Kaixin OpEd
See Henry Thornton for more OpEd Articles and comments on the news by Kaixin/Graeme Mills 
22nd February 2010 Human Rights in China
One issue that comes up regularly is Human Rights – I, Graeme, have pondered deeply on this issue and discussed it at length with Mei. I have a ‘western’ mind so coming to terms with this issue required that I step back.
The plight of an individual being locked up without trial cannot be condoned – it flies in the face of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence.
However, in relation to China, it is important that this be seen in context and with some understanding of China’s position.
The Communist Party in China certainly has as one of its priorities the preservation of its power. It also has the welfare of the Chinese people as its other priority. The two are undoubtedly intertwined.
My thesis is that it is a conflict between a ‘utilitarian’ approach to government and a ‘rights’ based approach to government.
This may not take the emotion generated from the detention of an individual on grounds that we in the ‘west’ do not support or condone, but it may at least lead to a better understanding.
The key question being, ‘Is an individuals ‘rights’ more important than the welfare of the general community?’
Utilitarianism v Rights based law/society
That is the nub of the issue.
A little background is perhaps necessary. From Lloyd’s ‘Introduction to Jurisprudence’. Bentham kicked the whole thing off when he chucked out natural law and positive law and introduced the concept of utilitarianism, ‘Utilitarians can accept inequalities, social arrangements in which some benefit at the expense of others, provided the benefits exceed the costs, so that the outcome is the maximisation of the overall welfare level, (“the greatest happiness of the greatest number”). While utilitarians defend liberty and political rights they have no objection to limiting liberty or restricting political rights, provided doing so would promote greater welfare.’
Then Ronald Dworkin came up with a rights based theory of law. ‘My aim is to develop a theory of rights that is relative to the other elements of a political theory, and to explore how far that theory might be constructed from the exceedingly abstract (but far from empty) idea that government must treat people as equals.’
‘We need rights, as a distinct element in political theory, only when some decision that injures some people nevertheless finds prima facie support in the claim that it will make the community as a whole better off on some plausible account of where the community’s general welfare lies.’
‘We want to say that the decision is wrong, in spite of its apparent merit, because it does not take the damage it causes to some into account in the right way and therefore does not treat these people as equals entitled to the same concern as others.’
The Chinese Government is taking a utilitarian approach to governing. The people who are vocal on human rights are taking a rights approach.
Does the Chinese Government have a ‘plausible account of where the community’s general welfare lies’? Should they be listening to the rights advocates ‘that government must treat people as equals’?
Mei’s first comment was that she would be unhappy if people were locked up generally for criticising the government in China. After all, she lived through the Cultural Revolution, she saw her father taken to prison for just such a ‘crime’. There is little you can tell her, or anyone in China who lived through the Cultural Revolution, about human rights.
China’s human rights were submerged under Mao’s desperate bid to hold on to power and bequeath it to his children. Mao suppressed education because he knew that an educated population would want to participate in government.
Mao does not govern China now.
Yet, many people in the ‘west’, judging from their comments and attitudes, are still locked into cold war thinking. Still think Mao is in charge.
Since Deng Xiaoping opened up China and bought about extensive reforms there have been many changes in China. One of those changes has been the freedom to criticise the government. Ho, ho ho, I hear in reply. I speak to many people in China and they all love to sit around and question the government. For them, it is like a breath of fresh air after the trauma of the Cultural Revolution. That is a ‘right’ the government would now find impossible to take away.
There is the Internet where people can quickly disseminate information and opinion. Yes, there is control, but not as much as the ‘western’ media portrays. There is text messaging. There certainly would be rebellion if the government tried to take away mobile phones. There is also the practical element. How do you control hundreds of millions, if not billions, of daily mobile phone conversations, texts and emails? Key words, yes, but that also has its practical limits.
Contrary to popular misconception, the middle class in China are educated and politically aware.
So why do the people in China accept the odd dissident, or criminal as the article suggests, be locked up for exercising his or her free speech? Why is there not rebellion, or at least a loud noise, a da sheng?
The Chinese people accept the utilitarian approach to government. They accept that in some areas the exercise by an individual of an unfettered right can cause harm to the greater community.
I deliberately referred to unfettered right because in all societies we have limits places on our rights.
Ahhh, I hear you reply, this is a fundamental right, it is a human right, it is the right of free speech.
Who says?
Is the right to free speech without limits in the ‘west’? What about censorship, defamation law? What about the current debate about access to pornography?
Who has the ‘right’ to decide if the individual’s freedom of speech over-rides the rights of the general population in China? The people of China, not the noisy people in the ‘west’ who, in general, have little knowledge or understanding of China.
Back to, does the Chinese Government have a ‘plausible account of where the community’s general welfare lies’? Should they be listening to the rights advocates ‘that government must treat people as equals’?
China evolved its political systems over thousands of years. For all of that time they were ruled by an emperor. It has been, in effect, a one party State for quite some time. When they had a strong emperor China was prosperous and the people faired well. When they had a weak emperor and division China was not prosperous and the people faired badly. After the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911 and until 1949 China was divided and fighting amongst itself. It was weakened, so suffered the invasion by Japan. The Chinese people know this. They know that democracy has the potential to weaken China, to threaten their security and prosperity. The significant majority accept and want a strong central one party government. After all, a few thousand years of history goes deep into the national psyche. People in China are now seeing how China has sailed through the Global Financial Crisis and are saying that without a strong central government they would not have fared so well (an article will follow shortly on this theme).
Democracy in the ‘west’ evolved slowly over time. It came from the people. It is specifically suited to the way the ‘west’ thinks. It cannot be imposed on a society, it must evolve out of society (please take note, America). Mei said that China will probably evolve its own form of democracy over time, as the education of the whole population improves.
At the moment, it is too early.
Yet, the Chinese government must know that their education reforms and the drive to lift the education of everyone in China will eventually lead to a call for a form of democracy, a call from the people for a greater say in how they are governed. Mao knew that education would lead to a challenge to his hold on power, so he suppressed it. This is not happening in China now. The ‘west’ should have patience and allow the voice of the Chinese people to emerge over time. Then it will be their voice, not ‘ours’.
Just as China is now very effectively employing capitalism with Chinese characteristics. It will evolve democracy with Chinese characteristics.
To allow the dissidents to undermine the power of the Communist Party, which is the government of China, is to threaten the very prosperity and security the Chinese people now enjoy.
Mei says that when the vocal dissidents call for democracy, they are really only interested in political power for themselves. She points out that many are in effect just mouthing the agenda of the ‘west’, in particular the United States. She asks whether they would govern any better than the Communist Party? The people of China, who we speak to, think not. The are enjoying their freedoms and prosperity. They are happy for a greater and more universal say in how they are governed to evolve over time and out of their own society.
