In the long haul, however, I think Deng Xiaoping would stand head and shoulder (sic) above the rest of the few in spite of his physical stature. In five years, that's 2018 to be exact, China could overtake America as the world's largest economy, according to the Economist. The world is bound to undergo some profound changes because of the new pecking order brought about by Deng's epoch-making reforms 35 years ago. (emphasis added)
This observer is inclined to agree. Surely neither Thatcher nor Reagan can boast of the magnificent achievement of imprisoning and murdering 700,000 of their own citizens!
Odd that Tingles forgot to recount that. Must've slipped his mind...
But given the recent blood-curdling threats issuing forth from a certain North Korean nuclear madman, it's more than a little surprising Dave couldn't recall that it was Deng Xiaoping himself who was the North Koreans' primary enabler in their drive for nuclear weapons.
It was Deng Xiaoping who looked the other way. Deng Xiaoping who ran interference. Deng Xiaoping who propped them up economically.
It must therefore be Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese Communist party that accepts a good part of the "credit" for the spectre of nuclear armageddon currently stalking Northeast Asia.
To this list, I shall not add the Tiananmen Massacre, of which Deng was the chief architect. Nor shall I mention the 3,000 souls mercilessly exterminated by Deng "we must prepare to spill some blood" Xiaoping.
The [refusal by Deng Xiaoping to allow Britain to keep Hong Kong] made Mrs. Thatcher apoplectic, and she fell on the steps of the Great Hall of the People — a lasting and telling image in the final episode of a 160-year historical drama of China's decline that began with the ignominious Opium War in 1860.
Ohhh, I get it: The fall of the mighty British Empire, and all that. Although I would suggest that the relatively unremarkable occurrance of a middle-aged woman in heels stumbling on stairs is far less "lasting and telling" than the revealing spectacle of Chinese ultranationalists like David Ting crowing about it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but schadenfreude, by definition, is something one should be ashamed of.
No matter. Regardless, I AM grateful that Ting educated me about this incident. So much so in fact, that I think it fitting to relate another obscure Margaret-Thatcher-in-China story:
This anecdote's for you, Tingles:
On a bitterly cold day, the Chinese had put on a magnificent parade to welcome Mrs Thatcher. It included hundreds of shivering children in the flimsiest of clothes. She took one look, called for the commander of the parade and ordered him: Take these children off the street or give them warm coats to wear.
The officer quickly realised that arguing was not an option. And since they did not have several hundred coats to hand [out], the children were taken out of the parade and transferred to a building.
Mrs Thatcher personally checked that the building was warm inside before she would let this, by now browbeaten, officer off the hook.
Kinda metaphorical, no?
✯ We now have photographic proof positive that Deng more closely resembled a twisted hobbit than a malignant dwarf...
Always ready to admit error, The Foreigner sincerely apologizes for the mischaracterization - and for hurting the feelings of the entire Dwarven people.
So on the basis of this, I'd have to say, no, David Ting of Taiwan's China Post DOES NOT take pleasure in innocent Chinese being mowed down by automatic machine gun fire.
But not so fast. You see, Soong May-ling is long dead-and-gone. And now, David Ting has a new female hero. (A she-ro, if you will.) His latest idol de jour is Peng Liyuan, first lady ogress of China.
(Peng Liyuan, entertaining PLA troops after the Tiananmen Massacre. Unlike Elvis, she don't look "all shook up". Thousands of Chinese murdered? Time to par-tay!
Image from the International Business Times)
So we come once more back to the original question: Does David Kan Ting of Taiwan's China Post take pleasure in innocent Chinese being mowed down by automatic machine gun fire?
Given Dave's rather eclectic choice of heroes, the best that can be said is that the answer is...inconclusive.
But I digress. My goal here is not to investigate Soong May-ling's place in history, but to ascertain her attitude concerning the Tiananmen Massacre.
† Since the China Post does not have online archives extending as far back as 1989, this is a second-hand quote by Soong May-ling, from a source whose reliability is suspect (to say the very least!)
The main title exaggerates slightly: China's current first lady, Peng Liyuan, didn't personally butcher any Chinese at Tiananmen Square. That we know of...
A photo of China's new first lady Peng Liyuan in younger days, singing to martial-law troops following the 1989 bloody military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, flickered across Chinese cyberspace this week.
It was swiftly scrubbed from China's Internet before it could generate discussion online. But the image — seen and shared by outside observers — revived a memory the leadership prefers to suppress and shows one of the challenges in presenting Peng on the world stage as the softer side of China.
Meanwhile, David Kan Ting of Taiwan's pro-Communist China Post earlier this week beclowned himself by breathlessly praising the bestial Peng. A sampling of quotes:
China's new first lady was as graceful and glamorous as a supermodel when she emerged from Air China's 747 jetliner... --David Kan Ting, The China Post, Wed Mar 27, 2013
Peng Liyuan captivated millions of fans the moment she stepped into the international limelight. Wearing a smile and dressed in a simple black peacoat, she waved... --David Kan Ting, The China Post, Wed Mar 27, 2013
She is the United Nations ambassador for health, working to stamp out the scourge of AIDS. It seems that she possesses every quality necessary for accomplishing the daunting mission before her. --David Kan Ting, The China Post, Wed Mar 27, 2013 [Evidently, soullessness is now a UN job prerequisite. -- The Foreigner]
The star of Peng Liyuan is rising, to the ecstasy of her people at home who have never felt so proud in their lives. Some bloggers described her as “elegant and magnificent,” while others gushed over her “talents and beauty.” --David Kan Ting, The China Post, Wed Mar 27, 2013 [Tell us, Dave, for we really must know: Is she more elegant than magnificent...or more magnificent than she is elegant? Only a dedicated truth-seeker such as yourself can ever hope to be impartial enough to solve this baffling mystery. --The Foreigner]
It seems that the fever about Peng Liyuan is not going to recede any time soon, and rightly so. --David Kan Ting, The China Post, Wed Mar 27, 2013
Now with the godsend [represented by Peng Liyuan's very existence], it's worth the long wait. --David Kan Ting, The China Post, Wed Mar 27, 2013
Whoa, Dave, take a saltpeter or something. Not to run you down or anything, but I haven't seen analysis this objective since last week's hard-hitting expose on Justin Bieber.
David Ting began his slobbery fanboi column by humming an old Taiwanese tune from the '80s titled, "The Drizzle Comes Just In Time." (Drizzle being a good thing, Ting informs us, especially after a period of a long drought.)
Well, it might come as a surprise, but I, too, cannot help humming a tune from the '80s when I now think of Peng Liyuan. Granted, it's not nearly as famous as Ting's -- just some obscure song by a little-known band that never went anywhere. Maybe you've heard of it though.
It's called, Another One Bites The Dust.
