This may be Jerome’s most outspoken and eloquent post yet. It is available on his own web site, but I asked him for permission to reproduce it here, it’s so good. Enjoy.
——————————————————————
Taking Out China and Finding Your True Friends
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
General Zhu Chenghu of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) recently tipped his hand and showed his true colors as he boasted in the typical bullying fashion of one accustomed to a superior/subordinate ranked society. Zhu threatened that if the United States would get involved in a war between China and Taiwan, China would not hesitate to use its nuclear weapons on America’s West Coast and any reachable US cities. There is nothing too new in his threats. Chinese generals and even businessmen who like the feeling of superiority that such posturing gives have done this in the past. You hear it in Asia and even in the Chinese sections of cities like Los Angeles.
For some, Zhu’s statements can be seen as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) letting the PLA blow off steam and act tough. Others may see it as one of many CCP test balloons i.e. have the military make some bold threats to see how the western powers react. If their response is tough, the CCP can then deny that Zhu was speaking for them. If however the western powers show a possible softening on their defense of Taiwan, then Beijing has gained a step and can ratchet up the rhetoric.
What is more surprising in General Zhu’s statement, however, is his unabashed and blatantly expressed disregard for the lives of Chinese citizens. Chinese leaders in the past have had no qualms about making cannon fodder (here read nuclear fodder) of their citizens. Mao’s willingness to let millions of Chinese die to serve his aims and ego is well documented. However, in the past the reality of such disregard was always masked with protestations of love for the common man. Not so with Zhu, he brazenly went on to say that China “should be prepared to lose all of the cities east of Xian.” Given that American nuclear striking power includes submarines in the South China Sea, this statement would also include all cities south of Xian.
Whether Zhu’s patriotic pride and territorial grasping would be satisfied in making a wasteland of everything east and south of Xian and whether Zhu himself would most likely station himself in a command post northwest of Xian are open to obvious speculation.
Nevertheless, two things stand out from Zhu’s threats. First he reveals the Legalistic Tradition’s typical manipulation of the Confucian superior/subordinate roles that pervade Chinese society. The general masses must always believe that the central government has their best interests at heart. Subordinates should always be ready to make appropriate sacrifices (here read all cities south and east of Xian). After all, that is why the CCP government controls all the media so that the masses should know what to believe and what is best for them–and not find out otherwise.
Second, Zhu’s talk is the standard discourse of the bully who has had the superior role as mentioned above. He points to the vulnerability of the opposition. “You may have weapons but you are vulnerable. We have weapons to destroy US cities and we don’t care about our people. So, you better think twice and give in to our demands.” Hitler effectively used such posturing with Chamberlain for “peace in our time.”
Some Sinophiles in the US have been arguing in Chamberlain fashion that we just “need to understand China, then we can all live in peace.” Hello? What part of “If you don’t give in to my demands and do what I want, then I will nuke you,” don’t you understand?
Zhu’s rhetoric seems more to be taking a page from North Korea’s style of bargaining or vice versa. Some speculate the two countries are working more in tandem.
Zhu threatens further that opposing China would be harmful to the US economy, but “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Vulnerability is a gate that swings both ways. If the US economy and the world’s were harmed, China’s would be devastated.
Let’s put aside for the moment, Zhu’s willingness to make a nuclear wasteland of all that is east and south of Xian and examine the issue of economic vulnerability.
When you come down to it, China would be a lot easier to take out economically than most countries imagine. A country no longer needs a land army to take out China; one would not even have to place a single soldier there. No, all a country would have to do is take out China’s economy; take out key energy and industrial locations and it would self implode. This is a vulnerability that even Japan and other countries in the region could exploit when threatened by China, and knowledge of which, the CCP wishes to deflect.
China right now depends on its economy growing at a rate of 10—15% a year. Beneath its surface is a pressure cooker building up. With its own internal troubles and unrest, the government realizes it must keep the lid on and let steam off periodically.
The government controls the media and constantly clamps down on any gatherings and potential sources of trouble. Take note on how the religious Falun Gong and other groups are regularly stamped down on and how recently even the public burial of Zhao Ziyang, Tienanmen friend of the people, was denied. The ease with which the recently orchestrated anti-Japanese riots were turned on and off like a steam valve illustrate both the government’s need to deflect the focus onto an enemy outside and the easy way the media is used to manipulate the public.
What keeps the masses satisfied under such draconian control is the fact that the economy keeps growing and money is being made. People can put up with losses of liberty if money is being made, but what would happen if the economy stopped growing? What if it had a minus growth rate? All the social unrest that is underneath the surface would boil over if China’s economy came to a standstill and layoffs were rife.
Some might question what then about the world economy? They stress how the world economy is tied to China. But how closely is it? What would really happen if the Chinese economy would tank? How long would it take to replace Chinese factories with factories in poorer countries? What would it take to replace Chinese consumers with consumers in other lands?
The factories of China recently stole the lion’s share of textile production etc. from the factories of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh etc. Such movements could be reversed. The factories of the above countries would be more than happy to see the shoe be on the other foot. All those items that bear the “Made in China” tag could once again be easily “Made in Indonesia” etc.
Then there is the myth of the great China consumer market. If marketers would get over their prejudice and do their homework they would see that India and Pakistan could serve just as well as consumers. These countries will have a population in excess of China within a decade. Marketing people would just have to work a little harder; but haven’t they had it a little too easy anyway?
So how much would it really take to set the economy of China back? What power and sources like the Three Gorges Dam etc. would need to be destroyed? What ports bombed and blockaded and therefore what trade stopped? Once the major cities and industries were out, it would simply be a matter of periodic bombing to knock out any new developments.
China’s current great strength is its army but that army can only be used to brutalize countries like Tibet and suppress Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia and to threaten China’s immediate neighbors.
