• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

Well I'm glad I'm not the one in the middle of this brew ha ha (for once). But as someone once said of my ravings...   

...things are starting to not make much sense.

Do you guys even remember what the argument/debate was started about?

If so, then lets get it back on track. Whatever that was. ;D


 
Back on track it is"

http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2005/06/my_response_to_.html

My response to Scoble

In justifying Microsoft's filtering of politically sensitive Chinese words on MSN spaces, Microsoft's uber-blogger Robert Scoble writes: "I have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in."  He continues:

    I've been to China (as an employee of Winnov about seven years ago). I met with Government officials there. I met with students. I met with professors. They explained their anti-free-speech stance to me and I understand it. I don't agree with it, and I will be happy to explain to anyone the benefits of giving your citizens the right to speak freely, but it's not my place to make their laws. It certainly is not my right to force their hand with business power.

I lived in China for nine years straight as a journalist, and if you add up other times I've lived there it comes to nearly 12. I don't know what students and professors Scoble met with, and what context he met them in. But to state that Chinese students and professors have an "anti-free-speech stance" is the biggest pile of horseshit about China I've come across in quite some time. And believe me, there are a great many such piles out there these days.

In my experience, most Chinese, like all other human beings I've ever met, would very much like to have freedom of speech. This goes for students, professors, workers, farmers, retirees, religious practitioners, and even many government officials. Many said so to me in on-the-record interviews. Many more told me so privately, in trusted confidence over beers (or something stronger) among friends.

What they don't want is to lose their jobs and educational opportunities by pushing too hard at the restrictions their government has placed on their ability to speak. They work within the bounds of the possible, and since people in China can say a lot more now than they were allowed to say 20 years ago, most take the long-term view.

It's very true, most Chinese hate it when foreigners lecture them about how they should change. They hate being patronized. Many view the common American attitude of "we're here to save you and make you free" as condescending and hypocritical. They'd rather continue living under their extremely imperfect political situation in hopes that eventually it will change, and that this change will be accomplished by Chinese people in a Chinese way. Only then will they have ownership both of the change and of the result. Otherwise, the change will be considered foreign-imposed, and the Chinese violently detest foreign-imposed anything. Even ones who privately and quietly detest their government.

I agree with Scoble: no outsiders, including Microsoft, can force China to change. But nobody's asking Microsoft to force China to do anything. The issue is whether Microsoft should be collaborating with the Chinese regime as it builds an increasingly sophisticated system of Internet censorship and control. (See this ONI report for lots of details on that system.)  Declining to collaborate with this system is not "forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in."  Declining to collaborate would be the only way to show that your stated belief in free speech is more than ç©Âºè¯?: empty words. If you believe that Chinese people deserve the same respect as Americans, then please put your money where your mouth is.

But let's not single out Microsoft for trashing on this point. As this Open Net Initiative report and this 2004 Amnesty International report will make abundantly clear, China's filtering, censorship, and surveillance systems wouldn't be what they are today without lots of help from a number of North American technology companies.  Businessman and author Ethan Gutmann wrote about Cisco's particular contribution in this 2002 article which later became a book chapter.

In the name of free enterprise, Americans so far have acquiesced in U.S. companies' collaboration in the building and reinforcement of the Great Chinese Firewall. The Global Internet Freedom Act is being revived again in congress; but while the Act would allocate money to develop censorship-busting technologies, it makes zero mention of the U.S. companies whose technologies and software services are helping to strengthen this very censorship.

Scoble says it's better to be doing business in China than not, implying that this engagement is better for China and its freedoms in the long run. Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in economic engagement with China. But nobody said Microsoft shouldn't be doing business there. It's a question of how you do business and in what manner.

I can tell you one more thing about the Chinese. They hear what you say, then they watch how you do business. From there, it's pretty easy to figure out what your real values are.

Like this blogger, I support the ideal of targeted engagement with China, rather than indescriminate trade and "hoping" this will improve the lot of the Chinese. It is very obvious that the Chinese government uses its power to "direct" the wealth to support their power, military modernization, censorship, and corruption on a vast scale to grease the wheels and pay off suporters are the main beneficiaries, and the farmers in the rural west are simply ignored.