Given that China's new first lady, Peng Liyuan, publicly supported the massacre of thousands of her own countrymen, it seems entirely appropriate. (And as an added bonus, it's even got lyrics about machine guns, bullets and dead men dropping like flies as well.)
Postscript: Other '80s songs which could serve as lietmotifs for China's bloodthirsty first lady ogress:
Hit Me With Your Best Shot -- Pat Benetar
Cold-Hearted Snake -- Paula Abdul
I Just Died In Your Arms Tonight -- Cutting Crew
It's A Sin -- Pet Shop Boys
Wipeout -- Fat Boys & Beachboys
What Have You Done For Me Lately? -- Janet Jackson
Don't Forget Me When I'm Gone -- Glass Tiger
Everybody Wants To Rule The World -- Tears for Fears
A View To A Kill -- Duran Duran
Eyes Without A Face -- Billy Idol
An Innocent Man -- Billy Joel
Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? -- Culture Club
Der Kommissar -- After the Fire
Back On The Chain Gang -- The Pretenders
Overkill -- Men at Work
Hard To Say I'm Sorry -- Chicago
Hurts So Good -- John Cougar Mellencamp
Stop Draggin' My Heart Around -- Stevie Nicks
Guilty -- Barbara Streisand & Barry Gibb
[Don't!] Do That To Me One More Time -- Captain & Tennille
UPDATE: One wonders what '80s song Fang Zheng recalls when thinking about Peng Liyuan?
Having been "liberated" from his legs by the tank treads of an "elegant" and "magnificent" PLA panzer, Fang no doubt bitterly remembers the Pet Shop Boys' What Have I Done To Deserve This?
No word yet from David Ting on whether Fang Zheng wore a pair of absolutelyFABULOUS designer prosthetics to the inauguration of Peng Liyuan's husband. They must've been simply to-die-for though, right Dave?
Like Peng Liyuan, Asma too was the subject of journalistic puff pieces -- which were quietly withdrawn out of sheer embarrassment once her husband began massacring Syrians.
UPDATE #2: All copies of Vogue's infamous "A Rose In The Desert" article have apparently been scrubbed from the internet, save for this one on a Bashar al-Assad fan-site run by an employee of the (ahem!) Syrian State News Agency living in Rome. As for the profile's author, Joan Juliet Buck, she regrets ever writing it.
Been a while since I last checked the blog, and I noticed a comment on my Tsai Eng-meng post.
For those unfamiliar with Tsai Eng-meng, Tsai Eng-meng is a Taiwanese food magnate. Got his start in Taiwan, but made it big in China.
Upon returning to Taiwan, Tsai bought up some Taiwanese news media organs. And changed their editorial stances to more Communist-friendly positions.
But around the beginning of 2012, Tsai caused a stir in an interview with the Washington Post, remarking that the Chinese Communists were jolly good fellows who just couldn't possibly have killed very many people at Tiananmen Square. His reason for thinking so? Because the driver of a single tank hesitated to run over the iconic "Tank Man" of Tiananmen Square.
(As I recall, he also expressed scorn for Taiwan's hard-won democratic freedom, which he derided as a poor substitute for a walletful of Chinese redbacks.)
And so, without further ado, I submit my replies to one of Tsai's comradely supporters.
Jon: Not to side with Tsai here...
The Foreigner: Here it comes...
Jon: ...but he was citing the fact that the "Tank Man" lie [sic], which is often perpetuated in western media.
The Foreigner: Can I interrupt to say that it suits you? The whole passive-aggression routine, I mean.
If experience is any guide, I do believe you're fishing for some kind of groveling apology.
Jon: For example a supermajority of Americans believe falsely that the "Tank Man" at Tiananmen was run over by those tanks.
The Foreigner:Bullshit.
A cursory web check of the New York Times, Newsweek and Time reveals nothing of the kind. NONE of them declare that Tank Man was definitely run over by tanks at Tiananmen.
Furthermore, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe anybody wasted good money to poll Americans about "Tank Man". But, assuming for the moment that it IS true, you forgot to mention that the Chinese DID run over at least one man (Fang Zheng) with their tanks. (To this day, the Communist propaganda ministry maintains that Fang Zheng lost his legs in an everyday, run-of-the-mill "traffic accident".)
So perhaps Americans' beliefs are a perfectly understandable result of mistaken identity:
Tank Man gets photographed in front of limb-crushing tanks.
Fang Zheng is photographed minus a couple of limbs (compliments of Tsai Eng-meng's Communist benefactors).
Mental conflation of Tank Man (who was NOT run over by Chinese tanks) with Fang Zheng (who WAS run over by Chinese tanks).
But here's a crazy PR suggestion: if the Chinese don't want Westerners to think they run people over with tanks...MAYBE they should stop running people over with their tanks!
Jon: He is still alive according to most accounts and the "conspiracy theory" sites claim he died months later.
The Foreigner: It is, of course, a red herring to bring up the fate of any one single individual (Tank Man) in the face of a massacre of thousands. Tsai's hasty generalization is that since Tank Man MAY have survived, then "not that many [Chinese demonstrators] could really have died."
And if Anne Frank were to turn up alive tomorrow, would this Communist quisling then argue that the Jewish Holocaust never happened?
Also, it's patently untrue to say Tank Man is still alive according to "most accounts". Wikipedia -- hardly a "conspiracy theory" site -- points out the conflicting stories on that score.
If he IS alive, let him come forward to say so to the media.
Oh, that's right. He can't. Because if he comes forward, the Chinese government will kill him.
Golly. Maybe the Butchers of Beijing really AREN'T the nice, harmless guys Tsai Eng-meng claims they are. Ya think?
Jon: As for "democracy-hating", there is nobody who truly loves ALL democracy. For example, the Weimar Republic elected Hitler.
The Foreigner: The "Weimar Republic" didn't vote for Hitler. The political system known as "democracy" didn't vote for Hitler.
MEN voted for Hitler. Men who hated democracy, and wanted it abolished.
Men such as Tsai Eng-meng. And yourself.
It was Germany's great misfortune that these men got what they wished for.
Jon: The French Republic massacred women and children (guillotined them).
The Foreigner: Straw man. Democracy, as a term describing a form of government advocated in the modern world, does not include the French revolutionary model lacking constitional safeguards (formal and informal).
But allow me to make a further rebuttal to your line of thinking. Around the time of the French revolution, doctors carried out a host of unproven treatments, some of which were either ineffective or even downright harmful to their patients (blistering of the skin or confinement for psychological problems, bloodletting, enema use, frontal lobotomies, "spermatorrhoea" prevention, homeopathy, and purging).
On the other hand, they also pioneered procedures which have stood the test of time, such as vaccinations, percussion-based diagnosis, and various surgical techniques.
Only an ignoramus would argue that modern doctors should be loathed and present-day medicine rejected out-of-hand simply because doctors of the past once used some questionable practices.