No, the days of putting a land army on China are over; Japan had tried that, but the Chinese always had more land to retreat to. But now Japan would not need a land army to set China back; after a war of exchange of missiles and bombings, would not Japan recover much more quickly than China? I would also hazard that Japan’s air defenses are better than China’s. Going a step further, in a tit for tat nuclear exchange with the USA who do you think would come out on top?
Given this, what the rest of the world has to examine and realize is that it does not depend on China as much as it thinks it does. Certainly not to the extent that it will let itself be held hostage by nuclear threats by the likes of people like Zhu. The economic role China plays as producer and consumer can be easily be replaced in time by many nearby countries that are less belligerent. Has India ever threatened to nuke the USA? The world does not need to listen to such bullying threats.
The world has also to realize the extent it is already being manipulated and held hostage by the China market. I applaud a country like Italy for having the courage to stand up to China and grant Chen Shui-bian, the President of Taiwan, a visa so that he could attend the Pope’s funeral. China, which has been trying to control the Catholic Church, then refused to attend that same funeral.
No one wants war; but as long as the hawkish generals in the PLA feel that can pressure the world to their wishes, the threats will continue and increase. Does anyone recall how Hitler said he would be satisfied with the Sudetenland?
There is a toadying strain of Sinologists in the West, who wish to preserve their expense paid junkets to lecture and do research in China. These gained prominence in the Clinton administration and they will downplay Zhu’s remarks suggesting appeasement.
Zhu’s threats should be a wake up call to the world. Do we really need a trading partner that says, if you don’t give in to my demands to take over a free democratic country like Taiwan, then I will nuke you regardless of the cost? What demands will be next? The world is beginning to compete for dwindling oil reserves, water supplies etc.; it is a time when rational minds will be needed to build a better world. Zhu has already shown the true face of China that those living in Asia (not those who periodically are wined and dined there on junkets) have known all along.
It is true that businessmen often have more allegiance to the dollar than to their country or principles, and Taiwanese businessmen are no exception. However, as the world enters an era of dwindling resources, it is time to restructure paradigms. People like Zhu belong to a different and past age that can only see the world in terms of superior/subordinate role relationships; they will sacrifice anything before giving up their role.
It is time to recognize China’s true intent in business, the strings attached, and the manipulation involved before the threats get worse.
______________________
Jerome F. Keating Ph.D., co-author of Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex History and other works has lived and worked in Taiwan for 16 years.
Other writings can be found at http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome
1
By bingfeng
may i suggest a new concept – american superiority/inferiority complex in front of china?
July 20, 2005 @ 9:38 pm | Comment
2
By American man
I thought everything east and west and north and south of Xian was already a wasteland. Certainly wherever BingFeng lives is.
July 20, 2005 @ 9:40 pm | Comment
3
By bingfeng
“I thought everything east and west and north and south of Xian was already a wasteland. Certainly wherever BingFeng lives is. ”
HAHAHA, thank you for the good laugh, American Man!
July 20, 2005 @ 9:48 pm | Comment
4
By American man
Cheers ol’ Boy!
July 20, 2005 @ 9:49 pm | Comment
5
By bingfeng
seriously, i don’t think china deserves that much attention from americans, be it friendly or hostile
July 20, 2005 @ 9:52 pm | Comment
6
By American man
It’s all stupid machismo. American And Chinese.Just watch porn.
July 20, 2005 @ 9:54 pm | Comment
7
By richard
Bingfeng, it’s only because we care. Really. You should feel flattered.
July 20, 2005 @ 9:55 pm | Comment
8
By bingfeng
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
the american general pighead, less disgusting than gen zhu, but still very disgusting
July 20, 2005 @ 9:56 pm | Comment
9
By richard
While I agree the copngressman’s an asshole (hey, what do you expect, he’s a republuican) note his words carefully:
IF they hit us first with nukes, then we should take out their holy sites. Well, I wouldn’t have said that and it’s not politically smart. But by framing it that way – as a reaction to a first-strike nuclear attack — it’s certainly not that extraordinary. And not at all comparable to The General’s remarks.
July 20, 2005 @ 9:59 pm | Comment
10
By Conrad
There is no need for the US to “take out” anything in order to defeat China should it come to that. 80% of China’s oil imports pass throught the Straits of Malacca, which the US can close anytime it wants. China’s oil reserves amount to only 20 days of ordinary consumption.
July 20, 2005 @ 10:04 pm | Comment
11
By richard
As Jerome says, bringing China down economically would be a relative piece of cake.
July 20, 2005 @ 10:05 pm | Comment
12
By Toady
How many foreign countries does China have troops based in at the moment? None. And the USA? Is it fifty or more? How many countries has China invaded and let fall into chaos and civil war recently?
Let’s just supose an American general [let’s call him Boykin for example] said that the US would nuke any country that launched military attacks on California. Would anyone be shocked? But when some previously unknown Chinese general brags about the same thing, it is time to view China as the enemy.
As America’s economy declines, it increasingly defines itself in military terms. The USA looks more and more like the USSR.
July 20, 2005 @ 11:17 pm | Comment
13
By Mike
A Chinese general talks of nuking the west coast. An American senator talks of nuking Mecca. You’re all mad. I’m moving to New Zealand.
July 20, 2005 @ 11:24 pm | Comment
14
By Thomas
Toady says: “Let’s just supose an American general [let’s call him Boykin for example] said that the US would nuke any country that launched military attacks on California. Would anyone be shocked? ”
Yes, and nobody said that. The shocking thing about what Zhu said is he was talking about a nuclear FIRST STRIKE. Nobody would be shocked had he simply said, “China will retaliate.” Retaliation and a nuclear first strike are two entirely different fruit.
Toady says: “As America’s economy declines, it increasingly defines itself in military terms. The USA looks more and more like the USSR.”
Check your facts Toady, the American economy is moving at a pretty good rate of expansion (some talk of overheating there actually) at the moment for a developed country, outpacing Europe and Japan by far. There is a deficit surely, but that is to be expected when a ton of cheap goods are manufactured elsewhere in the world.