Since targeting is very difficult, and I personally am not in a position to do something directly about it, I have shopped for international mutual funds which are heavily weighted towards India, targeting my snall contribution to International wealth building towards a democratic nation. I hope the rest of you at least consider doing the same.
 
Speaking of recent developments in China..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46778-2004Aug6.html

Won't C/P here for brevity/space sake but in short, it seems the government is moving into and occupying peasant farmer land in rural China. The farmers staged a revolt due to the insane taxes imposed on them (plus land being taken away) and had quite the clash with what I'm assuming to be the PAP (they are not specific in the sources I checked) but I saw, on CNN a few minutes ago (which pushed me to write this post) one of the uniformed officers in the village and his uniform appeared to be consistent with their dress.

Anyhow, if you guys watch CNN you'll probably see it again soon enough. Once again Chinese officials are trying their best to quell down the clash and suppress information. The information that has leaked out has to deal with their intense propaganda naturally. From what I could gather, it seems the CPC is a bit worried that their attitude may spread to other less than happy areas nearby.

How utterly pathetic is that? How can China still call itself Communist with a straight face when they are oppressing and victimizing the very people that communism is supposed to protect and depend upon? By doing this to the proletariats/peasants they are in fact proving they are so far removed from Communism that it's now just a mask they wear to hide their dictatorship which in some ways eerily reminds me of Orwell's "Oceania" (after reading some of their own sites the comparison became more and more realistic).

 
Did you mean PLA?

Communists have always opressed farmers, for the simple reason that farmers can be self sufficient from "the state". Why do you think Stalin arranged the "Harvest of Tears" in the Ukraine, or Mao savagely expropriated land and unleashed a terror against the "wealthy peasants"? Mugabe is doing the same thing against the "white farmers" for the very same reasons; destroy any possible places which can act independently from "the state".
 
Steve said:
How utterly pathetic is that? How can China still call itself Communist with a straight face when they are oppressing and victimizing the very people that communism is supposed to protect and depend upon? By doing this to the proletariats/peasants they are in fact proving they are so far removed from Communism that it's now just a mask they wear to hide their dictatorship which in some ways eerily reminds me of Orwell's "Oceania" (after reading some of their own sites the comparison became more and more realistic).
you, ah, don't know too much about "Communism" in history do you? Welcome to reality. Why do you think we fought it for 50 years?
And then, (in Canada) abruptly surrendered to it, inexplicably.

 
The People's Armed Police, seperate from the army, is a  paramilitary organization responsible for internal security, similar in concept to the Interior ministry/MVD/FSB of the USSR and Russia. They can also be used as light infantry to defend cities. Although they are not really deisgned to be a counterweight against the army like their Russian counterparts are. They were not really much more than a centralized border police before 1989. Their numbers, training, and equipment, especially crowd control and riot control training and kit, were beefed up after the army made fools of themselves in that little fracas. 

And yes, this stuff is small potatoes compared to what's happened in the past. Being a peasant sucks.  >:(
 
paracowboy said:
And then, (in Canada) abruptly surrendered to it, inexplicably.

excuse my ignorance, but i missed that little development, maybe cause i've been out of the country a few years. does canada now have gulags, collective farms, central planning? or are you just trying to imply that communism is "not so bad"?
 
Majoor: Nope, but Spears cleared it up

Cowboy: Yes, ah, I do know a fair deal about it. Welcome to reality. I know why it was fought for 50 years. My entire point is that China claims itself to be based on Marxist-Leninist principles, calls itself Communist and claims to work for the people when it does everything completely opposite. I was pointing out the glaring hypocrisy in their - and I suppose, every communist nations - actions. Get off the high horse already.
 
excuse my ignorance, but i missed that little development, maybe cause i've been out of the country a few years. does canada now have gulags, collective farms, central planning? or are you just trying to imply that communism is "not so bad"?
gulags: not so much. Collective farms: they tried screwing around with us a while back, but got stepped on. Central planning: oh hell, yeah.
or are you just trying to imply that communism is "not so bad"?
quite the opposite. Which is why I try to educate everyone I know (and complete strangers, for that matter) about the fact that we have been becoming more and more a Socialist People's Republik, and will continue to do so as long as the present government is in power.