By the same token, only the genuinely infantile reject modern liberal democracy simply because 200 years ago, some long-dead Frenchmen didn't recognize the importance of checks-and-balances, the necessity of constitutionalism, and the limits to the perfectability of man.
The Foreigner: Excuse me while I look that up in the latest edition of the Oxford Chinglish Dictionary.
Jon: ...a million Filipinos in the Philippine-American War, where the US conquered and annexed an independent nation, destroying their Republic, even though the Philippine Republic used the US constitution.
The Foreigner: I believe the number is closer to 250,000...and it's debatable whether it was a deliberate genocide.
But rather than argue about numbers, I'd like to point out that most of the casualties were caused by out-of-control military officers who went far beyond what the civilian leadership ever intended. It's a cause for celebration that modern democracies have matured and figured out that their militaries need to be kept on a much tighter leash.
Why and how did this maturation take place? It occurred because democracies are blessed with a built-in feedback mechanism: the free press. In short, American anti-imperialist papers were free to report atrocities, and thereby helped bring them to an end.
Which is something that doesn't ever happen in Tsai Eng-meng's glorious Communist utopia.
Or in Tsai Eng-meng's pro-Communist newspapers, for that matter.
Oh, one last thing before we move on...you neglected to mention that America went to the Philippines with the ultimate goal of granting it its independence. Which it did, in 1946.
Poor Tibet should be so lucky!
Jon[referring to dead Philippinos]: Rather funny. Democracy is a joke.
The Foreigner: Number of Chinese murdered (or, in your parlance, "genocided") by the anti-democratic doctrine within the last 50 years: 36,000,000. Number of Chinese killed by democracy within the last 50 years: 0.
Which of those two numbers is greater than the other, Jon?
I'll allow you to take your time to figure that out. Math is hard.
But since you're fond of jokes, here's a riddle for you:
Q: What do you call an Uncle Com who tries to bamboozle people into thinking the Chinese don't run their citizens over with tanks, when he's fully aware that they DO run their citizens over with tanks?
A: A lying asshole.
But I guess you've probably heard that one before.
Jon: If you go to any of the 200 democratic countries of the world...
The Foreigner: Which "world" are you referring to? Here on planet Earth, there are only 78 democracies.
Jon: ...everyone on the street will say it's a democracy, but ask them if they can be president or a congressman, and the average folk always say "no", and ask why, and they say because they lack money or influence.
Basically democracy only elects the aristocracy (wealth or fame).
The Foreigner: Have you ever heard of a guy named Barack Obama (D)? Or Bill Clinton (D)? Or Ronald Reagan (R)? [Apr 10 / 2013 Update: Or Richard Nixon (R)?]
Word on the street is that they all came from fairly modest beginnings...
But you labor under a misconception. Liberal democracy entails the consent of the demos. It does NOT mean that everyone gets to be president for their fricken' birthday.
Money and influence help in life. If you don't have 'em, you may have to set your immediate sights a little lower. Run for dog catcher. Or the PTA. Or city commissioner.
Bust your ass at it. Do a good job. Don't steal from the public purse. Don't get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
Do all that, and you just might get further than you ever thought you could.
But even should you fail there's one final thought you may yet still console yourself with: your well-meaning efforts have not landed you in a urine-soaked Communist political prison.
Jon: Aristotle hated democracy for this reason and preferred monarchy.
The Foreigner: Was that the reason? Or was it because he was born an aristocrat, and was quite naturally predisposed towards the form of government under which he was privileged? (Or, along similar lines, was it because he worked for Alexander the Great, and knew which side his bread was buttered?)
Nevertheless, I understand Aristotle also believed that there were some men whose very natures destined them for slavery. Never much cared for the notion, although I'm perfectly willing to admit he may have been right..about individuals such as yourself.
Aristotle: "The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth.For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry; for some understand one part, and some another, and among them they understand the whole." -- Politics, Book 3.11
I'm not sensin' any of that "hate" you were talkin' about. He may have had his druthers, but unlike Tsai Eng-meng, he was at least honest enough to give democracy its due.
(And he certainly deserves credit for his intuition about the Wisdom of Crowds, long before anyone ever coined the phrase.)
Jon: And ALL of the Greek philosophers disagreed with elections, but rather preferred representatives to be chosen at random.
The Foreigner: It should then be a relatively simple matter for you to name at least five of them who held this opinion.
(Shaky camera-work alert. To listen, click PLAY and scroll the video off the screen.)
Update (Nov 8/2012): Tsai Eng-meng finds himself in the fine company of notable ancient Greek philosopherMahmoud Fraudmadinejad.
Update (Dec 7/2012): What's that, Ari? You'd like to weigh in on the subject of democracy again? Why certainly, be my guest...
"The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy." --Aristotle, Politics Book 6.2
So, to paraphrase Jon's philosophical hero, Aristotle: "Liberty is the great result of every democracy."
Which just might be why would-be tyrants hate it so.
Update (Jan 9/2013): Jon averred:
"Basically democracy ONLY elects the aristocracy (wealth or fame)." [Emphasis added]
I gave 3 examples disproving this assertion. But this refutes the claim even more convincingly:
The chart plainly shows that half those in the U.S. Congress AREN'T wealthy. That works out to about 267 people (535 members of Congress / 2 = 267.5).
If someone has evidence that these 267 non-wealthy people are all incredibly famous (and yet, for some reason, not millionaires), then I'd be very interested in seeing it.
So it seems that there is a system in which only the rich and famous obtain political power. However, the evidence shows that that system is not democracy, but the one beloved by Tsai Eng-meng: Chinese Communism.
...Beijing traditionally depicted all Uighur nationalists—violent rebels and non-violent activists alike—as CIA proxies. Shortly after 9/11, that conspiracy theory was tossed down the memory hole. Suddenly China was, and always has been, at war with al Qaeda-led Uighur terrorists.
...and yet, if the Chinese government claims that the Uighurs constitute their own Islamic fundamentalist problem, the fact is that I’ve never met a Uighur woman who won’t shake hands [with a man] or a man who won’t have a drink with me. Nor does my Jewish-sounding name appear to make anyone flinch. In one of those vino veritas sessions, I asked a local Uighur leader if he was able to get any sort of assistance from groups such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission (where, as I found during a brief visit to their London offices, veiled women flinch from an extended male hand, drinks are forbidden, and my Jewish surname is a very big deal indeed). “Useless!” he snorted, returning to the vodka bottle.
...the Xinjiang procedure spread. By the end of 1999, the Uighur crackdown would be eclipsed by Chinese security’s largest-scale action since Mao: the elimination of Falun Gong. By my estimate up to three million Falun Gong practitioners would pass through the Chinese corrections system. Approximately 65,000 would be harvested, hearts still beating, before the 2008 Olympics. An unspecified, significantly smaller, number of House Christians and Tibetans likely met the same fate.