July 20, 2005 @ 11:31 pm | Comment
15
By Conrad
Toady:
How many foreign countries does China have troops based in at the moment?
How about Tibet?
July 20, 2005 @ 11:49 pm | Comment
16
By bingfeng
“How many foreign countries does China have troops based in at the moment?
How about Tibet?”
———————–
and taiwan, occupied by troops of Republic of China
that makes US look not that evil, right?
July 21, 2005 @ 12:16 am | Comment
17
By Conrad
Sorry Binfeng, the government of the de facto independant nation of Taiwan was chosen in free and fair elections. Therefore the army, as an instrument of that duly elected government cannot be an occupying force. That is also why, when Taiwanese took to the streets and protested outside goverment buildings, the Taiwanese army managed to restrain itself from running over any of the protestors with tanks.
I understand how, being from the mainland, this would be a difficult concept for you to grasp.
July 21, 2005 @ 12:34 am | Comment
18
By kevin
argh, there’s nothin’ quite like a jerome keating article on taiwan to get em all riled up!
July 21, 2005 @ 12:46 am | Comment
19
By bingfeng
“I understand how, being from the mainland, this would be a difficult concept for you to grasp.”
——————-
i understand how, being from america, the fact that being a mainlander could understand this concept would be a difficult concept for you to understand.
——————-
“That is also why, when Taiwanese took to the streets and protested outside goverment buildings, the Taiwanese army managed to restrain itself from running over any of the protestors with tanks.”
——————
this make sense, it explains why occupying forces in iraq could run over civilians with their tanks.
July 21, 2005 @ 12:50 am | Comment
20
By bingfeng
“argh, there’s nothin’ quite like a jerome keating article on taiwan to get em all riled up!”
————————
quite right, just like Gen. Zhu’s comments!
July 21, 2005 @ 12:52 am | Comment
21
By Martyn
Ok, Mr. Keating is saying here that China is simply posturing and has gone into the military and economic realities that show it to be absolutely true.
I’d like to add something from the Art of War which I think’s relevant as loads of mainlanders have told me to look to the 100 Directives to explain China’s sometimes bizarre behaviour.
“Warfare is the way of deception. Therefore, if able, appear unable, if active, appear not active, If they have advantage, entice them; if they are confused, take them, if they are substantial, prepare for them, if they are strong, avoid them, if they are angry, disturb them,”
Another line says that “If you do not seek to go into battle, appear eager to fight; if you do want to go into battle, make it look as if you do not want to fight.
Enter General Zhu. The PRC would lose any military engagement, nuclear or no, involving the US and her allies. Fact.
The PRC would collapse within weeks of any economic blockade (oil–see Conrad above) and removal of key installations. Fact.
The CCP elite know these risks and that’s why they always tag on the phrase “at any cost, we’re not afraid” to all their threats. They know how tenuous their grip on power would be under intense external (and consequently internal) pressure.
July 21, 2005 @ 1:16 am | Comment
22
By Conrad
Bingfeng:
And who did you vote for for President of China?
July 21, 2005 @ 1:28 am | Comment
23
By Bing
Martyn
How many times has China been predicted to collapse if it does what?
What did US hawks think before Chinese army marched into Korea.
I often think the bluffings of CCP are just ridiculing themselves.
Most of them are. But I have no doubt some of them not.
As ordinary American, it’s no harm if you don’t give a shit what they say.
If your government don’t take it more than a pile of shit, see, everything could happen.
July 21, 2005 @ 2:16 am | Comment
24
By Martyn
I’m not American mate.
July 21, 2005 @ 2:22 am | Comment
25
By Conrad
Martyn:
My sympathies.
July 21, 2005 @ 2:30 am | Comment
26
By Martyn
Conrad:
Thanks.
July 21, 2005 @ 3:31 am | Comment
27
By American man
Bing, we crush you like bug!
July 21, 2005 @ 3:55 am | Comment
28
By Bing
Am
One bug is very easy to crush.
Not that easy for 1.3 billion ones.
July 21, 2005 @ 4:24 am | Comment
29
By Bing
Ever played Starcraft from Blizzard?
Chinese Zerg vs American Protoss vs Russian Terran
July 21, 2005 @ 4:28 am | Comment
30
By bingfeng
“Bing, we crush you like bug!
Posted by American man at July 21, 2005 03:55 AM”
——————–
AM, we crush you like big-sized bug!
July 21, 2005 @ 4:30 am | Comment
31
By Bing
For clarity:
How many times has China been predicted to collapse if it does what?
What did US hawks think before Chinese army marched into Korea.
I often think the bluffings of CCP are just ridiculing (CCP) themselves.
Most of them are. But I have no doubt some of them not.
As ordinary American, it’s no harm if you (American) don’t give a shit what they (CCP) say.
If you (American) government don’t take it more than a pile of shit, see, everything could happen.
July 21, 2005 @ 4:36 am | Comment
32
By Jing
I think I need to call a whole fleet of Whaaaaaaaaaaaa-mbulances for some people here, particularly mr. Keating. It was a good whine if I must say so, and the the chorus of shrill “strategery” to follow made it all the sweeter. Deconstructing the comments here for flaws and errors would be a full time profession, one im not particularly inclined to take but in this instance I’ll indulge somewhat.
1) Hierarchal society cliche. check (forgetting for the moment that Taiwan is essentially the same)
2) Irrelevant reference to 2000 year old philosophy. check
3) Threats hollower than the original. check
4) Stealing jobs. check
5) Even more hollow threats. check
Also I’d like to point out one tangential detail for our dear friend Conrad. Despite what some single-mindedt media reports might infer otherwise, the Malacca Straits is not exactly as critical as everyone makes it seem. Shipping can simply go AROUND the straits and through another passage, adding a few days to transit time and some delays, but otherwise thats about it. The simple reason that so much shipping passes through the area is because it is the shortest and fastest route, not the only one.
