings going on in the USA. I had not seen any Fox TV, so could not talk about it with any useful knowledge. But I saw a show in which the left panelists were castigating Fox about its unfairness, etc. Personally I did not understand their objective, did they wish to ban Fox from broadcasting, did they want the government to manage Fox, did they wish Fox to be censored by someone they choose.
I saw another program in which Bill Reilly (or however you spell his name) was on with a panel of liberals. I had never bought or read anything he wrote, nor saw any of his TV programs, but I saw a program in which he was almost embarrasingly called a Liar. It almost reminded me of a bunch of kids yelling, “Liar, Lair, pants on fire”. I saw that and thought to myself that Liberal Progressives are in deep trouble (but to be fair, I also think that Conservative Progressives are in deep trouble; I think Modernity is in deep trouble (by modernity, I mean the intrusion of the State into the lives of its nationals and the nationals of other States)).
I believe what is more useful than calling the other guy some name, is just identifying where they are accurrate, where they are inaccurate, and where it is just trivial, whether it is accurate or not.
June 27, 2005 @ 7:37 am | Comment
40
By Shanghai Slim
Now takin’ bets: anyone willing to wager that Mr. Bill Gertz has even once set foot in Red China?
June 27, 2005 @ 7:38 am | Comment
41
By asiapundit
nuke china now
Dovish Richard at the Peking Duck made a couple of statements I can agree with about a Washington Times item on China’s military buildup.:This extremely tendentious screed from Bill Gertz in the beloved Moonie Times is going to raise a
June 27, 2005 @ 8:04 am | Comment
42
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Vaara, don’t get me wrong. I was not attempting to equate Swedish Socialists with Nazi socialists simply because they have the same economic leaning. The Nazis were socialists. It does not mean that all socialists are Nazis.
June 27, 2005 @ 8:54 am | Comment
43
By moon
to understand why bill gertze is so anti-china you have to know a bit about moonie’s investment in China.
They tried to build a car factory in South China and ultimately lost tons of money. They finally pulled out in 1996. All that remains now is a piece of worthless real estate. bill gertze was not known as fierce China-basher before. Gertz’s tirades against the Communist
Chinese government commenced only after the failure of Moon’s Panda
Motors Corp. in China.
http://www.panda.net.cn/epanda/index.asp
June 27, 2005 @ 10:07 am | Comment
44
By wkl
The article is a load of crock. These days, it’s economic power that matters far more than military power. The United States with a 400 Billion dollar military budget has the best equipped, the finest trained and one of the largest army in the world yet they can’t even maintain order over a small third world country with 25 million people. Their army is slowly being shredded and by the time they leave Iraq in a couple of years from now, I predict will be a shattered army with its morale destroyed and unfit for military deployment for years.
Nowadays, maintaining a modern military is extremely expensive and very few countries can afford. Canada has effectively neutered its military, mothballing most of our fighter planes, and paring down our infantry to about 5000 combat effectives. Our navy consists of a few frigates and some deathtrap leaky diesel submarines that we were mad to purchased from the British. The benefit is 10 Billion dollar budget surplus in the last 10 years which makes us alone among the G8 nations. These days I give thanks to the power of the US navy for protecting us from the hordes of poor peasants from China and India.
Bellevue is right that it’s economic warfare that’s being waged. I’ve seen ranges of America’s 2005 deficit of around 412 Billion dollars (official) to 500 Billion (realistic) to 600 Billion. It’s mostly the East Asian counties who are covering this deficit by purchasing Treasury bonds and US dollars. China is one of the biggest purchasers of US dollars and as of the end of 2004 had a foreign exchange reserve of 600 Billion. Brad Setser maintains a blog about economic issues. He estimates that China is adding a Billion dollars US a day in foreign exchange. By the end of 2005, China will have a reserve of around of around 900 Billion. No, I don’t know why China isn’t using its spare cash to wipe out rural poverty.
By being a creditor, China has economic leverage over the US. If the US threatens China militarily, they only have to start dumping their US dollars. Other countries have to follow suit as the real value of the US dollar will collapse against other currencies. It will hurt China hard and will probably start a recession but the recession will be on a global scale. I’m not sure what the full effects of a collapsing US dollar will be but the results will not be pretty. It’s ironic that China is subsidizing the US military budget for weapons that might be used against them one day.