30th January 2010: Giggle & Uncle Sam (or should I say, Aunty Hilary) v China
Skirmish over was a premature call it would seem. Since then Hilary Clinton has waded in gum boots and all. The New York Times, ‘Clinton Urges Global Response to Internet Attacks’. China subsequently ramped up its response, which is basically “comply with our domestic laws and goodbye Google.” China Daily, ‘China strongly opposes US charges on internet freedom.’ And the next day, ‘Ministry refutes US claims China restricts Internet’.
Judging from the comments, the Chinese people are not happy about Hilary’s application to join the Google board. My favourite: ‘You know what the British said about the Opium Wars: "These wars are not about opium, but about Free Trade". Porn in the West has replaced Religion as the "opium for the people". Good thing China has nukes, otherwise we would now have the Third Opium War.’
The New York Times responded, ‘China Rebukes U.S. Calls to Investigate Hacking’- ‘China delivered a bristling response on Monday to the United States’ demand that it investigate recent attacks on American computers from Chinese soil, saying that any suggestion that it conducted or condoned the hackers’ intrusions was “groundless and aims to denigrate China.”’.
There was a particularly insightful article by a Ms Yiyi Lu in the Wall St Journal, ‘China Hasn’t Declared War on Google’:
‘Beijing has been deeply concerned with Internet security in recent years and reliance on U.S. companies to provide essential Internet services leaves China vulnerable. In an ideal world, Beijing would prefer Chinese companies to provide services similar to those of Google, as it is keen to promote the development of advanced technology domestically and reduce any sense of vulnerability.’
‘One can perhaps draw a loose parallel to weapons systems. If countries refuse to sell arms to China, then China is forced to develop its own systems. If it is able to do that, the advantage to the Chinese government is obvious. So, it may well be in the US’s long-term strategic interests to have its biggest internet companies continue operating in China.’
One article, in China Daily, pointed out that all the publicity worldwide has not hurt Google’s brand name or image. In China Google’s profile has also risen substantially. As the saying goes, all publicity is good publicity’. The article is cynical enough to suggest that the sale of Google’s android phone in China will benefit enormously from the publicity. 'Google grabs more eyeballs in China'
There is a detailed an insightful article on the Giggle v Uncle Sam stoush, ‘Winner of Google-China feud is – India’. Of particular interest is a detailed de-bunking of the holier than thou line taken by Giggle and Uncle Sam:
‘Google is no stranger to cooperation with security services in the United States as well as abroad. … the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."’
China is progressively getting annoyed that America thinks it not only owns the WWW it also controls how it will be used. It has become a significant issue because of the way the American Government escalated it rather than leave it a commercial spat.
As Dr Jian Junbo is assistant professor of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, China pointed out in his article, ‘US and China pick their fights’:
‘This shows that China and the US have yet to find the means to develop their relations in a strategic and stable framework, although both, especially China, like to characterize their current relationship as strategic. Clearly, the US still lacks a clear-cut and coherent policy toward China.’
‘For instance, the Taiwan issue is one of China's core interests - it touches on China's history, culture, territorial sovereignty and reality, and the US should appreciate this.’
‘Now would be an opportune time for these two big powers to consider how to form a more mature "strategic partnership" on a more friendly and constructive basis. China has its own resources, including traditional philosophy such as Confucianism and socialism, to escape the rule of power politics. Does the US and Obama have such ideas, except for abstract platitudes such as freedom, democracy and fraternity?’
Where to now will be interesting. President Obama has to engage with the American people and the ‘Google’ issue has resonated with them.
12th January 2010: Asia Times Online
Hatoyama to Nanjing, Hu to Hiroshima?
By Kosuke Takahashi
Kaixin -
In 1945 Japan was bent over the table while Uncle Sam put on the rubber glove. Terms were going to be dictated and Japan was in no position to negotiate.
Roll forward to the heady 80’s and Japan was revelling in the excesses of capitalism. All was right with the world. Then the spectacular crash at the end of the 80’s. Uncle Sam with his rubber glove was there to help and freely gave advice.
However, it hasn’t helped, and all the advice by those top economists in America still has not found a solution for Japan.
Roll forward to 2010.
From 1990 to 2010 China has become very, very rich and powerful. Japan in that same time period has stagnated. Japan by now must be getting sick of being a glove puppet.
Japan is a part of Asia. Asia is on the rise. Perhaps it is time to put aside age-old enmity and distrust and go back to their common heritage – Asian: a different culture, a different way of thinking.
To be clear, in all my writing I am not predicting the fall of America. America has been a good friend to Australia since 1945. Its people are essentially good hearted, strong and innovative. Where as Japan is Asian and would be returning to the fold, Australia is not. Australia has to engage with Asia, certainly, but we should retain our own unique and proud heritage in doing so.
After America has sorted out its little central bank experiment with free money and lots of it, it will recover and still be a dominant global power. However its period of being the only player is now at an end. That, in my opinion, is a good thing.
6th January 2010: Asia Times Online
Weiqi: A symbol of the Chinese experience
By David Gosset
Kaixin: To gain a better understanding of China, it is highly recommended that you go to your local book shop and acquire an English translation of Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’.
China will use soft diplomacy and economic strategy to achieve its aim. That aim is the re-emergence of China not world domination. As Sun Tzu counsels, do not dissipate your wealth on far away wars.
Deng Xiaoping took the new China that Mao had created and gave it new impetus. He provided the ‘visionary intuition’ that has certainly led to a breakthrough.
China has and will continue to evolve as its newfound, or re-instated, place in the world grows. The doctrine of Marx, which informed Mao, but was also was modified by Mao, will also evolve and change. That does not mean that the ‘west’ can stamp democracy on China. China will find its own way, its own 'Tao'.
4th January 10: The Age
Money goes up and money comes down
JOHN GARNAUT
Puritanical approach misses the point
The ‘west’ has evolved fairly open and relatively corrupt free institutions; law, government, bureaucracy, business. Government’s raise their money through taxes, fees and charges. That money is redistributed to pay for the institutions, bureaucracy and the business of government. A significant proportion of the rest is used to achieve essentially socialist aims, ie: social justice.
High taxes are needed to keep the whole edifice corrupt free and achieve the socialist aims.
It’s a good system and one we in the west understand.
We see other systems, which demand money for private services rendered, particularly in government or bureaucracy, as corrupt. We laud our system as open and transparent.
China evolved its institutions over millennia. Its bureaucracy is based on Confucian principles. Principally that an official is by definition of good character and not to be impugned. Also, the other great feature is that not a whole lot of money was spent by the government on paying officials. Rather, the officials charged directly for their services. Hence, over millennia, entrance to an official post via the examination system was a way of advancing yourself and your family.