July 21, 2005 @ 4:39 am | Comment
33
By American man
Bing, We got a really big can of Raid. I hope you know I was just clownin’ dawg!
July 21, 2005 @ 5:16 am | Comment
34
By Martyn
Wow, “tangential” Jing. That had us all scrambling for our dictionaries, make no mistake.
Re the Malacca Straits. The embarassment! Can you imagine! The US Pacific Fleet all sitting there in the Malacca, armed to the teeth, waiting to stop all those oil tankers winging their way to the China coast and *bosch* the tankers all go the via the scenic route! Oh dear! The US Navy High Command will be falling over themselves to fall onto their swords!
Please do feel free to come back when you want to make a point.
July 21, 2005 @ 5:23 am | Comment
35
By American Man
Thats just Jing yakkin’ away. Again. Big vocab though!
July 21, 2005 @ 5:51 am | Comment
36
By Ivan
Like bug? Bing like bug?
God, some Chinese will eat anything.
July 21, 2005 @ 7:10 am | Comment
37
By American man
Which Ivan are YOU?
July 21, 2005 @ 7:14 am | Comment
38
By Ivan
The same one, just feelin bitchy today.
July 21, 2005 @ 7:39 am | Comment
39
By Bing
There are always Chinese who eat anything regardless of buglike or not.
July 21, 2005 @ 7:48 am | Comment
40
By JFS
Ithink I will throw in my two cents here. First of all, I cannot imagine why China and the United States would want to go to war in the first place-well, perhaps over Taiwan, that is. Taiwan is a big issue, not for America, but for China.
Just to bring up what the situation is right now. There is one China, but two governments claiming to be China, one based in Beijing, one based in Taipei. The one in Taipei is prepared to give to China its rule over the one China, it just wants to remove itself from the definition of China. No go for China Beijing, and as the result from the last election, still no go for China Taipei.
Now, I would be surprised if anything would happen before 2008, that would end the big festival in Beijing, not good PR there. But let us say China nevertheless did invade Taiwan and succeeded in occuping it. Immediately, Japan, United States, even Europe would implement severe political, military, and economic restraints on China. It would be nasty. But even more nasty, would be the occupation of Taiwan. This would not be like the Anschluss. There would be 23 million people with nasty thoughts and many of them would be prepared to do nasty things to the occupation regime.
But, war is a difficult thing to control. What if China started, but was unable to occupy Taiwan. That is not wishful thinking, it is in the realm of possibility. That would be serious. The CCP has already lost any philosphical legitimacy to rule, that would just pull the rug out from under them. That is just too big of a risk. So, I think this is all just hot air over nothing. Just so I own up to truth in advertising or something like that. I do not believe that an independent Taipei is particularly usefull, either for them or for the world. I suspect all of this is just haggling over what the relationship of a united China will be (Chen is not part of the haggling, he is just out there wanting to have some input, and that is what will be tangential).
Just to throw in my thoughts on the military strategy. All shipping to China in any conflict with the United States would cease. The United States control of the ocean is too overwhelming right now. That would mean all oil transport would be overland, either from central Asia or from Russia. That would increase Russia’s hand and influence. I do not think China is interested in that.
July 21, 2005 @ 7:56 am | Comment
41
By richard
Totally agree, JFS. War would be suicide for the PRC. But then, so is covering up bird flu. No one ever accused them of being overly rational.
July 21, 2005 @ 7:59 am | Comment
42
By LW
“How about Tibet?”
Check the old maps published in US. For example, the maps published in US in 1930s, Tibet was shown as part of China. How come someone use the statement “Chinese communists invade Tibet in 1950s”?
July 21, 2005 @ 8:26 am | Comment
43
By American man
Will someone please explain tangential! I knew I should have finished high school.
July 21, 2005 @ 8:26 am | Comment
44
By American man
LW, I dunno…… documented evidence?
July 21, 2005 @ 8:31 am | Comment
45
By American man
Bing, your all right!
July 21, 2005 @ 8:32 am | Comment
46
By Martyn
JFS, well thought out post, I do enjoy your comments. I’m sure you know this anyway but the current elected government of Taiwan reject any “One-China” prinicple. As did the last KMT government before the DPP.
I agree, any attack on Taiwan would be suicide for the CCP and the Chinese people (and I care about the Chinese people…….!).
This is precisely why they threaten and allow Generals to make belligerent threats. I’m sure the Pentagon and the US Pacific Fleet laughed when they read his statements. I don’t mean that in a cruel and nasty way, but they know and the CCP know the consequences.
I was going to end with something really profound but it’s gone. Oh well.
July 21, 2005 @ 8:50 am | Comment
47
By Bing
LW,
That’s true. I once read a satirical cartoon book published in US at the time of 30s or 40s with a map of China having not only Tibet but Mongolia.
July 21, 2005 @ 8:56 am | Comment
48
By American man
Wow, How deeply researched!
July 21, 2005 @ 9:02 am | Comment
49
By Mark Anthony Jones
deleted
And I hope you are proud of yourself.
July 21, 2005 @ 9:04 am | Comment
50
By American man
SATIRICAL cartoon book?I once saw a cartoon in the U.S. where a dog is a detective AND he talks funny. Gotta love America.
July 21, 2005 @ 9:05 am | Comment
51
By Jing
aww looks like I struck a nerve, don’t search too hard Martyn, I wouldn’t want you to strain yourself.
Your stupid and dross sarcasm aside, my main point was that argueing that Malacca was neccessarily vital for Chinese industry is fallacious. Something to keep in mind, China still produces the majority of her total consumption of energy domestically and while a significant percentage of energy imports cross SE Asia, the cessation of such would not be terminal for wartime economies (and certainly societies), which are far more resilient than normal.
The same goes for you too American Man.