My entire point is that China claims itself to be based on Marxist-Leninist principles, calls itself Communist and claims to work for the people when it does everything completely opposite. I was pointing out the glaring hypocrisy in their - and I suppose, every communist nations - actions
. hmmm, guess my 'facetious-ness detector' is N/S, then, because even with your explanation, I don't read that into your post. It reads to me as though it were written by someone with no familiarity with 'Communism on the ground', but a with firm grounding in the theories, who has been abruptly disillusioned. Maybe I'm pre-disposed to read that into your post because of the many young troops that I've had to actually explain the evils of 'Communism on the ground' to. I've had several youngsters in the past couple of years, who've honestly believed, due to their teachers, that Communists are the good guys, and that Capitalism/Democracy is the source of all evil. We have soldiers who would rather fight for a dictatorial system, than for Liberty. And that scares the hell out of me.

Get off the high horse already.
but I can see my house from here!
 
Oh man. Why do I see the signals of descending into a conversation that has happened but a few times on this board? In this case, I'm staying out of this one (for now  ;D).

paracowboy said:
but I can see my house from here!

Must be a paraire boy. ;)
 
Zipper said:
Oh man. Why do I see the signals of descending into a conversation that has happened but a few times on this board?
oh, I don't think so. I mis-interpreted a post. I'm at fault.
 
Well, not to sidetrack further but I do want to clear the matter up:

I am familiar with theories and it's effect "on the ground" but you are partially correct with your analysis about being somewhat disillusioned. Not because I fall into that category of how some youngsters think the communists were the good guys (I don't believe that) but more so because I find it unfortunate that the system will never, ever, work. Communism is supposed to be everyone working to help eachother, sharing, blah blah won't go into detail cause you already know it. I was expressing a bit of disappointment on my part I guess, that such a utopian theoretical system will always be, theoretical.

No need to explain the USSR to anyone. Viet Nam is still a crap hole and I can't even begin to touch the tip of the iceberg of the stuff Communist movement did in that country. Mao's Cultural Revolution, Tianamen Square, the recent peasant clashes in China. Then you got all that internet censorship stuff .. well, the list just goes on, doesn't it? That's where my displeasure is expressed, that China still claims to be communist and work for the people when all it's doing is lobotimizing them so it can do as it pleases.

I suppose from a philosophical PoV, it's just too bad that such a system will never work because of the nature of man. That's what I was really getting at but I was, admittedly, vague with how I said it and it did tend to sound more like what you said.

With all that being said, just want to let this settle so the topic can get back at hand. Agreed?
 
With all that being said, just want to let this settle so the topic can get back at hand. Agreed?
hey, if you're happy, I'm happy. Like I said:
I'm at fault.

But I'm staying up here. Beats the heck outta walkin'. And chicks dig a cowboy.  ;)
 
    On paper, Communism is a beautiful system.  To get to true communism from the nasty state of (insert current political system) you have now, you must first pass through the dictatorship of the proletariate, where all property, real, human, and intellectual, is managed by the state, and a small group of enlightened leaders who will direct the people toward the goal of acheiving a true communist union.  People being people, and utopia being a crack-dream, once a dictatorship of the proletariat has been acheived, there it stays until forcably toppled.  Once absolute power has been concentrated into the hands of a few men/women, and all right to dissent has been removed, they will take whatever steps necessary to hold on to that power.  Whle the next generation of predator fight for succession of the old guard, the rising class of parasites learn to grow fat and rich off the wealth flowing from the masses to the leaders.  Those who wish to point out the corruption of the system, or who commit the terrible crimes of wishing to keep the goods that they have made, or the food that they have grown, can count on re-education camps (torture as a teaching device), or a showy trial, snappy execution, after which your family will receive a bill for the bullets they shot you with.
    To the people at the top, power and wealth are the goals, and the suffering of their people is irrelevant.  This makes expansionism popular, as the little people do the dying, and the new territorries (not having been drained for generatoins by parasitic party officials), can be looted to prop up the grossly inefficient economy, and swell the leaders already unbeleivable personal wealth.
      The Tiawanese people are so much better off than their mainland brethren, much as the West Germans were better off than the East, and for the same reason.  Germany united under the efficient system produced by the free and vibrant West.  China wants to swallow Tiawan, and suck it dry (kind of like what Russia did to East Germany).  China does not want to join with Tiawan, or enter into a partnership, they want to bring it under the yoke.  I've always wondered why the Tiawanese didn't pick up some toys from the Russians when they started demobilizing the bulk of their strategic rocket forces, China is the kind of neighbor that looks friendlier over a medium range ballistic missle.
 