The current issue of the magazine, The Atlantic, has an interesting scenario of an American economic meltdown by 2016 due to Bush’s tax cuts. It’s an interesting read but I find it unrealistic. Brad Setser’s blog is at http://www.roubiniglobal.com/setser/
June 27, 2005 @ 10:09 am | Comment
45
By Anonymous
from:The Economist:
“he eclipse of Moon Inc”on December 5th,
1998:
“Despite these setbacks, the church still plans to build a huge church
in Pyongyang and a car factory in Nampo, to join the (money-losing) car
plant it already runs in Vietnam. Given Mr. Moon’s track record, these
car-making ambitions are puzzling. One of his biggest recent business
failures was Panda Motors (China), which, when it was announced in 1989,
was thought to be the largest foreign investment so far in China.
Panda’s planned sales of 300,000 cars a year were meant to bankroll a
far bigger dream: an “International Highway of Peace”, running (with a
few allowances for oceans) from Tokyo to London, via North Korea and
China.
“Mr. Moon’s representatives initially hawked the idea around Beijing and
Shanghai, where officials were sceptical about the ability of a church
with no car-making experience to pioneer a foreign car industry in
China. But the church eventually found less sophisticated officials in
Huizhou, near Hong Kong, and sold them the idea (one local dignitary at
the time was under the impression that Panda was one of America’s Big
Four car makers, according to Eric Harwit, an expert on China’s car
industry at the University of Hawaii).
“The Tong Il group promised to invest $1 billion, and was in return
given a 50-year lease on a huge plot at just over $1 a square metre, a
small fraction of what the land is worth. Panda then bought some old
metal-stamping equipment from a plant that General Motors was shutting
down in Ohio. Somehow this led to widespread (but unfounded) media
reports that it was going to make a Chinese version of the Chevy
Chevette. Panda never came up with a design of its own; and in 1996,
after spending an estimated $100m on the factory and related ventures
without producing a single car, it officially closed the plant. Today,
the company is called Panda Property Development, the 50-year lease
having turned out to be its most valuable asset.”
June 27, 2005 @ 10:11 am | Comment
46
By JFS
wkl: Your understanding of economics ir rather limited, it appears. China has a huge imbalance, significantly promoted by its cheap money policy (undervalued RMB). If China used this RMB to “wipe out rural poverty”, that is if it spent that money in China, then a run-away price inflation would occur (to many RMBs chasing after a finite production capacity of goods. Inflation is not good, especially if it increases faster than the rate of wealth increase of the nation because then not only do people feel poorer, but they actually are becoming poorer. That would not be good in China. So, instead, the government, as the Japanese did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, send their money to the USA to buy securities, etc.
I have not read the article you referenced, but if it reasons that the USA economy will collapse because it reduced it taxes on its citizens, then its understanding of economics is pretty shallow. Government is a consumer, everything the government spends is consumption. All taxes raised by the government amounts to consumption. Economic development comes from investments which come from savings, not consumption. The USA economy is in bad shape, but not because it taxes too little, but because it spends too much (the Iraqi War is an economic buster). The other culprit is America’s central bank, the Fed. They help monetize the public debt.
As for your comments on the USA military, I have been in the military, and I have served in combat. I seriously doubt you know what you are writing about.
June 27, 2005 @ 6:20 pm | Comment
47
By American man
Nazi’s had the COOLEST uniforms.
June 27, 2005 @ 11:56 pm | Comment
48
By Michael
“For US long term strategic interest, US should push Taiwan/mainland union. As a old saying, “castle is easier to break from inside”, a democratic Taiwan inside China will put great pressure on CCP to reform.”
Crack what castle? The British has thrown a rock called Hong Kong in to the big pond, and not even a ripple can be seen.
I have been making Taiwan my home the last few years. I don’t know if there is anyone who is willingly wanting to be a part of China ruled by CCP. Don’t be fooled by a few pan-blue old man who tried to play the China card, they are only after their own political gain. The military budget is stalled in the parliment, again, because of pan-blue’s poltical agenda for the time being. The fact is Taiwan will seek and buy weapons from American or anyone who dares to sell. Taiwan is a step shy from being a country only because diplomatic recognition by any country will incur wrath from China. However, Taiwan has its own military, constitution, currency, and even telephone country code. Mr. Hu will have to either apply for a Visa or fly in a military jet at risk of being shot down if he wishes to visit Taiwan. It’s not a game piece to be brokered.