July 21, 2005 @ 9:24 am | Comment
52
By American man
Jing, I’ve taken shits with more intelligence than you.
July 21, 2005 @ 9:26 am | Comment
53
By Jing
touche…
You wound me American man!
July 21, 2005 @ 9:38 am | Comment
54
By Martyn
Oh dear. I’m not even going to answer that. However, I do apologise for the sarcasm.
July 21, 2005 @ 9:39 am | Comment
55
By Martyn
“fallacious”. Love it.
July 21, 2005 @ 9:40 am | Comment
56
By American man
Jing, I’m finding myself oddly attracted to you. Do you enjoy anal?I’ll put you back in diapers!
July 21, 2005 @ 9:54 am | Comment
57
By Jing
I guess its my fate to suffer, when things go wrong, they continue to do so. First I have problems with the new blog host and wordpress installation, now the attentions of idiots. Richard I’ve stated before, and I recall where you reacted quite defensively, but the Peking duck has really become a magnet for mediocrity as of late.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:02 am | Comment
58
By American Man
I don’t recall initiating any of your attentions. So Jing just fuck off.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:07 am | Comment
59
By richard
So Jing, should I censor mediocre comments? If not, what’s your point, just to insult?
July 21, 2005 @ 10:09 am | Comment
60
By Jing
Point taken Richard, your blog, your power. I will attempt to refrain from participating at the Peking Duck or visiting in the future. Really no point when I can read the same sterling level of thought over contemporary Chinese issues at the Free Republic, sans the profanity.
However, I’ve never been one to back down with too much grace from a challenge. So in regards to American Man, Martyn, and any number of others, eat shit you dumbfucks.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:22 am | Comment
61
By richard
Jing, I’m not asking you to leave. But just insulting the site doesn’t do very much good, does it? I get blasted for deleting even the most obscene and cruel comments. If I start deleting any comment I feel is “mediocre” I’d be seen as another Hitler.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:24 am | Comment
62
By American man
Is dumbfucks considered profane?
July 21, 2005 @ 10:26 am | Comment
63
By richard
Yes it is; if you are offended I can delete the word.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:28 am | Comment
64
By LW
Here is a map of China for sell on eBay, which is published in 1901 in either US or Britain. It include Tibet as part of China. It is shown in bellow link. Also if you can find old World Alta or Map (published before 1949) in your local libraries, check them out.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:32 am | Comment
65
By American man
Considering the source it’s an honor.Leave it!
July 21, 2005 @ 10:32 am | Comment
66
By Ivan
Well, strictly speaking “profane” means something which offends God.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:34 am | Comment
67
By American man
I WAS offended.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:36 am | Comment
68
By richard
With time and perhaps some compassionate therapy I’m sure you’ll recover.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:37 am | Comment
69
By American man
It’s strange. I already can’t remember what I was offended about. It’s like it really doesn’t matter AT ALL. Ya Know?
July 21, 2005 @ 10:40 am | Comment
70
By richard
Time heals all wounds. It’s been 18 minutes since Jing uttered his profanity. Now it’s as though it never happened.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:41 am | Comment
71
By American man
Jing, Was that his name?I know alot of girls here named Jing…….
July 21, 2005 @ 10:44 am | Comment
72
By American man
Ivan,you whackjob, why aren’t you in sleepy, candyland by now?
July 21, 2005 @ 10:45 am | Comment
73
By American man
Ivan, I’ll see you in my dreams. Nighty night!
July 21, 2005 @ 10:55 am | Comment
74
By Gordon
Richard,
Jing doesn’t take to criticism very well. He/she/he-she is much like another poster to this site.
Jing posted on my site a few times, but he/she left once the heat was turned on.
Jing displays superior skills in English and yet so little in intellect.
July 21, 2005 @ 11:07 am | Comment
75
By Johnny K
Bingfeng cannot come close to the Western wit of Conrad.
July 21, 2005 @ 11:27 am | Comment
76
By Johnny K
Meanwhile, Jing cannot even handle potty words.
July 21, 2005 @ 11:40 am | Comment
77
By Johnny K
LOOSE ENDS THAT MUST BE TIED UP
Several of our patriotic Chinese nationalists have failed to answer or otherwise obfuscated several poignant questions that if acknowledged, would have been tantamount to acknowledgement of their admirable committment to nationalism over logic. But I’m not going to let them escape that.
———————
I would like to mention that Bingfeng never answered Conrad’s question as to whom he voted for to be President of China.
——————–
Bingfeng has not reconciled his own definition of the ROC army as an “occupying force” with Conrad’s far more compelling definition of the ROC army as an instrument of an elected government
———————————-
Jing sniped at parts of the article, but has not challenged the fundamental argument in the article. (at least in more than 2 word dismissals of arguments that are clearly not worth the processing neurons of her incredibly superiod brain).
Pointing out minor flaws in an essay and conflating them with the accusation of a genuinely flawed thesis is poor rhetoric indeed.
————————–
Actually, now that I think about it, she didn’t even really explain why the small things were flawed so much as dismiss them with her omniscience
————————-
For all her spectacular prose, Bing misspelled “arguing” (it’s not “argueing,” and one should master the basics of English before they set out to create a veneer of academic superiority with some SAT words.)
——————–
Toady proclaimed that “As America’s economy declines, it increasingly defines itself in military terms. The USA looks more and more like the USSR.”
This raises two questions:
1) on what economic rubric does Toady define positive growth and growth higher than all of the industrialized world as “economic decline?” And God help how Europe would fare on this scale…
2) Was Toady aware of the massive implications of the military in the 1980s “arms race” which were quite more military-defined than anything today?
July 21, 2005 @ 11:59 am | Comment
78
By JR
Jing and Bingfeng are the only two Chinese commenters here defending China (tell me who if there are more?), but of course they are being attacked by the groupie. What a shame.