The Heirs of Mao ban a rabbit cartoon. Yes, a rabbit cartoon. I kid you not.
Reckon they're worried the little bunny-wunny-wunnies might hurt 'em:
A GRISLY cartoon that marks the upcoming Year of the Rabbit by portraying a bunny revolt against brutal tiger overlords has proven an online hit, with its thinly veiled stab at China's communist rulers.
And in related news, the Chinese Politburo has also declared a news blackout on the popular revolution against Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Not just on the uprising, but on the entire country. That is to say, the merest mention of the word "Egypt" in China is now a crime-against-the-state. (At least as far as China's micro-blogging sites go.)
Last November, he was arrested by the police and then charged in March with "creating a disturbance". His lawyer, Li Fangping, said the evidence for the charge had been that Mr Zhao had given a media interview on a public pavement, held a dinner in a restaurant for a dozen parents of other victims, and that he had held up a small sign in protest outside a trial of milk company executives responsible for the poisoning.
Just who was it who recently was awarded the coveted "World Harmony Foundation" Peace Prize for his notable accomplishments in "improving relations between China and the rest of the world"?
The icing on the cake: the presenter was none other than Sha Zhukang, China's buffoonish "diplomat" at the U.N.
(Left to Right: World Harmony Foundation founder Frank Liu, Tiananmen Butcher General Chi Haotian, and Chinese ultranationalist U.N. official Sha Zhukang. Image from Inner City Press)
No such luck. Even P.R.C. media outlets report the story. (And with an eagerness in marked contrast to their complete coverage blackout of Liu Xiaobo's Nobel win just last month . . .)
UPDATE: Using a (Chinese) U.N. official to give at least the ILLUSION of U.N. approval. Nice touch.
UPDATE #2: Although maybe too clever by half. There've been some questionable (sometimes VERY questionable) Nobel Peace Prize choices over the years. But with one fell stroke, the "World Harmony Foundation" has rendered its awards radioactive. Getting one of them puppies now is like bare-handedly grabbing a plutonium-239 trophy. The 21st Century equivalent of the Stalin Peace Prize.
The China Post (Taiwan's pro-Communist newspaper of record) frets that the greatest menace to peace in Asia is . . . Japan. Beware a second Pearl Harbor, the editors darkly warn.
LOL. The chances of PACIFIST Japan pulling Pearl Harbor II anytime during our lifetimes ranks somewhere between an attack by trident-wielding Mer-people and a Zombie Apocalypse.
UPDATE: China now matches the number of attack submarines (63) that Japan had when it struck at Pearl Harbor. Funny coincidence, that. (Modern Japan has only 16.)
Some other facts the Chinese ultranationalist editors of the Post may be aware of:
China has nuclear weapons. Japan has none.
China has over a thousand missiles targetted onto Taiwan. Japan has none.
China has offensive weaponry. Japan is constitutionally prevented from possessing same.
China maintains the largest number of territorial disputes (somewhere between 19 and 26) in all of Asia.
China has recently laid expansionist claim to the entire South China Sea. Japan has not.
China's military has enjoyed double digit budgetary increases for several years now. While on the other hand, high Japanese vehicle costs mean that Japan's military expenditure in real terms is roughly on par with South Korea or Taiwan.
And finally, China routinely ranks among the 10 worst countries in the entire world when it comes to press freedom. Maintaining strict media censorship, the government indoctrinates the population with ultranationalist propaganda, just as Imperial Japan once did.
(Far more difficult to imagine the Japanese being similarly brainwashed since Japan has the world's 11th freest press.)
So 2,500 Japanese marched in downtown Tokyo in defiance of Chinese bullying over the Senkaku Islands. Big deal. With a population of 128 million, that's a 0.002% turnout.
Reckon more people showed up for the latest "Tentacle Pride" rally . . .
UPDATE (Oct 26/2010): A profile of those Japanese "wildmen" Taiwan's China Post is so afear'd of.
The day Liu Xiaobo wins the Nobel Peace Prize, a "European Affairs" program in China instead breaks the earthshaking news that a panda had been born in Spain.
Damn. Remind me never to play a game of Machiavelli with Michael Turton!
All kidding aside, Occam's Razor suggests to me that China was sincere in its brutish objections to Liu Xiaobo's nomination and win. Thuggish is as thuggish does.
But I'll go further out on a limb and predict that within the next 3 or 5 years Liu will have company, when another Chinese dissident will be awarded the prize. And my reason for believing that is that the Chinese Communist Party REALLY hacked off the Nobel Committee. So much so, that the committee broke with precedent and leaked the name of the winner to the media a few days before the official announcement. (Hard to imagine a bigger F U being issued to the Butchers of Beijing.)
Remember how the Nobel committee spent the last 6 or 7 years repudiating George W. Bush? It was almost a steady stream -- Mohammed ElBaradei...Al Gore...Barack Obama. (If I'm not mistaken, there were also a couple anti-American authors for the Literature Prize tossed in just for good measure.)
Message received. Loud and clear.
But one thing cannot be denied: in response to these rebukes, the American government did most assuredly NOT threaten the government of Norway, nor the livelihood of its people. Great powers get criticized, and they learn to live with it. Goes with the territory.
In contrast, the Communist government of China gave the Nobel committee only two alternatives: humiliating surrender, or honorable defiance.* One or two more Liu Xiaobo's this decade will drive home to the Chinese what stuff Norwegians are made of.
* During a conversation with some Taiwanese youths a few years back, one of them announced in all seriousness to me that "Face didn't matter to Westerners."
(No offence was intended by them. I think the subject came up when I remarked that I wouldn't feel any loss of face if I offered a last-minute dinner party invitation to a coworker, and they declined due to prior commitments.)
It's a view charming in its naivety when held by the young -- but foolish to the extreme if it's held by the Chinese leadership.
An honorable mention to President Hu Jintao and the Chinese Communist Politburo as well. (For without their tireless efforts, Liu's victory would scarcely have been possible!)
UPDATE #2: I knew that Liu had been sentenced to 11 years by the Communist politburo...but wasn't aware that Liu & his lawyers had only 14 minutes to defend him at trial. Can't wait to see Bev Chu & Taiwan's China Post spin the proceedings of that kangaroo court as a "fair trial".
UPDATE #3: "I have long been aware that when an independent intellectual stands up to an autocratic state, step one toward freedom is often a step into prison. Now I am taking that step; and true freedom is that much nearer." - Liu Xiaobo
UPDATE (Oct 9/2010): Gotta give Ma Ying-jeou & the KMT credit for at least pretending to be pleased with Liu's win. Hypocrisy may be the homage vice pays to virtue, but that's certainly more than Taiwan's China Post has done so far.
[Don't be so cynical, Foreigner -- school bullying is a huge, HUGE story! Way bigger than the first Nobel Peace Prize won by a Chinese!]