Now about the main article and some of the comments, they remind me of how Japan was portraited in US media in the 80’s. Powerful MITI, corporation going after market share not profit, rigid chain of command and hard work disciplane were going to make US a second rate country. Now we know behind every seeming superiority there is a deep structural problem. Can China live up to the threats outlined in all these recent articles on wargaming with China? I don’t think so. China poured national resource into building a few very impressive cities and lift up many poeple out of poverty in the process. But it’s still a nation with GNP of barely over 1,000 US$ per capita. Many of its domestic issues are just beginning to surface. Domestic unrest, banking systems, unemployment, maintaining foreign investment, RMB exchange rate are all thorny topics keeping Beijing up at night. If you look perticularly into peasant issues and social injustice, this is hardly the face of an emerging superpower.
June 28, 2005 @ 3:53 am | Comment
49
By Matt
Hitler’s difference from the Communists was that he made his socialist movement nationalist instead of international, and he wanted to kill Jews instead of rich people. If you go back and read some of Marx’s writings like this
>>>“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”.>>”True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”. For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?”<
June 28, 2005 @ 10:00 am | Comment
50
By Matt
I almost forgot. Why is Hitler called fascist and associated with the right? As you know, Hitler and Stalin had an agreement to split up Poland, train the military, etc. Socialists and progressives in the US were stridently anti-war. When Hitler broke the treaty and attacked Russia, the progressives and socialists became pro-war and denounced Hitler as fascist, right-wing, etc. He was a traitor to the cause of international socialism.
June 28, 2005 @ 10:04 am | Comment
51
By richard
Are you aware that Hitler butchered the communists in Germany? Are you aware that the pact with Stalin was totally cynical and had nothing to do with socialism or fascism, just a land grab? Hitler was as far right as they come. The “socialism” in the name National Socialists is a myth; there was practically nothing socialist about the Nazis under Hitler. (They were before, when Strasser had more of a say in the party.)
June 28, 2005 @ 10:08 am | Comment
52
By Matt
I have to disagree. Hitler wanted to fight Communists, it’s true, because they were for international communism. They wanted a “one world government” as it were. Hitler believed that Germany should rule Europe, so his departure was there, not on the leftist ideology of the day. He was even a Green:
>>>”We recognise that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. “Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger . .
“This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
That was Ernst Lehmann, a leading biologist under the Nazi regime, in 1934, and he wasn’t alone. Hitler, for one, was an avid vegetarian and green, addicted to homoepathic cures. His regime sponsored the creation of organic farming, and SS leader Heinrich Himmler even grew herbs on his own organic farm with which to treat his beloved troops.
HITLER also banned medical experiments on animals, but not, as we know to our grief, on Jewish children. And he created many national parks, particularly for Germany’s “sacred” forests.
This isn’t a coincidence. The Nazis drew heavily on a romantic, anti-science, nature worshipping, communal and anti-capitalist movement that tied German identity to German forests. In fact, Professor Raymond Dominick notes in his book, The Environmental Movement in Germany, two-thirds of the members of Germany’s main nature clubs had joined the Nazi Party by 1939, compared with just 10 per cent of all men. >>”Unless we are utterly oblivious to the facts, we must realize that the German workers are the most reliable supporters of the Hitler regime. Nazism has won them over completely by eliminating unemployment and by reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsfuehrer). Big business, shopkeepers, and peasants are disappointed. Labor is well satisfied and will stand by Hitler, unless the war takes a turn which would destroy their hope for a better life after the peace treaty. Only military reverses can deprive Hitler of the backing of the German workers.
The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do”< Hitler focused on nationalism instead of socialism. If an industry would do what Hitler wanted, he didn't feel the need to nationalize, whereas the socialists nationalized everything. That doesn't mean he wasn't a leftist.
June 28, 2005 @ 10:21 am | Comment
53
By richard
Read Michael Burleigh, Ian Kershaw and Evans’ new book (forget his first name) on the rise of Hitler. They all blow the socialism myth to pieces.