On paper, Communism is a beautiful system. 

Not really, since no one, certainly not Marx or Engles, has really figured out a way to get to communism, we have no way of knowing whether it will work or not. If you read the Marx's body of work, it essentially says: "Well, eventually the prolitariat will overthrow their capitalist oppressors, as they always have, and then end ex!"  Actually achieving the first part has proven to be easier said than done.

In any case, don't you guys think you could go and start  a new topic to debate the communism thing? I think we all know that a purely communist approach to economics is no more viable than a purely capitalist one, the horse is dead, leave it be. You could replace the word "communism" above with "unbridled capitalism" or "libertarian anarchism" or any other academic social construct and get the same result as far as real world functionality goes.  Also, even a cursory examination of of China's social-political history will put it's current situation in perspective, and make the wide generalizations and urban myths (" after which your family will receive a bill for the bullets they shot you with."  ::)) sound silly in hindisght. Of course, the same goes for any other foreign country that one might try to understand.
 
Here's a bit of a development here at home (with a heavily-spun headline):

Private MP bill could harm relations with China

CTV.ca News Staff

Lawmakers will soon vote on a private member's bill that, if passed, could have serious ramifications for Canadian relations with China.

Introduced by Conservative MP Jim Abbott in April, the so-called Taiwan Affairs Act would upgrade Canada's relations with Taiwan.

The bill also opposes China's use of military force or economic sanctions against Taiwan. That policy would directly contradict Beijing, which earlier this year passed a law specifically authorizing the use of force to stop Taiwan from pursuing formal independence.

Although it stops short of calling Taiwan a state, the bill calls for improved economic, cultural, scientific and legal ties. It would also open the door to Taiwan officials to once again start visiting Canada.

China's ambassador in Ottawa, Lu Shumin, says that would be going too far.

"This bill which in essence is to advocate the changing basis of Taiwan and treat it as a separate country," he told CTV News, noting that would not jibe with Beijing.

And that has members of Canada's business community concerned their livelihood could be at stake.

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters policy director Gordon Cherry warns that Canada's telecommunications and aerospace sectors, for example, could face severe repercussions.

"The effect would be these multi-billion dollar, million-dollar deals that are in the works would be harmed by the bill," Cherry told CTV.

Abbott thinks it's nevertheless important to keep pushing the issue.

Considering the breakdown of the minority parliament, and the support, not only of the Bloc Quebecois, but also a handful of sympathetic Liberals, Abbott feels his bill's got a good chance of becoming law.

"There is a high probability that it could pass," he said.

This is not the first time Abbott has rallied Parliament to make Taiwan's official status an international issue.

In May 2003, the House voted 163-67 in favour of an official opposition motion introduced by Abbott -- urging the World Health Organization to grant Taiwan observer status.

At the time, the push to bring Taiwan into the WHO purview was fuelled by the deadly SARS crisis.

China voiced opposition at the time, but offered no formal retaliation.

Should Abbott's bill pass now, Ambassador Shumin said, it would put an inevitable strain on relations with Beijing.

"If this pass into a law, that will definitely harm the overall relationship. I think you will understand what that means. That means the relations of the two countries would not going forward but backwards.

"That would be quite serious."

As Canada's second-largest trading partner, senior cabinet ministers say there's legitimate reason to be worried.

According to International Trade Minister Jim Peterson, a diplomatic chill could lead to a freeze of economic activity.

"There is great potential loss and the Chinese have made it very clear to us in every meeting at a high level that a one-China policy is a priority for them," Peterson told CTV.