Hours after the announcement, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) congratulated Liu for winning the prize and called on China to address human rights issues with a more liberal attitude.
The General-wuss-imo must be really worried about the coming elections, if he's that willing to piss off his Communist masters. What's next? An invitation to Rebiya Kadeer and the Dalai Lama to come help campaign for him?
China's capital has started gating and locking some of its lower-income neighborhoods overnight, with police or security checking identification papers around the clock, in a throwback to an older style of control.
Used to think it was hyperbole to describe the PRC as "neo-fascist". Maybe I was mistaken on that score.
Which come to think of it, strongly resembles their campaign over at Topix:
When the Hokklo Taiwanese came from China 400 years ago they didn't learn the Aboriginal languages!!! Why???
When the Hokklo Taiwanese came from China 400 years ago they didn't learn the Aboriginal languages!!! Why???
It's the way of the future . . . the future . . . the way of the FU-ture . . .
Whoops, sorry. **Phew** Well, that's a good question I asked. I mean, you -- YOU asked! ...Uh, three times. Anyhoo. Anyhoo, I'll tell you why. They didn't learn the aboriginal languages because they're nothing but a bunch of no-good racists!
No-good racists, you say? I did not know that, my clean-shaven friend.
Shouldn't Beijing then discipline those wayward, spoiled children? As they say in the Han race-nation, blood is thicker than water. So why, oh why, don't the Chinese invade and mass deport all of those Taiwanese racists back to China?
Ethnically-cleanse all 23 million of them? As punishment for not learning a language 400 years ago?
Hmmm . . . That's tough, but fair . . .
I second the motion! A capital idea! And then, once the People's Liberation Army promptly leaves (as we can surely trust them to do) then we can set up a Naruwan aboriginal Republic under UN auspices!
Hee-hee! With my amazing Moktar Stealth Haze, no one can tell they're all just me! Do da do da do . . . Just a wild and crazy anarchist -- like that V for Vendetta guy! (Images from Patterico.com)
Bravo, Topix.com, for a site that's so bad it's actually kind of awesome.
UPDATE 2: Unrelated, but fun nonetheless. Feng shui: Is there anything it CAN'T do?
. . . in order to please Communist China. From Taiwan's China Post:
. . . ruling Kuomintang (KMT) Deputy Secretary-General Chang Jung-kung, who handles the party's ties with China, warned [the mayor of the southern Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung] of the risks of screening [a film about Chinese Uigher leader, Rebiya Kadeer].
He said the mayor should give top priority to the public interest of her city, and should “think carefully” if the move affects Kaohsiung's [influx of Chinese tourists].
Mr. Deputy Secretary-General, free speech IS the public interest of Kaohsiung. And Taiwan too, you miserable butt-wipe.
The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity. [emphasis added]
Therefore (in theory at least), the goal of Olympism IS freedom -- for without it, men have the dignity of serfs or slaves. Which is why the pro-slavery views of Jackie Chan make him unsuitable for the job of spokesman for Taiwan's Deaflympics:
"I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re
not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want." -- Jackie Chan
Tuesday's China Post attempted to defend Chan's job as Taiwan's Deaflympics spokesman, on the basis of . . . free speech.
Which is a straw man, because Chan's free speech isn't the issue. As a free man, it's Jackie Chan's right to express his odious wish that he and all other Chinese should be servile. For speaking his mind, I do not advocate that he be jailed, fined, or hauled in front of a human rights tribunal by any government. Nor do I hear anyone demanding that the State retaliate against his economic interests, banning his movies or otherwise damaging his livelihood.
The Post asks:
After all, aren't democracy champions also the champions of freedom and equal rights for every individual?
Indeed they are -- but that doesn't mean that democracy champions are obligated to accept anti-democrats as their SPOKESMEN!
It's a similar issue to the whole Durban II "Anti-racism" Conference. The UN holds an international meeting on anti-racism . . . then invites MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD as a keynote speaker?
Whatsa matter? David Duke and "high-class" Chinese nationalist Kuo Kuan-ying weren't available?
Here's a clue for UN Secretary Dim-Bulb Ban Ki-moon: If you want your little anti-racism shindig to have any credibility, it's MAYBE not a good idea to give the limelight to hallucinatory psychotics who're jonesing for genocide.
And here's another clue for Ban's counterparts at the China Post: If Taiwan wants a spokesman for freedom and human dignity, it's contradictory to hire Jackie Chan. He's already got a job, moonlighting as a spokesman for governmental repression.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: One other thing. Companies and organizations hire spokesmen in order to create GOODWILL for their products or events. If a celebrity (for whatever reason) isn't creating that goodwill, then shouldn't someone ELSE be given their job instead?
Apropos of this, CNN has a long list of commercial pitchmen who were fired for offenses ranging from raunchy speech (Madonna) to partisan speech (Whoopi Goldberg) to bitter divorces (Burt Reynolds).
That's life. All of these celebrities have the right of free speech. What they do not have is the right to keep their lucrative endorsement jobs after they send product sales down the toilet.
The Presbyterian Church has been meddling in China's domestic politics for nearly a century. It has driven a wedge between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan by instilling hatred for mainland Chinese in the hearts and minds of Chinese on Taiwan.
Hard to figure out exactly what the author means by "China" here. First of all, if he means the Republic of China (Taiwan), then he's surely in error, because Taiwan was a colony of Japan a hundred years ago. Any "meddling" that might have taken place a hundred years ago would therefore have been in Japanese imperial affairs, not in China's domestic politics.
On the other hand, if by "China" the author is referring to the People's Republic of China, then again he's wrong, because Mao expelled all Western churches back in '49.
I'll assume then, that by "China" the writer means "Taiwan", and by "nearly a century", he means 60 years. That would suggest that the editorialist bears a grudge regarding the Presbyterians' opposition to human rights abuses by Taiwan's former dictators.
Such complaints by KMT apologists are a bit rich, however:
In 1975, after the KMT confiscated romanized Bibles and prohibited the printing of romanized texts, the [Presbyterian Church of Taiwan] issued "Our Appeal -- Concerning the Bible, the
Church and the Nation" which asked that the government respect religious freedom and carry out political reform.
Talk about meddling! In the 1970s the KMT dictatorship in Taiwan OUTLAWED Bibles written in the Taiwanese vernacular. In doing so, it violated two fundamental principles held by all modern democratic states: that of religious freedom and that of separation of Church and State. (Which should come as no surprise, because Taiwan in the '70s was no democracy.)
As for any "wedge" that has been driven between the Taiwanese and the Chinese, the writer conveniently forgets to mention any possible role that decades of Chinese belligerence and threats of war might have played in fostering anti-Chinese sentiment -- or that KMT anti-communist propaganda might have played a role as well.
UPDATE: Noticed a few similarities between this 2004 Bevin Chu blog post from a few years back and the piece in Friday's China Post.