July 21, 2005 @ 12:07 pm | Comment
79
By Johnny K
Oooo, I’m moving up in the ranks to “groupie.” My Ivy League education is paying dividends already!
Anyway, I consider my main post to be an entirely rational and only mildly deliberately provocative list of questions I’d like to see answered, for the social/psychological purpose of establishing the chronic wrongness of the China defenders.
July 21, 2005 @ 12:15 pm | Comment
80
By Martyn
Johnny K
In all fairness, English language usage has no bearing here. Bingfeng and whoever else are all perfectly understandable which is the only important thing. It is their second language after all and to come onto an English website full of native speakers and debate is very brave indeed as nobody likes to look a fool because of poor language skills (this doesn’t apply to TPD’s Chinese commenters of course as their English is always very good).
Attack their views but not their language skills. I certainly don’t have the courage to debate on Chinese language websites and I did a degree in Chinese language.
July 21, 2005 @ 12:24 pm | Comment
81
By JR
Johnny,
“My Ivy League education is paying dividends already!”
I see you have a “twisted” sense of humor.
“Anyway, I consider my main post to be an entirely rational and only mildly deliberately provocative list of questions I’d like to see answeredfor the social/psychological purpose of establishing the chronic wrongness of the China defenders.”
In other words, people who defend the nation of China are always wrong regardless of any circumstances and you call that “entirely rational.”
So which Ivy Leaque school did you go???
July 21, 2005 @ 12:27 pm | Comment
82
By richard
What Martyn said. I always try to encourage Chinese people to comment here. Thanks for understanding that, JOhnny, and tyhanks for your comments.
Oh, and let me introduce you to JR. I’m sure the two of you will get along swimmingly.
July 21, 2005 @ 12:31 pm | Comment
83
By Johnny K
You are right that I should apologize for the ad-hominem attacks on lingual abilities. My own Chinese skills certainly leave much to be desired..
For that, I apologize, and will try never to resort to such things in the future.
However, I will maintain that, far more often than not, the Chinese commentators are way off base. It’s not their fault, it’s the fault of their government (which makes such lovely divinations of truth that declare China to be a country “ruled by law,” among other statements so painfully not true that you cannot help but wonder if the people who utter them genuinely believe them themselves).
“In other words, people who defend the nation of China are always wrong regardless of any circumstances and you call that “entirely rational.”
To claim that it what I mean is intellectualy dishonest, and I suspect that you yourself know I could not possibly mean that.
I never claimed that Chinese are wrong by default, and I never will. I only make the logical conclusion that their limited access to information will inevitably engender a rather distorted worldview (to be fair, we have plenty of nuts in America, but nobody FORCES them to watch Fox News…)
Look at the questions I posted. I consider them to be quite rational and warrant further clarification. Don’t you think that Bingfeng should acknowledge the logic in Conrad’s point in that the army of the ROC is not an occupying force? Don’t you think it’s reasonable to ask someone how they can consider the US economy to be in decline when it is doing beter than the majority of the first world?
Well anyway, I am a student at Penn. Harvard it ain’t, but it’s not far behind. Nice to meet you and I hope my future avoidance of ad-hominem attacks will be reciprocated
July 21, 2005 @ 1:11 pm | Comment
84
By Bing
“I only make the logical conclusion that their limited access to information will inevitably engender a rather distorted worldview (to be fair, we have plenty of nuts in America, but nobody FORCES them to watch Fox News…)”
Who has limited access to information? Many Chinese making comments here won’t be more limited than you to any information.
And nobody FORCES Chinese to watch CCTV News either.
July 21, 2005 @ 1:34 pm | Comment
85
By richard
Bing, when I lived in Beijing there was no other news to watch. Do they now allow BBC to broadcast in Beijing?
July 21, 2005 @ 1:41 pm | Comment
86
By Bing
I don’t think they do.
I can’t imagine going back without free internet access and BBC news 24.
I just responded that Chinese are not forced to watch CCTV, though they have few better alternatives like Pheonix Tv.
Besides doesn’t Johnny K’s claim on Chinese commentors’ lack of information and thus a correct world view smack of something familiar to you guys?
July 21, 2005 @ 2:06 pm | Comment
87
By Matt
China’s exports to the US alone account for such a large share of their economy (more than 10%), that they could not survive a US boycott of their goods. Plus, such a boycott would force American companies to leave and set up their factories elsewhere. If the EU or Japan boycotted as well…
Most Chinese think their market is so important that the US wouldn’t boycott for democracy. They assume there will be no costs to a Taiwan invasion, even if the US does not intervene. It is important that China understand all the costs, otherwise they will be more likely to opt for war.
July 21, 2005 @ 3:31 pm | Comment
88
By richard
Well, Bing, they are restricted in what they can read and hear and see. And your worldview is based to a large extent on the information you process. While I might not phrase it as dramatically as Johnny, I can understand where he’s comng from. I met a lot of Chinese people who were razor sharp and knew exactly what was happening in the world. Unfortunately, I met more than a few who were wholly the product of the propaganda around them. (And I won’t deny it – there are plenty of Americans, particularly in those damned red states, who aren’t much better informed.)
July 21, 2005 @ 4:55 pm | Comment
89
By Chinese Queen
When I was in China, I watched CNN, BBC and some other English channels at the hotel.
It is not surprised that People from different countries think differently. We brainwashed one way or the other at the same time. For people who have chance to be on both sides tend to rationalize why those people on the other side do what they do. I have first hand experience. Over the years, I learned not to draw quick conclusion, because everything happens for a good reason. For example, I used to look down on people who are not good at Math or Engineering. I think them as “Dumb” or “Challenged.” That is so opinionated. People can do what they want with their life, not everyone has to be in the technology frontier. I also used to decide that I would never have anything to do with gays, lesbians and those who are HIV positive regardless of how they become the way they did. That changed quickly over the years too after I met some nice people who fit in those categories. My ex-supervisor who is in his 60s is gay and he told me one day when there were just two of us at work. I was shocked and but that didn’t change how I treat him. He is a very resonable guy and I liked him.