Entrance to an official post also required that other great Chinese institution, ren ji guan xi. In the west we call it networking, or the old school boy network. However, it is much more subtle than that and must be understood if you want to (successfully) do business in China.
Taxes in China are very low by western standards. One of the key skills for a successful account in China is to have excellent ren ji guan xi with the relevant officials in the tax department.
There is a direct relationship between taxes and how much a government official is paid, in any society.
High taxes and high pay for government officials mean they do not have to find revenue from other services. Low taxes and low pay to government officials mean that other services generally attract a …. non official fee.
In China it is best to think of these, non official fees, as a direct form of taxation. It is very efficient really, as you only have to pay for the service you want.
It has worked for millennia in China. It is different to the west, but it works and like all things that work, probably doesn’t need fixing.
As China increasingly engages with the west then it will undoubtedly evolve to meet the demands of doing business with these wai guo ren (foreigners). Well, at least become better at the P.R. However it is fanciful to think that a system that has evolved over millennia can be speedily or completely changed. To paraphrase Deng Xiaoping, China will do business the western way – with Chinese characteristics
3rd January 10: The Australian
China's century: on the march
Kaixin - an insightful article, in our opinion, spot on the mark. Our comment on the article:
An insightful article and spot on in my opinion. Three years ago I was teaching in China where I met and married a Chinese lady. She was born in 1966 into the heart of the Cultural Revolution. Her family were branded counter revolutionaries and she spent most of her early years on prison farms. Thanks to Deng Xiaoping she was able to graduate with a degree in finance. So, she has lived through the rise and rise of China, only coming to live in Australia two years ago. She is immensely proud of china's place in the world. Also, frustrated at the still quite xenophobic response to China's increasing influence. As an Australian who grew up influenced by the western media's view of China, I have now discovered a new way of understanding that great civilization and in particular its recent history. China is not the 'west', it has its own unique history and culture. Rather than being frightened of how China will influence the world in the 21st century, we should all try to learn more and interact with the changes. All sacred cows can do with scrutiny from time to time. If they are strong enough they will continue to graze, if not then perhaps it is time to evolve and change – or become pet food.
28th December 09: OpEd comment:
''Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious.'', Deng Xiaoping
The ‘west’ latched onto the second part of Deng’s comment as a capitualtion of socialism. China had seen the error of its ways and now ebraced capitalism, greed is good.
Deng Xiaoping was one of the shrewdest politians of the 20th Century. He had helped make the new China, but then seen it mired down under Mao. The China of the 1960’s was not the China he had envisioned. The first part of his comment shows his diss-satisfaction, ‘Poverty is not socialism.’. He did not criticise socialism or dismiss it. He merely pointed out that socialism and poverty did not have to be one and the same as had happened in Russia and China to date.
To achieve the true ends of socialism, social justice for all, requires weath. The most effective means of creating wealth is capitalism. ‘To be rish is glorious’ because it would allow China to achieve social justice for all, socialism. Hence, capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
Chinese characteristics also meant the capitalism would not be imposed on China. China would use capitalism for its own ends and in its own way.
To date, this has worked exceptionally well.
As to any imperialist ambitions, it is helpful to have an understanding of Sun Tzu, 'The Art of War' which counsels that you should never extend your lines or dissipate your strength on far away battles, and that the nation that does will surely lose the war.
28th December 09: In response to the following article:
The blame game is on.
An article by Mr Mark Lynas in the Age lays the blame for the lack of a binding agreement from Copenhagen squarely at China’s feet.
After all, Mr Lynas was there, he saw all.
First of all, lets look at Mr Lynas’ credentials. Quote: ‘Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet, is a British environmentalist who attended the summit as adviser to the Maldives President.’
He was certainly there, but as a impartial and objective observer?
Mr Hissink would no doubt detect the whif of religious fervour in the article. Mr Lynas has no doubt that global warming is caused by man. Therefore man can stop it. So, logically, the sooner man begins the better. So far so good. It’s just, Mr Lynas, that the science is out on that point. Something the committed environmentalists refuse to consider. My belief is better than yours seems to be their approach.
He is answered in the article by the first person to make a comment, ‘If Chinese leaders thought AGW was real, they would recognize an existential threat to China that overrode any short-term economic imperatives. Chinese culture is renowned for viewing the big picture and the long term. In that case, they would have reached a binding agreement. This article illustrates that they didn't want any sort of meaningful agreement. Ergo, they are either fools, dreamers - or sceptics. Chinese scientists tend to be salaried, don't depend on politically-based government grants, and so are probably (counter-intuitively in a totalitarian dictatorship) better able to give frank and fearless advice to their political masters. So what do you reckon they told Wen Jinbao about climate change?’.
Also note, in the article, that the leaders from the ‘west’ were all trying to mollify their political constituencies.
Last Saturday evening, a Chinese negotiator from the conference was interviewed on Chinese telvision. He was critised the ‘western’ powers for their patronising attitude. He also made the point that they did not seem to know, or accept, that China was achieving considerable progress in curbing pollution, including CO2 emmissions. He voiced his opinion that China should communicate its achievments in this area to the world more effectively. He reinterated that China was committed to curbing pollution, including atmospheric, and was also prepared to help the developing world both financially and technologically. He questioned the ‘developed’ nations true commitment. After all, he might have added, they will be tied up in the politics for some time yet, it seems.
Meanwhile, China has both the wealth and the political leadership to get on with the job.
26th December 09: In response to the following article:
Don't look to Beijing for global leadership
By Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor, The Australian
To understand China’s response at Copenhagen you need to understand it’s history, both over millennia and recent (last 200 years or so).
Over millennia China has been sufficient unto itself. After the first millennia or so it had basically come together as the nation state we now recognise as China. Then for the next few millennia it basically kept to itself. It evolved a socio/political system that was uniquely its own centred on a strong ruler. Administration of that great state was through Confucianism. The people knew prosperity when there was a strong central ruler. It knew hardship and famine when there was internal conflict and civil war.
The civil administration guided by Confucian principles served the State well. In general it threw up capable administrators. To understand China today, you need to have at least a basic understanding of Confucianism. In this essentially feudal society, there was a sharp distinction between rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots.
Roll forward to the aggressive European nations basically invading and colonising China. They used force, corruption, rape, pillage and murder to get their way. The Chinese state weakened, as it was not set up to deal with such barbaric behaviour. After all, they had built a bloody great wall to keep ignorant bastards out and instead another lot of barbarians came by ships from the other direction.
In 1911 it all fell apart and the Qing Dynasty came to an end. This left a power vacuum, which was filled by civil conflict as rival warlords fought for power. This, in turn, allowed the Japanese to invade China and they made the Colonial powers look benign. Nanking, 1937/8, for which Japan has never officially apologised, is seared into the Chinese psyche. For the Chinese people, once again, as per every time before, the lack of a strong leader and central government meant hardship and famine.