Technically, it's not plagiarism, since I believe Mr. Chu wrote the Post's editorial as well. But it's still quite a long passage to simply CUT-AND-PASTE, however:
As part of his election campaign, Chen Shui-bian ordered Chen Yu-hao, former
chairman of the Tuntex Group and a fugitive exiled to the US, placed on Taiwan's
"Ten Most Wanted" list. Chen Shui-bian was desperate to cast himself as a
squeaky clean political reformer at Chen Yu-hao's expense.
A furious Chen Yu-hao responded by appearing on television and revealing the
ugly truth. Chen Shui-bian had eagerly pocketed a fortune in political
contributions from Chen Yu-hao over the past decade.
When Chen Shui-bian tried to deny the charges, Chen Yu-hao revealed that ROC
legislator Shen Fu-hsiung, a DPP "elder" with a reputation for honesty within
DPP circles was an eyewitness who saw Chen Yu-hao hand First Lady Wu Shu-chen a
bag full of cash.
Considering Shen was also Chen Shui-bian's campaign manager, Chen Yu-hao's
revelation put Shen in a somewhat awkward position. Rather than lie, Shen went
into hiding for the following week.
What happened next was like a scene out of a black comedy by Stanley Kubrick.
A delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan, a long time
abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to Shen. What textual
truth did these supposedly devout Christians share with him? They solemnly
assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In
other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of
course it advances Taiwan independence."
Be that as it may, I cannot find any corroboration for Chu's story about Taiwan's Presbyterian Church. I can only speculate that Church leaders may have said something about "forgiveness" at the time (as Christians often do), and that Chu has misinterpreted -- or, to be less kind, twisted -- their statements to suggest the Church advocates the telling of deliberate falsehoods.
UPDATE (Dec 13/08): Mr. Chu's account of the Chen Yu-hao story appears a bit one-sided. From AsiaTimes Online:
In early February [of 2004] Chen Yu-hao faxed three letters to opposition legislators
claiming that he had made donations to the election campaign of President Chen
Shui-bian. At first he tried to claim that Chen Shui-bian had simply pocketed
the money, a claim that was refuted by officials from Chen Shui-bian's own DPP,
who produced photocopies of the receipts.
[...]
The DPP also pointed out that Chen Yu-hao had given donations 10 times as large to
both the other rival candidates for the 2000 presidential election; Lien Chan of
the Kuomintang (KMT) and James Soong, then running as an independent candidate
got NT$100 million each.
On top of this Chen Yu-hao had given another
NT$100 million to the KMT in the early 1990s, which somehow never made its way
into party coffers but ended up in the private bank accounts of Soong's family
members.
[...]
There is no doubt that Soong transferred NT$248 million of KMT funds into the
bank accounts of his family members in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance Corp, of
which NT$100 million came from Chen Yu-hao and another NT$80 million from
construction company boss Liang Po-hsun. Liang is also a fugitive from Taiwanese
justice, accused of embezzling money from the Overseas Chinese Bank. And while
Soong claims the money was to be used for party purposes, there is no evidence
that it was so used, and Soong never attempted to return the money - neither
when he left the KMT secretary-general's post nor when he left the party itself
in late 1999.
For all the losses, sufferings and agonies, Beijing can take some comfort from the fact that the earthquake has rallied the country behind the government, which has been constantly criticized by Western countries for human right abuses. Suddenly, such criticisms disappeared, thanks to the earthquake that prompted Premier Wen Jiabao and President Hu Jintao to respond instantly and effectively -- an evidence of their care and concern for human rights. [emphasis added]
Evidence of their care and concern for human rights. Priceless!
Had some Taiwanese friends over this week who've never seen the previous Indiana Jones movies, and I was a bit surprised when one of them brought the subject of the quake up. Now, this guy and I almost never talk politics -- I don't know his politics -- don't CARE to know his politics. Be that as it may, he asked me, "So Foreigner, what do you think of the earthquake in China?"
Now, I was starting to think this was some kind of trick question. 50,000 people dead... what am I SUPPOSED to think?
Me: "Uh, yeah . . . it's pretty bad. What do YOU think?"
Him: "I don't know. We offered to send rescue teams over there. But they refused."
Did I detect a sadness in that last word? Or bitterness? I'm no Betazoid, so I couldn't tell. But no guff from HIM about the glorious, compassionate Communist Party leadership. Just the implied criticism: "They had tens of thousands of people trapped under rubble, and the stupid bastards REFUSED our rescue teams. Nice that they're letting them in NOW, but it's kinda late, isn't it?"
In the city of Dujiangyan, which is closest to the quake's epicenter, the UK's Guardian newspaper reports residents there furious over the shoddy workmanship and substandard materials used in many of the buildings that collapsed around their families. Many of them blame local officials for selling off the high quality materials that should have been used in these buildings and putting the money in their pockets. The same government functionaries then signed off on certifications that these structures were built according to local codes and ordnances, even thought that they knew them to be incapable of surviving even small tremors.
[...]
City residents were particularly angered by the collapse of the Juyuan High School, pointing out that this much newer building folded like a house of cards while considerably older structures--most conspicuously local PLA offices and other government buildings--were left standing.
"About 450 [students] were inside, in nine classes and it collapsed completely from the top to the ground. It didn't fall over; it was almost like an explosion . . . why isn't there money to build a good school for our kids?" shouted several at the site. "Chinese officials are too corrupt and bad. These buildings outside have been here for 20 years and didn't collapse--the school was only 10 years old. They took the money from investment, so they took the lives of hundreds of kids. They have money for prostitutes and second wives but they don't have money for our children. This is not a natural disaster--this is done by humans."
Something's seriously amiss when Chinese citizens are more critical of their government than members of the supposedly "free" press stationed in Taiwan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTSCRIPT: The good news is, Typepad has updated its WYSIWYG editor, giving bloggers like me several new functions to play with. The bad news is it's as buggy as hell right now. Hence the unposted photo.
Perhaps if the technical support staff at Typepad resolved to be a little more like the "unsung heroes of the Peoples' Liberation Army, working around the clock under difficult conditions, demonstrating the kind of tenacity that shows they fear neither hardship nor death," the problems would be resolved, and I'd be able to post the image.
(Kidding! . . . Kidding, Typepad. I kid, because I love.)
Since China is a totalitarian state*,
it means the government has its fingers in just about every conceivable
pie there is, except the ones it really ought to. Monitoring speech?
Check. Blocking internet access? Check. Busting dissidents who post
online (with the help of Google)? Check. Forcing women to have
abortions if they violate [the] “one child” [policy]? Check.
One thing the Chinese are not short of is government oversight. It’s just
that consumer safety is not a priority for them at all.
China is creating a database with profiles on the thousands of foreign reporters
who will be covering next summer's Beijing Olympics, a top [Chinese] official said in
comments published yesterday.