The point here is maybe as one gets to know China better, maybe you will change what you think of China and Chinese. You might find out your opinion is skewed due to lack of the knowledge of China or Chinese or Human being in general.
I am at work, I will visit the site later. Language barrier sucks, wish we all speak Chinese.
July 21, 2005 @ 5:11 pm | Comment
90
By richard
You watched CNN and BBC? Were you in a hotel or a private home?
July 21, 2005 @ 5:17 pm | Comment
91
By kevin
Oh no, Bing mentioned Phoenix TV. I gotta lay the smack down! I can’t stand Phoenix. It is the offspring of Rupert Murdoch and a former PLA general. Nowadays Phoenix is viewed as a status symbol in China, because it is broadcast from Hong Kong (where no one in fact watches it, from what I could gather) and thus supposed to be more “balanced.” But its coverage of such things as the shooting of President Chen left my blood boiling. It’s in fact not any better than your average CCTV show, but it is done up to appear much better and interesting. The same old tired Party line. A similar example would be Hong Kong’s Wen Wei Po, an “international” (Party-line) newspaper that I can easily find in Shanghai. For more info, check out my blog’s “Anthony Yuen and the Scourge of Phoenix TV.”
July 21, 2005 @ 7:02 pm | Comment
92
By Anonymous
“When I was in China, I watched CNN, BBC and some other English channels at the hotel.”
Yeah, I did too! But they blocked out the reports on Zhao ZY’s death, and on the recent attack on farmers by hoodlums. If you pay hundreds of dollars, you can watch CNN for a night, but they’ll be blocking out sensitive coverage.
“The point here is maybe as one gets to know China better, maybe you will change what you think of China.”
I totally agree. But what you are thinking may be different from what I am thinking.
What is really knowing? Saying that you watched CNN in a hotel? I’m sorry, I wouldn’t characterize that as “knowing about China.”
July 21, 2005 @ 7:10 pm | Comment
93
By kevin
Oops, the above post was me, sorry.
July 21, 2005 @ 7:10 pm | Comment
94
By richard
Hey Kevin, I wanted to apologize for the crap our friend put you through yesterday in another thread on another blog. I was really shocked.
July 21, 2005 @ 7:20 pm | Comment
95
By kevin
oh, missed it. I am assuming at the teahouse?
July 21, 2005 @ 7:24 pm | Comment
96
By Chinese Queen
Richard:
I watched CNN and BBC at a hotel in Beijing. You don’t have to pay anything, it was provided by the hotel. I recall the hotel was called “Taiwan Hotel”, one of the cheapest around Wang Fu Jing area, 500 yuan/night.
Kevin
Sorry that I mislead you to think that the reason I know China better is coz I watched CNN. The first paragraph was to answer Richard’s question.
The reason that I know China better than most of the people here is coz I grew up in China. I have lived in both countries for extended period of time. I understand very much that one can be critical to a country that is foreign to them. I’v been there. When people question China or Chinese on certain behavior or philosophies, I rarely give them direct answer, rather I provide background information first. That helps them to digest the answer. It is easy to criticize than to come up with solutions. I’d like to see people here express your concern and criticism meanwhile also present your solutions. This might help you understand the Chinese and China too.
CNN has agreement with Chinese government on how their programs can be operated in China, I have no first hand information on that. Newsmedia can be very biased. I sense CNN in USA is pretty hotile toward China on a daily basis. So no suprise that China will censor some of its programs. It goes both ways.
For a country with 5000 years history to stand in front of the world and subject itself to all kinds of scrutinizers, I think China is doing very well.
July 21, 2005 @ 8:45 pm | Comment
97
By kevin
I have also lived in China for a number of years, and spent the past 7 years of my life researching China. My main problem with the country is the media, which is deliberately misleading, and which I feel dumbs people down.
My solution would be to relax the media. Reporting the death of Zhao Ziyang is not being critical of China. He was a great man who contributed a lot to this country, or at least tried, and he paid a dear price for it. So I don’t think that CNN was being “hostile.” Yet, this report was blocked. No discussion. My solution? My solution would be to not block it. I think that is pretty fair and simple, and does not require 5000 years to figure out.
July 21, 2005 @ 8:54 pm | Comment
98
By richard
No, it really doesn’t work both ways. CNN’s news reports are constantly blocked out by the CCP censors. Here, you can see news from just about any source with zero censorship, from Al Jazeera to CCTV. Repeat, zero censorship.
To say that you can watch CNN is a nice hotel is a far cry from saying it’s available in China, which implies available to everyone. It is not.
CNN is not generally hostile to China. Lou Dobbs is, because he is a populist appealing to the argukment that our jobs are being stolen. He is an anomaly on CNN, which is relatively fair and balanced. If you want to see hostility to China, you gotta go to Fox.
And please, don’t get me started on those 5,000 years of history. The phrase should be stricken from the language, not because there isn’t truth behind it but because it is perennially abused as a hollow, nationalistic slogan.
July 21, 2005 @ 8:55 pm | Comment
99
By kevin
Unless there is more openness in Chinese society and media, we will be continuing to cultivate more people who would think along the lines of General Zhu, or along the lines of the rabid nationalists on Chinese internet discussion boards.
Why is it that it is ok to say “I hate Japanese people and want to cut off their heads” or “London got what it deserved,” but not OK to say “I respect Zhao ZY” or “I wish the press was more open?”
I see this as a major dilemma for Chinese society. That’s not stable, that’s just sick.
July 21, 2005 @ 8:58 pm | Comment
100
By Conrad
Chinese Queen:
The US government does not, and is prohibited by law from, censoring any newsmedia, whether it is hostile, friendly, domestic or foreign. CCTV is broadcast into many US people’s homes, entirely unedited, via cable and satellite, and is not restricted to hotels.