Those two hundred years or so till 1949 also set the basis for how China perceives the ‘west’.
Eventually two forces emerged and fought for control of China. The Communist Party influenced by Marxism and the lot of the average man, which was supported by the would-be imperial power Russia. The Kuomintang which was influenced by western capitalism and values, supported by the new imperial power, America. It would have been interesting to see which path China would have taken if Sun Yat-sen had lived. The Communist party emerged victorious in 1949.
Why?
Essentially because Mao was smart enough to bypass Marxist ideology and offer power to the peasants, of which there were many, rather than the workers, of which there were few.
The workers were in the cities, the traditional centres of power, chock full of smart arses who all jockeyed for power and a seat at the table. The peasants just wanted a feed and a place to sleep. Essentially anyone who offered them that won their support. After all, under Chinese feudal society, they were not even assured of life, let alone food and shelter. When offered the chance to join Mao’s army with the certainty (in general) of food and the possibility of a better life for their children, the choice was easy. Also, back in the village under a feudal lord, life was not assured. So, to die in battle was not such a great risk.
Mao wrested power and bought national pride and national integrity back to China. For the peasants, he essentially replaced uncertainty, oppression and exploitation with a simple but relatively safe life. For the people in the cities, he bought a strong central government and stability. The people in the cities knew that over millennia this had meant peace and stability, which were the necessary foundation stones of a prosperous society.
In my opinion, Mao was the right person to wrest power, but the wrong person to lead the new China. He laid a strong foundation but made also made some tumultuous errors of judgement, which had at times tragic consequences. Along with the American embargo, this held China’s economic progress back until Deng Xiaoping took power in 1978. In the over-all history of China, the period from 1949 to 1978 is but a blink of an eye. It was part of the transformation from a feudal system under a Dynastic rule led by an Emperor to a communist state under the central rule of the Communist Party. Mao tried to keep the role of Emperor and dynastic rule for his family, but failed. The Communist Party after Deng now must change leaders every four years and they can only serve for two terms, eight years.
My wife, Xiaosui, was born in 1966 into the heart of the Cultural Revolution. Her father, a teacher of Chinese language and history, was branded a counter revolutionary and they spent most of their life on a prison farm until Mao’s death in 1976. She knows what it is like to have little food and, from the age of six, walk for nearly two hours to take food to her father when he was in prison. Thanks to Deng’s early education reforms, Xiaosui was able to graduate from University in the late 1980’s with a Degree in Finance. She lived through the transformation of China. She came to live in Australia in 2007. She is immensely proud of what China has achieved. Her insights and opinions have informed much of what is in this essay.
By the mid-1980’s just about everyone in China had a place to sleep and enough food to eat. That was the base from which the new China would emerge.
What did China use to fuel its rapid rise to world economic power? The free, renewable resource of peasant labour. What did that labour want from life? A place to sleep and enough to eat. After all, they or their parents had seen the alternative and it was not so great.
In the cities Deng unleased the entrepreneurial potential and undoubted business acumen of the Chinese people to create wealth-making opportunities for China. He powered those new enterprises with low cost labour from the country.
The west scratched their collective heads over why the average Chinese worker would work for such low wages. Not that it stopped them taking advantage of it. The average Chinese worker was just grateful for this new safe world where he/she could work and send money back to their families in the country. For them the world was slowly becoming safer and richer.
As with the ‘west’, the industrialisation of China created pollution. For the first two/three decades this was allowed to go basically un-checked as economic growth was the priority.
Once the foundations for economic independence and prosperity had been laid the Communist Party started to address two major issues. The first was the disparity between the wealth of the cities and the country, including the migrant workers. It is doing this by slowly re-distributing some of the newfound wealth of China to the country and the workers. For those who criticise the pace of this, please remember that after the socio-political upheavals of the 20th century, the wealth had to be created in the first place. Sixty years is not long in the history of China.
The second was to address the pollution that was starting to choke China and threaten to slow economic growth. Though, as one American engineer I met in Li Jiang noted, unlike the west, China does not have to invent the technology to do that. It is mostly already invented and is improving all the time. So, it can be achieve relatively rapidly.
China is emerging as a world leader in addressing environmental pollution and developing ‘green’ technology. It is doing this quietly and effectively without grandstanding and flourishing rhetoric.
How?
The Government in China does not have to pander to a largely ill-informed political constituency for its power. The politicians in the west know that they have to carry that dead weight if they want to achieve anything of substance. So most of the time they make simple populist choices and attend gab feasts so their voters think they are doing something.
My proof? Copenhagen and the majority of the comments to Greg Sheridan’s ill-informed, opinionated and poorly researched article.
China is not saying much to its people or to the world. It is simply doing it. The ‘developed’ world is saying much and doing little. Copenhagen is but a symptom of the disease.
China also remembers how friendly and trustworthy the ‘west’ has been over the last couple of hundred years. Whether the ‘west’ verifies China’s data or not is of little concern to China. Also, China certainly does not need the money, so billion $US bribes are largely ineffective. After all, America will have to borrow the money from China in the first place.
So, for those of you who wonder where China’s approach to the issue comes from and want to impose democracy and western values onto something that works well as it is, please spend a little time understanding that society and its history. Remember, China is actually doing something; we are still talking about it.
Article on period from Mao's death in 1976
24th December 09: Copenhagen
China essentially reported the Copenhagen Agreement as a successful first step.
From China’s perspective three steps were achieved:
China emphasised that it wanted to work with the international community to tackle global challenges
The tensions at Copenhagen were recognised, in particular the suspicion about monitoring which the developed nations hold, in particular for China, which in turn is suspicious about the bona fides of the developed nations.
The two main themes from the media in China were that China will address the issue in its own way and it will continue to ensure its economic progress.
Interestingly, unlike Australia, Copenhagen did not take centre stage in the Chinese media. The main focus was the 10th anniversary celebrations for the return of Macau to China. For Australia the politics are mainly domestic. For China they are mainly international.
I would like to draw your attention to an excellent essay published in the New York Times today.
The thesis is that the ‘developed’ nations are seeking to impose their culture and values on the developing nations (which can include all nations not considered. ‘developed’). That each nation has to evolve and find their own values, institutions, social structures, economic path.
China, for instance, is choosing for the moment, socialism with Chinese characteristics and a dash of capitalism. Capitalism has allowed China to unleash its economic potential. I believe that the Communist Party in China will use the wealth to improve the lot of all of its citizens. There are many examples of the focus in China changing, or broadening, to encompass the rural areas. Graduates ( of which there are a surplus) are now being encouraged to go into the country to help raise the standard of living there. Mao did a remarkable job of releasing the Chinese peasants from virtual slavery. He gave them a home, food and a sense of self-respect. Unfortunately, he also made mistakes and was unable to unleash China’s full economic potential. Therefore, he could not raise the standard of living above a very basic level. Mind you, an embargo by America did not help. Deng took that base and added a dash of capitalism. The rest is history. Indeed, history in the making.