The database...was
designed to prevent people from posing as journalists to trick or blackmail
interview subjects, Liu Binjie (柳斌杰), minister of the General
Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), was quoted as saying in the
state-run China Daily.
"Disguising as reporters to threaten and intimidate others to collect money
is cheating and very dangerous to society," Liu was quoted as saying.
In China, people sometimes pose as reporters to extort money from corrupt
officials or demand payment for false promises of favorable news coverage. [emphasis added]
Don't you just HATE it when you spend mucho renminbi bribing a reporter for favorable coverage, only to find some bloody SCAM ARTIST with a phony press badge has made off with the loot instead? Why, there oughtta be a law!
Against fake reporters, I mean. Not against honest, hard-working officials whose only crime is wanting
to spread the wealth with deserving, accountable, and most importantly, gub'mint-licensed members
of the Fourth Estate.
Apparently David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute was in Taiwan recently, and he wrote a few pieces about La Isla Formosa. Haven't had much time to follow the 'net over the past few weeks (belated congratulations on blog post #2000, Michael!), so apologies to anyone who has already posted these links.
Frum gives a good summary of China's behavior towards Taiwan here.
Even better is his second piece (though it's a bit deceptively-titled). He certainly grasps that left-right labels aren't really applicable to Taiwanese politics:
The "left-wing" DPP has proposed to purchase American warships, surveillance
craft and interceptor missiles. It presses the U.S. to engage in joint training
exercises with Taiwanese forces, to allow U.S. naval vessels to call at Taiwan
ports and to change current policy so as to allow serving generals and admirals
to visit Taiwan.
The "right-wing" KMT prefers detente. It has used its majority in Taiwan's
parliament to stall the DPP's arms purchases. It advocates closer contacts with
China even if China refuses to recognize Taiwan. Some of its members voice
rising doubts about the relevance of the U.S.-Taiwan alliance. Leading KMT
members have travelled to Beijing to hold party-to-part talks with leading
Chinese Communists.
(My favorite moment a few years back was when "left-wing" Vice-President Annette Lu channeled Ronald Reagan, calling China "an empire of evil". A statement which the "right-wing" KMT hastened to denounce as "China-bashing".)
He closes this one with a concern many of us here have had for a long time:
One hears persistent rumors in Taiwan that the Chinese Communists pressure
Taiwan businessmen with interests on the mainland to make campaign donations to
their ancient enemies in the KMT. China ranks among the most corrupt countries
on Earth. Young democracies are vulnerable to external corruption.
I travelled to Taiwan worried that the Chinese might try to invade the
island. I returned worrying that China will try to buy it.
* The Chinese Communist party's grip on power is tightening, not loosening.
While 60% of entrepreneurs who launched businesses in the 1980s were workers,
peasants, or other ordinary people, by 2002, two-thirds of China's business
owners were former government officials, party cadres, or executives of
state-owned enterprises. This is not a case of successful businessmen
opportunistically joining the ruling party. Rather, it seems that the ruling
party is opportunistically seizing successful businesses.
[...]
Pei argues that these disturbing trends represent something more than growing
pains. He argues that they inhere in the path the Chinese Communist Party chose
for the country it rules.
The great problem facing any state is how to control the actions of its
agents. In a democracy, we rely on a free press to alert us to abuses by the
government and competitive elections to correct them. Mao Tse-Tung's version of
communism relied on capricious and all-enveloping terror. But when the Chinese
reformers semi-opened their economy, while sedulously denying political freedom,
they loosened their control of their agents - while creating lucrative new
incentives for their agents to siphon wealth away for themselves.
A vicious cycle has been unleashed. The richer China grows, the more
reluctant the ruling elite becomes to surrender power, because power has become
so much more valuable. But the refusal to loosen the grip on power undermines
China's wealth, by creating unchecked incentives to the state's agents to prey
upon wealth creation. [emphasis added]
[Mann's] 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?
Maybe this is piling on, but Guy Sorman says much the same:
Still, hasn’t [economic] growth [in China] created an independent middle class that will push for, and
eventually obtain, greater political freedom? Many in the West think so, looking
to the South Korean example, but [dissident economist] Mao Yushi isn’t convinced. What exists in
China, he argues, is a class of “parvenus,” newcomers whose purchasing power
depends on their proximity to the Party rather than their education or
entrepreneurial achievements. Except for a handful of genuine businessmen, the
parvenus work in the military, public administration, or state enterprises, or
for firms ostensibly private but, in fact, owned by the Party. The Party picks
up the tab for almost all their imported luxury cars, two-thirds of their mobile
phones, and three-quarters of their restaurant bills, as well as their call
girls, their “study” trips abroad, and their lavish spending at Las Vegas
casinos. And it can withdraw these advantages at any time.
In March, the Chinese government announced, to much fanfare in the Western
press, that it would begin to introduce individual property rights. We should
understand that this “reform” will benefit only the parvenus, not the peasants,
whose tilled land will still belong to the state. But the parvenus will now be
able to transmit to their children what they have acquired thanks to their Party
connections—one more reason that they will be unlikely to push for the
democratization of the regime that secures their status.
Speaking of democratization, Sorman gives us an idea of just how much democracy Taiwan can expect to retain should the KMT's dream of reunification ever be implemented:
...like everybody else, the Chinese love to watch TV, despite pervasive censorship
and the propaganda broadcast on it in China. One of their favorite shows is a
local version of the U.S. hit American Idol called Super Girl,
broadcast by a Hunan satellite channel and produced by a private firm. In 2005,
the winner of this amateur singing contest was Miss Li, a lanky 20-year-old with
a punk hairdo, sporting jeans and a black T-shirt—a fashion inspired by South
Korean pop bands. Miss Li won democratically with nearly 4 million votes,
text-messaged by viewers using their cell phones from home. Over 400 million
Chinese viewers—more than the combined populations of the United States and
England—watched the finale.
An unexceptional story—except that it happened in China, and the Communist
Party, taken by surprise, condemned Miss Li for not singing in Chinese but in
English and Spanish and for wearing clothes that didn’t conform to the anodyne
official dress code laid down by the national television station. A columnist in
China Daily, the Party’s mouthpiece, interpreted her victory as a popular
uprising against the established order, concluding that “Miss Li has been
elected but the people have made a bad choice. This is what happens when people
are unprepared for democracy.” [emphasis added]
Geez, this sounds like some kinda Chinese madrassa:
"The teachings of Confucius are the first thing we begin teaching the children,"
said Feng Zhe, director of the Confucian School, which opened six months ago.
"Each child should recite the Confucian texts 1,000 times until their spirit is
imprinted completely. This is a graduation requirement." [Emphasis added]
[...]
So far 46 students below the age of 14 have enrolled in the school which is
based on learning through recitation.