June 28, 2005 @ 10:22 am | Comment
54
By Matt
I’ll look at them. But perhaps we aren’t using the same definition of left and right. First off, I’m looking at the European left/right, not the US, as I said it is different. (Hitler is to the right of Stalin, but that doesn’t making him a rightist.) Right in Europe is monarchist, “conservative” wanting to preserve society, or even bring back the monarchy at the extreme. Left is socialist or communist. Le Pen in France, for instance, is a leftist because he supports France’s social welfare state. He is called “rightist” because he is a racist. But if this is the definition, then the European political continuum goes from non-racist leftists to racist-leftists, with nothing in between. And with the anti-semitism coming from European leftists today, are there any non-racists left? (Since all European states are basically racial in origin, maybe this isn’t surprising.) So I guess the question is, what is rightist, and what did Hitler do that is rightist?
June 28, 2005 @ 11:08 am | Comment
55
By richard
Okay, thanks for the definitions. It’s niot a big deal to me, but some have exaggerated the socialist aspects of Nazi Germany. As I said, it was Strasser who wanted to focus on that, which was why Hitler eventually had him murdered.
June 28, 2005 @ 11:18 am | Comment
56
By Matt
My friend who is an expert in Nazi Germany says that Hitler wasn’t so much left or right, but was about taking power, and his main belief was racial superiority.
June 28, 2005 @ 3:12 pm | Comment
57
By richard
That’s pretty much correct. Again, it depends on definitions of left/right.
June 28, 2005 @ 3:18 pm | Comment
58
By JFS
Richard, matt:
You guys are talking propaganda, not factual data. If we make a simple definition that the right respects private property and the left does not, that the left wishes to collective in some fashion property, then Nazis were lleft of right, somewhat right of left. Nazis did not respect private property, but they thought the system would work better if privatate property were left intact, but controlled by the State (in essense, no different at all from the NRA of FDR, and FDRs NRA program cannot be considered rightist nor capitalist).
As for quoting Hitler, Hitler, he once said that Marx was all right, except for him being a Jew. As for fascism being far right, that concept just comes from Marxists calling all system they wish to denigrate as evil and call it fascist. Of course, they later developed a theory that fascism was the ultimate development of Capitalism (which is absurd, all the most advanced capitalist states did not become fascists, but rather developing states that did so).
If you guys really want to have useful arguments, learn your facts, understand your theory, and jettison the propaganda.
June 28, 2005 @ 6:14 pm | Comment
59
By richard
JFS, that’s a bit….arrogant. Do you have a monopoly on knowledge. Truth is I’ve read a lot of books about Hitler and the Nazis and German history. What fact did I get wrong? What fact did Matt get wrong?
June 28, 2005 @ 6:53 pm | Comment
60
By JFS
Arrogance in itself is not criminal, perhaps offensive, but not criminal.
“Hitler was as far right as they come.” So I quote you, my dear Richard. Whether that statement is arrogant or not is not important, but it does have some rather significant implications. In common parlance, whatever the right is, one usually associates it with the free market (also referred to as Capitalism, a term, if I recall correctly, was coined by Marx himself). I do not think it is unwarranted that anyone reading your post would assume you are identifying the German Nazi movement with the free market. The data that is necessary here is how the state is organized in reference to its economy. Matt mentioned Von Mises, which is useful (as would be Dr. Hayek or Dr. Reisman), but most of what was mentioned was trivial to how the state was organized itself and how one would categorize that organization.
The German state was organized on the Corporatist model (first instituted by Mussolini), not that all Corporatists are fascist, but Corporatist is not free market (or Capitalist). You mention some book by some authors that blows apart all resemblence between fascism and socialism. Nice, but surely you could posit the essential points (I am not particulary interested in reading such if I do not know beforehand their main points. If it consists of trivial propaganda or irrelevant people profiles, then I would waist my time, and my time is a very rare commodity).
My arrogance is not derived from omniscience on my part, but just from one tiny piece of knowledge; Socalism is a system whereby the state intervenes in the market place, confiscates wealth and redistributes that wealth based on political criteria. The free market place assumes that consenting adults may engage in economic interface on their own without state intervention. Fascist states intervened in the market, and from that intervention redistributed wealth based on a political criteria.
June 29, 2005 @ 5:23 am | Comment