The point is, that China will develop its own unique society. Its own unique place in the world. As the ‘developed’ nations have done. There is strength in diversity. That should be embraced and encouraged as the world stumbles along its way, ever changing and ever evolving.
24th December 09
Have they lost their marbles?
Britain ruled the waves for a couple of centuries and used its military power and commercial instincts to loot the world and become fabulously wealthy. The industrial revolution compounded that wealth.
It then had a couple of all-mighty rows and lost the lot to the new kid on the block, America.
America decided it would loot the world (Er… I mean, bring Democracy) using Wall Street, Dollar Hegemony and a huge military. It did this quite successfully for a few decades, but then its population got lazy and, urged on by Wall St., lost its bag of marbles to the next new kid on the block, China.
Where did that those marbles come from?
A lot of them came from stuffing up the environment, which subsidised a lot of the wealth creation during the industrial revolution and the growth of industrial America (and the developed west, read America for the purposes of this argument).
China essentially swapped its huge resource of cheap labour for the marbles. Along the way, in order to make things that the people in America wanted to buy ( but were too lazy to make) China also sacrificed its environment. Once again, the environment subsidised marble creation.
America and Britain (along with other developed nations which all seem to nod in agreement) now say that because China now has the marbles, it should be responsible for cleaning up the mess.
China begs to differ, saying that it is happy to do its share, but why should it curtail its marble creation due to a problem largely created by America and Britain in the first place. However, it ignores the fact that the majority of the marbles it is holding were first made in Britain and America.
So, the tricky political ( and possibly moral) problem is whether those marbles came with a hidden liability, the cost of repairing the environment that was damaged during the creation of said marbles.
The argument then shifts from being responsible for the environmental mess made by Britain and America during the manufacture of the marbles. A responsibility which at first blush is not China’s. To one of accepting the hidden liability which came with those marbles. Even though a seemingly fair exchange had taken place; Chinese widgets for American marbles.
However, the marbles China received for its widgets were in effect over valued. They did not reflect the environmental damage that was caused in their creation. That is, there would be less marbles if the environment had not been damaged along the way or repaired soon after it was damaged.
Mind you, the widgets America purchased with their over valued marbles were under valued, since they did not factor in the damage to the environment either.
That hidden liability is now being clearly recognised by the world.
The environment is not concerned about who pays. There is a real liability against the marbles and someone has to pay. If we take too long arguing over who is responsible for that debt the environment might just foreclose and we will all lose our marbles.
As I said, tricky.
24th December 09: A Further View
The armchair, Part II
Over the weekend I put down my class of scotch, stirred out of my armchair and ran my article past a number of people to see what the response would be. I should have kept hold of the scotch.
Those who were convinced that man caused climate change and believed that at least an ETS was doing something about it, all simply categorised the article as denying global warming and assumed I was advocating doing nothing. I was a climate skeptic!!! I had the sneaking suspicion that if there had of been a stake and a cigarette lighter handy I would have been in serious trouble. What concerned my though, was that as soon as they detected an alternative view they shut down completely and either stopped listening or started to throw rocks? How do you engage these people in serious argument? A problem Mr Abbott will have to address.
Now, Mr Turnbull has started to throw rocks. I will have to revise my opinion of him. At the moment he is acting like a petulant schoolboy. The liberal party has spoken. The first polls show support for that decision. The two by-elections show support for that decision. Grow up Turnbull and accept that sometimes people just don’t agree with you. I noted John Howard’s comment on how Turnbull ran the Republic Debate. Turnbull sought to categorise anyone who did not agree with him and support the republic as somehow a lesser citizen of Australia. He used the same tactic in the ETS debate. Australians did not buy it either time.
Back to comments made on my article. Those who were sceptical of the science and therefore the ETS all agreed of course but some seemed to generally miss the point that I was not advocating a do nothing approach at all.
On the issue of climate change. The argument is whether it is man made, and something we can ameliorate, or is it simply a natural climate event over which man has little influence. That is essentially what the scientists are arguing about.
Irrespective of the climate change argument, I advocate that man-made pollution (which, of course, includes carbon emissions) should be curbed and where possible eliminated. It is interesting that most missed that sentence in the article.
If man-made pollution is the primary cause of climate change then the job will be done. If it is not then it will have the immediate benefit of improving the environment for many people.
The issue then becomes, not the motivation behind curbing pollution but how the pollution can be reduced or eliminated.
The answer touted by the majority of people who, with seemingly religious fervour, believe that man is the cause of global warming is the global ETS.
No one I spoke to understands it, including myself. When asked about it, the answers were vague generalisations about reducing green house gasses or that it had something to do with carbon. When asked about how the ETS will do that, and by how much, bewilderment was the general response.
We have just had the global financial (GFC) crisis, which was real, did happen and we are still suffering the financial fallout. The GFC was bought about by out of control capitalism. Global economies and finance were being run by bull capitalists, as I call them.
Much has been done to understand man’s impact on the environment. A body of international and domestic law has been built up. All sorts of memorandums of understanding, treaties and what not have been signed up to. The trouble is, the net general effect, while positive, does seem to be falling short of the mark.
It is now my opinion the ETS is misbegotten spawn, the result of a bull capitalist raping a socialist greenie.
It is the one instance I suspect where Tony Abbott would have agreed to an abortion taking place. As, when you think about it, he did.
In a democracy, the trouble with crafting a solution is that the great unwashed all want a solution, they want it now but they do not want to pay for it.
The want clean energy but do not want their power bills to rise or anything that is produced as a result of power generation. That is, just about everything.
The problem was vividly demonstrated by the ETS as it grovelled its way through parliament. Yes, admitted the smiling Kevin and his side kick, Ms Wong, it will increase the cost of just about everything but never fear, we will use the money generated to compensate you or compensate those nasty polluters instead which will stop them from passing it on to you ………. Problem solved!
So any incentive to reduce the carbon footprint of polluters, both large and small, was neutered.
Instead we had a vast merry go round of money and a magic pudding policy where that pesky climate problem would be fixed and it was not going to cost anyone anything. Classic political economics 101 in a democracy.
Someone, somewhere has to pay. Either now, or if we continue to flick pass it, future generations.
As well, we were going to hand the pricing mechanism to international bull capitalists who would have made squillions dancing with the derivates. All of which would not have reduced pollution by one jot. It would however have handed over an alarming chunk of our sovereignty.