Al Jazeera, for example, is often hostile to the US and appears, uncensored on a number of us cable systems.
That’s what constitutes a free press.
You Chinese should try it sometime.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:48 pm | Comment
101
By JFS
I am not entering the debate on news censorship, as I do not in general think that there really is much of an argument available to those who support censorship. But I think there may need to be some modification of some thinking about conditions in China, specifically availability of foreign TV news in private homes.
Satellite TV is readily available, at least in the larger cities. It is not available through regular channels, but through private purveyors (yes, it is pirated stuff). So it comes only to the middle class and above who generally can afford it (or to their parents). Although the government can come around and confiscate it, they generally do not, at least in the region that I live in or have visited.
Watching any cinema production or TV program in a foreign language is difficult, more difficult than just speaking to someone. It takes more skill and requires more comprehension ability. This is no different for Chinese, so consequently, even though they can receive BBC, CNN, TV5 (French), the German station (I forget its name right now), Fox news, plus a few more channels where I live, most will not be able to understand it and therefore do not watch those programs. I have a few friends who do watch and can understand. Most prefer to watch the movies on the various stations (HBO, etc.). They also like the Taiwan stations (no news, just movies and soap operas). None of this is sanctioned by the government, it just happens. Not all pirated things are bad.
July 21, 2005 @ 11:36 pm | Comment
102
By Johnny K
Unless this piracy is happening on a massive scale to the point where a critical mass of Chinese citizens are realizing that their own news is censored crap, then this piracy is not enough.
I think we should add the BBC to CCP and Al-Jazeera for the list of anti-American stations that Americans can freely watch.
July 21, 2005 @ 11:52 pm | Comment
103
By China Hand
Fess up, Richard. You post this guy because you want to explode my brain like what happened to that guy in Scanners.
Ironically, Max Boot raised the exact opposite specter of the Chinese crippling us with economic and non-conventional warfare in his op-ed in the LA Times a couple of days ago. If he compares notes with Dr. Keating, maybe we can skip the nuclear part of the war and go straight to the big finish where China’s invading army of Barbie Dolls and 3 Rifles brand underwear are defeated by our implacable indifference and melt into the sea. Then the Death Star explodes!
Hotheads like Ma are disturbing, but the thing they need most of all is a reaction from our hotheads that validates and reinforces their position within China.
This is a role that Dr. Keating seems determined to fill.
Because if China and the US are destroyed in a nuclear exchange then Taiwan will rule the world!
Bwaaaahahahaha!
July 21, 2005 @ 11:53 pm | Comment
104
By Martyn
Re 5,000 years of history. I don’t want to sound like an old git or anything but is everyone aware that this is a relatively new thing in China? Back in the early 90’s one just didn’t hear anything aboiut 5,000 years—it was 3,300 years of Chinese history.
Then almost overnight *bosch* it was 5,000 years and every government official was saying it. The story behind this is that in the early 90’s, Jiang Zemin commissioned a study group of academics/archeologists the examine the mythical Xia Dynasty. In fine CCP tradition, the acadmeics were told their “findings” before they even started. After several months, they reported back saying that *gasp* China’s history was in fact 5,000 years.
Most scientists agree that human existence can’t be traced further back than 3,300 years as history can’t be recorded that far back and ancient peoples left hardly any traces that exist for us to examine.
Whether the Xia Dynasty did really exist we simply have no credible evidence. I think the point here is that Jiang Zemin arbitarily and deliberately tagged on 1,700 years to Chinese history purely for nationalistic reasons.
July 22, 2005 @ 12:31 am | Comment
105
By Conrad
The CCP distorting Chinese history. I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.
Whether 3,300 or 5,000 years, the net result of it was to leave them perfectly situated to be dominated by Western powers half a world away.
I’ll stick with my 200 non-subjugated years thanks.
July 22, 2005 @ 1:31 am | Comment
106
By Martyn
Yes, it’s funny how a lot of mainlanders will use that 200+ years of US history as a stick to use against Americans. As if it actually meant something.
July 22, 2005 @ 1:41 am | Comment
107
By Kevin
I guess the sad things is they don’t really have much else to use. “China is a large country with a long history” seems to be the answer to everything.
July 22, 2005 @ 2:42 am | Comment
108
By Bing
You are right on that. Sadly.
We lost the tradition, don’t have the best (or average) and can’t invent new.
The glory of Chinese civilizaiton had been long gone with the advent of barbarian mongols.
Having said that, who knows what will happen in next 50 years?
July 22, 2005 @ 7:28 am | Comment
109
By Chinese Queen
Martyn:
“Shang Xia Wu Qian Nian (5000 year Chinese history from beginning to present”) isn’t not a saying created in the early 90s, but Fa Lun Gong is. In case you mess up with your Chinese history, that is just a reminder.
“Whether the Xia Dynasty did really exist we simply have no credible evidence.”
Since there is no credible evidence to prove one way or the other, how could you bluntly denouce the existance of that part of the Chinese history? How crediable is your opinion? One can question the Chronology of Bible the same way he or she questions Chinese History, does that make Bible less “Credible” and less “Holy?” Does that make people who view Bible the “Holy Bible” foolish?
5000 vs. 200 year history does make profound differences in civilization. Ancient chinese civilization can be traced back as earlier as 5000 years ago. When ancient Chinese developed writing system, workmanship on the bronzes, your ancestors still running around in the wilderness covering their privates with leaves.
July 25, 2005 @ 2:15 am | Comment
110
By Zhang Fei
Conrad: There is no need for the US to “take out” anything in order to defeat China should it come to that. 80% of China’s oil imports pass throught the Straits of Malacca, which the US can close anytime it wants. China’s oil reserves amount to only 20 days of ordinary consumption.
Conrad – is it really you? What the heck happened to your spiffy-looking blog?
July 27, 2005 @ 12:16 pm | Comment