I'm not going to heap scorn upon this China Posteditorial. Because there are days when I, too, think things might work out for the best in the Middle Kingdom:
Today's communist leaders in China are pragmatists, who believes in Deng Xiaoping's "cat theory" of getting results rather than Mao Zedong's egalitarianism of glorifying poverty on an equal footing. The merit of the law should be judged by the answer to a single question: Do the people want it?
But the mainland people may want more-free elections, free press and independent courts, for example. Clearly, the National People's Congress is in no hurry to work on these political reforms, which are lagging far behind. These are the reforms that can best safeguard against the abuse of power by corrupt officials. So, after property reform, political reform must be on the agenda.
Already, grassroots pressure for such reform is mounting. The rising middle class and increasingly well-educated people will demand political reforms that are now put on the back burner. If the past is an indication, we have reasons to be optimistic that such reforms will be carried out in another decade or two, if not sooner.
China's communists may be more pragmatic than they once were, but is that pragmatism directed at doing what's good for their country, or merely doing whatever allows them to hold their positions of power and privilege? A selfless utilitarian might, out of a sense of pragmatism, be willing to allow himself to be voted out of office in order to better serve the needs of society. But communist oligarchs obsessed with clinging to power may be much less inclined to do so.
Furthermore, while I agree that the well-educated will demand political reforms, it is not at all inevitable that they will succeed in getting these demands met. Tienanmen Square happened once, and it can happen again. And again and again. Heinlein once depicted a society whose subjects were completely co-opted by a fascist state; they were perfectly free to make all the money they wanted, and as long they tended to their own gardens, the State was content to leave them alone. The Federation was unapologetically brutal to those who dared meddle in politics, however.
"Starship Troopers" may have been fiction, but a few societies HAVE paralleled it in real-life. Could China take that path as well? I wonder...
There ARE indeed hopeful developments in China, but there are others the sober observer cannot ignore. The creation of the "Great Firewall", continuing persecution against certain religious minorities, a blithely amoral foreign policy - these are all things that suggest China might be moving in a darker direction.
To this list, I might add China's treatment of the free and democratic state of Taiwan. A few years ago, a Taiwanese industrialist doing business there was threatened, with tax audits and overzealous safety inspections, into signing a document declaring his "opposition" to Taiwanese independence. It was only last year that Chinese arm-twisting caused an airplane carrying Taiwan's president to be forbidden from flying over Mexican airspace. And let it not be forgotten that China currently aims a thousand missiles at Taiwan, in an effort to terrorize the population into submission.
Taiwan is the canary in the coal mine, and how China treats it should be of interest to everyone. Today, it's Taiwanese industrialists who are being bullied into taking political stances; tomorrow, it may be businessmen from YOUR country. Today, China prevents Taiwan's president from freely traveling; tomorrow, it may prevent the president of some other democratic country it's displeased with from doing so.
And the missiles? Well, TODAY they, and other weapons, are targeted upon Taiwan. And tomorrow? Well, by now I hope you've gotten the picture.
So my gray-haired old mother called me the other day, and somewhere between telling me the weekly weather forecast and her menu plans for the next few days, she mentioned this story:
Now, Mom happens to own a (live) pooch of her own, so it's hard for me to know if she's exaggerating the scale of the story. Nevertheless, she tells me that a few wealthy people lost dogs to the dog food in question, and that these are the kind of people who can afford expensive attorneys.
The China angle here is that the rat poison may have come from adulterated wheat gluten from the Middle Kingdom. And that's maybe not great PR for the Chinese right now, what with their big trade surpluses and all.
UPDATE (Apr 6/07): Earlier this week, it was determined that the contaminant was not rat poison, but melamine, a chemical sometimes found in Asian fertilizers. In addition, there are suspicions that hundreds of dogs may have died, although there are only 15 confirmed cases so far. American imports of wheat gluten from the Chinese company in question have been suspended.
UPDATE (Apr 21/07): There may only be 15 CONFIRMED cases, but statisticians now say that 39,000 cats and dogs became sick or died from the poisoned pet food.
Perhaps there's a lesson here for panda-huggers everywhere. From the front page of today's Taipei Times:
A drunken Chinese tourist bit a panda at the Beijing Zoo after the animal attacked him when he jumped into the enclosure and tried to hug it, state media said yesterday.
(Afterwards, the man is said to have remarked, "It tasted just like koala.")
This guy should be locked up immediately. His defense for abusing the Panda is "I just wanted to touch it. I was so dizzy from the beer. I don't remember much." This kind of thing always starts with Pandas but before you know it this sick puppy will be hanging around the Petting Zoo with sugarcubes preying on innocent pigs and donkeys.
Some cities have their bookmobiles. The Simpsons' Springfield has its very own Poolmobile. But now, the butchers of Beijing have taken the concept to a whole new level.
AsiaPundit has a piece informing us that Roger Rabbit is now banned in Beijing. Meanwhile, Imagethief reveals the secret backroom discussions that led to the ban. As for myself, I think Roger's own words provide us with a clue as to why authoritarians of any stripe would want to silence a harmless 'toon. For as Roger once astutely observed:
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Beaten do death by the cops. The big story that triggered the attack was an expose' about how 50 policemen were illegally charging people with BICYCLE FEES.
Not exactly ENRON-scale stuff. But it was enough to get Wu Xianghu killed.
Shanghaiist has a post featuring a picture of "Cha-Cha", China's latest effort to put a happy face on political repression.
(Y'know, give her a baton and a pair of handcuffs, and Cha-Cha'd kinda have a little S&M thing goin' on there. Just saying, is all.)
Shanghaiist doesn't show us Jing-Jing, Cha-Cha's male partner, but does manage to ask us:
"what'cha gonna do, what'cha gonna do when they come for you?"
Hat tip to AsiaPundit for pointing this one out. And in case you missed it, check out my post on China's Olympic Mascots. It's got links to a few pretty good satirical cartoons.
UPDATE (Feb 19/06):The Financial Times had a good piece on the topic. One of the veterans of the Chinese Cybercop Corps said that:
Only one in 50 internet users wants to break the law, and they are the only ones to complain about a lack of liberty...the [Chinese] web is “completely free” for those who stay within the “legal framework”.
That's absolutely true. The Chinese web is completely free - so long as you don't actually try to MENTION freedom.
Or liberty...or democracy...or...
One thing I didn't know, though. If you click on the Jing-Jing or Cha-Cha icons, your computer'll play the smash hit, "Song of the People's Police."
Oh, oh, I think I know that one! It sounds a little bit like that Horst Wessel tune, doesn't it?
UPDATE (Feb 25/06):The China Digital Times has pictures of both Jing Jing & Cha Cha. Meanwhile, AsiaPundit has the story of a Chinese web surfer who nearly sh*t his pants when the Digital Brownshirts came a-callin'.