My suggestion is to apply the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid). Put a cap on pollution of all kinds (which of course includes carbon emissions) and gradually reduce it over time. Let the cost of that cap be reflected in the price of the goods and services. Increased costs will result in reduced demand and innovative solutions. Businesses will not go broke, they will evolve.
But remember, someone, somewhere has to pay.
For example, I received my first heating bill after moving to Tasmania this year. It spurred action. The first was to ensure my heating was as efficient and cost effective as possible. The second was to reduce my demand for power. By the end of next year I will be generating enough power through solar and wind to be supplying the grid with green power.
That is of course, not open to everyone. However it clearly demonstrated that price increases initiate immediate action.
Of course, those in our society who are truly diss-advantaged should be helped to cope with this change to our economy.
The externalisation of costs has resulted in this mess. Why not start to redress that?
The result will be a cleaner more sustainable environment and if climate change is man-made, it will redress that as well.
If it is not, then we have a whole new problem on our collective hands. One we cannot conveniently ignore by externalising the cost.
Man may or may not be causing climate change, but man is definitely causing significant pollution to the environment. Why does it have to be another disaster scenario that spurs action? Why not just accept that if we want to go on living as we do, or aspire to live as others do, there is a cost to the environment and at some point it will have to be paid. The environment is a patient banker, but eventually she will foreclose if we do mend out spendthrift ways.
3rd December 09: The Australian ETS has relevance to China, an OpEd piece I penned after it was defeated in the Australian parliament
A view from the armchair
I freely admit I am an armchair politician. My ‘hobby’ is watching politics. I am not a scientist so I have no hope of understanding the science behind climate change. I am not an economist, so I have no real hope of understanding the complex ETS that was put to our parliament. I am reasonably well educated and would hope I have an open and inquiring mind.
The international debate on climate change and man’s impact on the environment has been going on since I first became aware of things outside football, girls and generally have a youthful good time – the early 70’s. Well, Rachel Carson did have a bit to say one spring back in the 60’s.
It seems to me that a general theme of environmental politics has been one of pessimism. ‘The End is Nigh’ was the usual inaccurate prediction by the average hairy and/or loopy environmentalist. Then in the 90’s it started to become mainstream. As one columnist recently noted, it had become a necessary accessary of the café latte set, or, as I call them, bleeding heart liberals. Pessimism, ‘The End is Nigh’ mindset, is still the general theme. Causing alarm among the great unwashed, a point not lost on most politicians.
My study of environmental law, both international and domestic, was in itself an education. I started off thinking I had novel and original solutions to all the world’s problems. A little like the café latte set. I soon discovered that it had all been considered by eminent minds. Treaties and protocols had been drafted and signed up to by governments scattered throughout our fair blue planet. The trouble was that as ex New Zealand PM, and noted international environmentalist, David Longey noted: “Nothing serious was being done about it.”
Then in the last decade our little blue planet started to noticeably melt and there was a collective henny penny response, along the lines of, ‘Deep s..t, the world is melting, we had better rustle up some politicians to do something about it!??” The café latte set all purchased a curly light bulb on their gold MasterCard and sat back to discuss it further.
Soon, everyone was totally convinced that man made climate change had ‘arrived’ and was about to engulf us. After all, the science was serious, incontrovertible and settled. Then, dimly, through the fog of scientific grants, UN Bodies and politicians who can recognise a bandwagon when they see one, we start to discern a thin reedy voice of dissent. Such a voice is Louis Hissink, an experienced and senior geologist. I confess, at first I did not understand where he was coming from. He seemed to be, unbelievably, a climate sceptic. A person who was intent of dooming my children to penury and dirty water.
Then, after prying my mind open a little and staring intently through the fog of ‘settled science’ I started to perceive the essence of his argument. That is, as I understand it, that there does appear to be climate change and indeed polar caps and glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, however, it has little to do with man’s puny efforts to stuff up the planet. After all, as any geologist worth his or her salt knows, the plant is really really big and mans efforts are really really small in comparison. He also noted that the science is far from settled and, as is now being shown, is rather a dog’s breakfast of grant driven opinion in search of a fact. It is informative to read his argument, linked above.
Of course, he could be wrong and indeed we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt. If I understand him correctly, he agrees that man generated pollution should be curbed and where possible eliminated. However, it should not be a panic response. The science is not settled and economies should not be burned at the stake so politicians can be seen to be doing something. I am sure Copernicus would agree. Indeed, politicians quite often mistake opinion for fact and activity for progress (please note Ms Wong).
I too have a high regard for Malcolm Turnbull’s ability (though, he does not appear to have the knack of politics just yet). In the last few weeks I had become deeply troubled that we appeared to have Kevin in two shades on this matter and had lost an opposition prepared to question rather than just negotiate around the edges. However, I should not have been pessimistic. Australian politics is alive and well! We now have Tony Abbot prepared to stand up and bring on a healthy debate about climate change and how we in Australia should address the issue.
It used to be regarded as intellectually sound to question science. Scepticism produced good science. Now it is heresy. So, I suppose it is good we have a Catholic who understands these matters to take up the cudgels.
It is just bloody silly that we try to lead the world on this matter.
The solution is in the hands of China and America. China is starting the lead the world now on how to develop and implement alternative energy solutions. America will do its bit, eventually. After all it has immense resources of intellect and entrepreneurial spirit. It’s just a little tied up with sorting out its economy at the moment.
Tony Abbot is not a climate sceptic. Rather, he has the intellect to question the science. That is healthy. He is also prepared to question the standard solutions being touted in the world at the moment. Further, quite rightly, in my opinion, he is waiting to see what the China and America will do before committing Australia to the complex solution touted by the labor government (and all bleeding heart liberals), the ETS. A solution that is probably flawed, definitely ineffectual in terms of the world environment and expensive. The true ideological roots of the labor party has been exposed with the ETS. That is, everything can be solved with a new tax and a new bureaucracy.
You see, I am not in the least bit pessimistic. I know we will find a solution to all this. You only have to watch Quantum on the ABC to know just how clever we are as a species.
If climate change exists (and I believe the science is even out on that) and it is primarily caused by man then sober reflection is called for. Not knee jerk reactions spurred on by the café latte set. Settle petals, go buy another curly light bulb and let the real minds on this plant deal with the matter. If man is not the prime cause then there is no real hurry anyway and a little sober reflection will still go a long way.
Tony Abbot has the necessary conviction and courage to shine a fresh light on this important matter.
Three recent articles of relevance:
1. Europe is almost irrelevant ( too many cafe latte set running it)
2. China & the US will lead the way
3. China is already leading the way on alternative energy
The New York Times - 24th August 09
The Daughter Deficit
Kaixin - Our experience within our family and friends is nothing of the sort. Though we concede that there is differing degrees of discrimination towards girls depending on wealth and location. Our generalexperience is of comfortable middle class where there is still the breath of discrimination and boys are certainly more highly regarded.