Taiwan history

In 1949, when China came under Communist rule, the island of Taiwan became the new home in exile of Chaing Kai Chek. Having failed to stop the Communists, Chaing took Taipei as the capital of the democratic Republic of China.

Ever since, the People's Republic of China -- comprised of mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau -- has maintained that Taiwan remains a renegade province.

Canada has had an official one-China policy since Ottawa established diplomatic relations with Beijing 35 years ago.

Answering critics who say Abbott's Taiwan Act would shatter Canada's 35-year policy, Conservative Foreign Affairs critic Stockwell Day says no way.

"We are clear in support of the one-China policy," he said. "But we also want to see Taiwan not threatened."

The United States signed its own similar Taiwan Act in 1979.

Economic Ties

In recent years, China's booming economy has become one of the main drivers of world growth. According to an annual report by Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, China's economic growth approached 10 per cent last year and exceeded most expectations.

Canada has long been poised to take advantage of its special relationship with China. Canada made its first wheat sale to the People's Republic of China in 1961. And Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1970 -- getting a five-year jump on the United States with this important trading partner.

China recently became Canada's second largest trading partner, just behind the United States. This was spurred by 49 per cent growth in trade with China in the first half of 2004 (compared with the previous year), bumping Japan out of its traditional number two spot.

Yet, Peterson said earlier this year the trade relationship between Canada and China was "minuscule" compared with its potential.

Most of Canada's exports to China are in the form of such raw materials as copper, zinc, and sulphur. There is still much more Canada could do to promote "value-added" industries such as education, travel and technology.

And there is a trade imbalance, highlighted in a report issued by Statistics Canada in June 2004:

- Between 1995 and 2003, Canada's exports to China rose 37.4%.

- During the same period, our imports from China quadrupled.

- In 1995, Canada's trade deficit with China was barely $1.2 billion.

- By 2003, the trade deficit had exploded to nearly $13.8 billion.

source: The Canadian Government in China (http://www.beijing.gc.ca/index.htm)

Prepared with a report from CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118867654973_114276854/?hub=TopStories
 
Given the more advanced nature of Taiwan's economy, I suspect we could be doing boffo business with them shortly after China began "economic retaliation" against Canadian business recognizing Taiwan.

Lets face it, a billion peasants are still a billion poor people, and not at all the market for our value added products and services. China also needs our resources desparatly more than we need cheap consumer goods (most of which can be imported from India or other developing nations anyway), so the Dragon will be back with its food and water dish after it sees us prosper by feeding the "Little Tigers".
 
FWIW, I'd like to point out that Chinese trade with Canada is miniscule compared to Chinese trade with Taiwan, a country with whom they are supposedly teetering on the brink of war. I had quoted some numbers, but later found out that they were from 2001 and outdated. In 2001, Chinese trade with Taiwan stood at about 4x that of that with Canada. Since then, Canada has dropped off most of the lists of China's major trade partners, so exact numbers are not as easy to find. China probably fears the loss of Canadian trade as much as they fear our army.

So, I think it's probably just a slow day at the newsroom....
 
Britney Spears said:
FWIW, I'd like to point out that Chinese trade with Canada is minuscule compared to Chinese trade with Taiwan, a country with whom they are supposedly teetering on the brink of war. I had quoted some numbers, but later found out that they were from 2001 and outdated. In 2001, Chinese trade with Taiwan stood at about 4x that of that with Canada. Since then, Canada has dropped off most of the lists of China's major trade partners, so exact numbers are not as easy to find. China probably fears the loss of Canadian trade as much as they fear our army.

So, I think it's probably just a slow day at the newsroom....
    So if our trade with the Chinese is so minuscule, we can afford to do the right thing (much as that idea shocks our politicians) and recognize the sovereign state of Taiwan, and establish formal diplomatic relations.  If China wishes to start a trade war, then go for it.  As China is trying to put on its best mask for the international community long enough to get access to the kinds of modern weapons and technology that sanctions have denied them, they are unlikely to risk that by acting against so small a player as Canada.  As they already conduct active intelligence operations in Canada against our citizens, and industrial espionage against our industry, its not as if we are reaping vast benefits from their "good" will.
 
Back
Top