The Australian - 1st August 09
Rebiya Kadeer a small but charismatic thorn in Beijing's side
Kaixin - One people's freedom fighter is another people's terrorist .....
Asia Times Online 19th June 09
Flaws in China's digital dissidents
By Alice Liu
Kaixin – Yep, that is Kaixin’s observation also. Much noise and heat but no call for democracy, except at the fringes. The youth that Kaixin speak to lead a comfortable middle class existence. They are all only children pampered by parents and often grand-parents who live with them. Graeme, being an only child himself, has long pointed out the looming issue of a generation of only children taking power in China. They will probably throw an izzy fit when the don’t get their own way. AND, there is a majority of males, so imagine all those hormones with no-where to go.
On a serious note, they are also fiercely patriotic and have used their tech-democracy to support China on several issues. They may be a-political on a domestic level, but they are aware of China’s growing place in the world. It is also a generation that, like all generations before it, will throw up the necessary talent to lead China.
OBAMA, CHANGE AND CHINA, Part 5
Group of Two the wrong number
By Henry C K Liu
Kaixin - A serious and in-depth read. Well worth the time.
The New York Times 17th June 09
China Backpedals on Filtering Software Order
Kaixin - Do I smell a beat up here?? '... it was not clear' is a neat cop out. How many laws and regulations in the west are hazy or unclear on the first draft? Many. It keeps lawyers in work. I suspect the Government did indeed support software to filter out violence and pornography but did not intend to have an army of inspector 'gadgets' checking each and everyPC. Tech - Democracy is alive and well in China, as the NY Times article points out. The Government would have been aware thatusing heavy handed methods will not work any more. The power of themobile phone and text message is slowly growing in China. A point covered in Kaixin for several moths now.
And .... Australia has been trying to get the same thing up and running for a couple of years now. Fortunately the Minister and Government Department in charge are too incompetent to manage it.
Chinalco sweet as rescue goes sour
Kaixin – So all the screaming headlines, following the move by RIO to partner with BHP rather than CHINALCO , that those pesky Chinese will take their bat and go home whilst planning devious oriental revenges are for nought. The journalists and editors should try to grow up. The response by CHINALCO shows a mature nation dealingwith complex international issues.
The Age
Part one of the Rio revenge likely to see China steer investment beyond Australia
John Garnaut
Kaixin Update - Kaixin hears that the fluff on Kevin Rudd's (Australian Prime Minister) & Malcolm Turnbull’s (Australian opposition leader) jackets is from under the bed where they have been communing with Sir Robert Menzies (Australian Prime Minister in the 1950’s – 1960’s ) about these pesky reds.
Asia Times Online (6th June 09)
Hong Kong holds a candle for Tiananmen
By Kent Ewing
Kaixin – As China has approximately 700 times the population of Australia, that is the same as 210 people holding a mass demonstration in Canberra. Sorry if the maths is not 100%, but you get the picture. Kaixin does agree that the students were led by ‘a bunch of naïve, idealistic students’. Just like the students that took power during the Cultural Revolution when Mao used them to cling to power. Deng knew the potential of student power unleashed and moved to stifle it at birth. Thus stifling the incipient power grab from the old guard within the party. The world has enjoyed the benefits of China’s industrial revolution. Most of the politicians that wept and beat their breasts over Tiananmen Square are now China consultants. There is a continuing lack of understanding about China and a breathless hypocricy by manywho criticise.
The New York Times (5th June 09)
In Art, an Ex-Soldier Revisits Tiananmen
Kaixin – Xiaosui’s version is that the troops were specifically told not to shoot to kill, but to wound in the event the troops were attacked. She points out that most of the troops would have had family members (distant or otherwise) in the square and if a massacre had been ordered they would have rebelled. After all, as this young soldier points out, he was just a frightened kid at the time. Whether there were deaths or not Graeme Mills has no knowledge (therefore he offers no comment) and Xiaosui, who was not at Tiananmen Square, simply states that there was no general order to massacre the students, indeed the order that she is aware of was to wound only if the soldiers were attacked. Graeme’s opinion is that if they had wanted to, then China could have been extremely heavy handed.Kaixin doubts it was concern for how the west would respond. Throughout the incident and after,the ‘west’ continued to trade with China and apart from offering weak token protests did nothing. Why? What knowledge did the powers that be have that rendered all their breast beating and tears void. They must have had people watching what went on very closely.
The New York Times
Chinese Company Buying G.M.’s Hummer Brand
Kaixin
Pre Finance Meltdown
Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrilly lynchily
Life is but a dream
Post Finance Meltdown
Row, row, row your boat
Quickly the other way
China sits there, open check ready
Hummering all the way
One for the USA, that makes one
1 for China
One for Europe, that makes two
11 for China
One for Britain, that makes three
111 for China
One the Australia, that makes four
1111 for China
One for Japan, that makes five
11111 for China
Oh look! They have five and China has 15. Perhaps the west should buy an abacas.
Geithner Says China Has Faith in U.S.
Kaixin – It was not that long ago that America could not have cared less whether China had faith in it or no. This dialogue between China and the U.S., indeed the West, bodes well for the world in general and the planet in particular.
Australia Bristles as China’s Economic Shadow Grows
Kaixin hears that the fluff on Malcolm Turnbull’s (Australian opposition leader) jacket is from under the bed where he has been communing with Sir Robert Menzies (Australian Prime Minister in the 1950’s – 1960’s ) about these pesky reds.
The NewYork Times
Op-Ed Contributor
‘Here Come the Workers!’
Lijia Zhang
Kaixin – You have to be careful when you read breathless insights into China from authors who are either Chinese or China Watchers. The most strident ones have not lived in China for over twenty years. When Western China Watchers visit China they mostly, it would seem, visit dissidents and so get a one-sided view of China. Note that Li Jia Zhang returned after a few years and lives there still. She found the China that Kaixin knows. Xiaosui points out that if the Chinese Government had wanted to kill the leaders of the Tiananmen Square protests they could easily have done so. Not only did they not kill them, they mostly let them leave China. She also points out that it was backed by power brokers who were using Mao’s model from the Cultural Revolution to seize power. The general view of people in China, many of whom participated in the protests, is that they were naïve and were being manipulated in a power struggle much higher up. Note also, that Li Jia Zhang was allowed to return to China. Kaixin is also acutely aware that we will be patted on the head by the trendy lefties (bit ironic that, a left wing socialist not understanding the ‘mother country’) and told that Xiaosui was indoctrinated and does not really know what went on. Ah well, China is bigger that all that.
China blamed for US net raids
Kaixin - Good Point ….. and, America would never think of hacking into China’s computers, would they? Perhaps the disaster scenarios hinted at in the article will not happen because of mutual deterance. A little like everyone having nuclear bombs. The armagedon result would be out of proportion to the gain of shutting down traffic control, electricity grids and the like. Let’s hope so.
China tells EU: don't interfere in Tibet
Kaixin – This obsession with Tibet based, it would appear, on knowledge gained through the dregs of a glass of chardonnay is rather tedious. The mantra of the bleeding heart liberals never changes. So while the talks were broad-ranging, including climate change and significant economic issues, the headline was as usual miss-leading and patronising. The focus of the talks was not Tibet, except in the minds of EU journalists and politicians huddled around their glasses of chardonnay in ‘oh so serious’ discussions. Then, again,the EU is renowned for holding talks, it is what it does best. The focus of the talks was China's engagment with the world.
There are several OpEd comments on the issue of Tibet below.
The New York Times
The Confucian Party
Kaixin – At last!! A sensible approach to the issue of the political evolution of China. China does not want to emulate the western political systems, but that is not to say it is not open to evolving its own which will be based on Chinese tradition, values and history. It is important to remember that China as an entity has been around for 5,000 years. The Communist Party, just 60, and it has evolved within that time span. Given another 100 years it will evolve even further as each succeeding generation brings fresh ideas to the table.
The New York Times
Editorial
China Can’t Have It Both Ways
Kaixin – The Editorial shows the usual lack of understanding of Chinese culture and history. The two are separate issues and call for different policies. The Editorial shows a lack of understanding of the Tibetan issues, which is clearly seen through the rose tinted glasses of the Dalai Lama. It also shows a lack of knowledge of the atrocities committed by the Japanese in the first half of the 20th Century when they invaded and occupied a weakened China, in particular the rape of Nanking. Japan has never apologised to China and does not acknowledge its history. Making an offering to the Shrine by Japan’s Prime Minister throws that history in China’s face.
Asia Times Online
Eileen Chang's fractured legacy
By Peter Lee
Kaixin - An interesting cultural insight
The New York Times
China Rights Activist Beaten at Cemetery
Kaixin – This is indeed disturbing if the State are using underground means of silencing opposition. I would hope, and believe, it was the private initiative of a lessor minion in the hierarchy. Remember, China is just 30 years from that sort of State control and many in positions of power must still be influenced by that era and its slow demise.
Asia Times Online
China keeps Tibetan chaos at bay
By Saransh Sehgal
Kaixin – That just about sums it up. The Dalai Lama and his supporters want to rule Tibet again as a separate State and look back nostalgically at the good times when they did. China has an historical claim on Tibet and sees Tibet as a part of China. In the 1950’s China swept away the old feudal and monastic hierarchy and restored the land and their freedoms to the serfs. To lose Tibet would undermine the unity and strength of China. That will not be allowed to happen. Indeed, if the ‘west’ had been serious about Tibetan concerns, they could once have restored Tibetan independence by force and stationed a permanent army there, as per Korea. Now it is too late. The dragon has stirred and would swish away an invading force with a flick of its tail.
OBAMA, CHANGE AND CHINA, Part 2
A dangerous balance
By Henry C K Liu
Kaixin – A must read for anyone interested in China. If you have not done so already, read part one first. In-depth and insightful, as ever from Henry CK Liu.
The Age
Chinese leader rules out West's democracy path
Kaixin – Given China’s history and a demographic which is still dominated by under-educated rural workers, this is an understandable stance. Before shrieking that it is against poitical reform, perhaps it would be better to research the feeling of the educated majority in China. Kaixin’s understanding from talking to many in the educated middle-class is that they support a one party state because it is the best way of ensuring that China is strong.
US angered by Chinese naval manoeuvres
Kaixin – Can you imagine the howls of outrage if China sent survellance vessels that close to America’s coastline.
The Age
Police state
Kaixin – We are back to the warm fuzzies again when the ‘west’ reads the newspaper over a cup of coffee and discusses with oh so serious concern the plight of those poor Tibetans. There is two sides to this debate, but the western media has not moved on from the cold war. It is interesting that while expressing concern over human rights and Tibet (while looking the other way about our own issues), the ‘west’ accepts investment from China.
Big powers must devise a rescue plan for Pakistan
Peter Hartcher
Kaixin – Pakistan is the main game in town at the moment. How China responds to what is going on will be interesting in terms of how China sees its role as the new international ‘power’. A role handed to it by the greed and incompetancy of the political and economic managers in the west, in particular ‘Wall Street’.
The International Herald Tribune
Top bid on disputed Yves Saint Laurent bronzes was a protest from China
Kaixin – a fundamental principal at common law is that stolen goods remain stolen goods. Title is not gained through purchase by a third party. Hence, if you buy a cheap video off the street and it is found to be stolen, the original owner can claim the video back. The thief had not gained title to video, merely possession. Hence he/she was not able to pass on that title. It is therefore breathtaking that a French court found otherwise. It must have based it decision on spoils of war or the like. However, the sculptures had been stolen, that is certain. As stolen property at no stage could true title be obtained by any purchaser, at law or morally. The Chinese nation retained and retains title. The sculptures should be returned to the people of China, their rightful owners.
Economic turmoil 'is' - still - the news today. I penned this mid 2007, it was perhaps prescient.
"Tai gui le - Too expensive"
Those were the first Chinese words I used. I had walked out of the customs area at GuangZhou airport and was an obvious mark for the helpful young men who descended on me. One led me off with much gesticulating and obvious heartfelt concern for my well-being. The asking price for helping to negotiate around 60 metres was 100 Yuan. I did not know if that was too expensive but I did know that all prices had to be negotiated, so I negotiated. He looked crestfallen, as if I had insulted his mother, grandmother and a string of ancestors. I probably just looked confused. Hence the final price was 60 yuan, which was probably three times as much as I should have paid.
On time, 99% of the time. Dream on. The one announcement burned into my psyche is along the lines of , rattle, squawk, static, we regret to inform you that flight CS - 983 to Nanning has been delayed. They pack many more people into Chinese domestic aeroplanes. I got an un-interrupted view of the cabin wall, while resting my knees in my ears.
On the flight into GuangZhou I saw how a country could accommodate 1.4 billion people. They do it in countless high-rise apartment blocks. I was intrigued to see farmers working the land beside the airport and in and about the high-rise apartments and factories. That was to become a feature of China for me: the 21st Century beside millennia of tradition - poverty side by side with wealth.
In the West we rely on fossil fuels to plant and harvest our food and transport it to where the population is. In China, they rely on labour to a far greater extent to do the same thing (though that is obviously changing, seen the price of oil lately?). Hence, if there is a major oil shock, the industrial capacity of China will be affected, but they will still be able to feed themselves, basically. How will we do that in the 'west', since we cannot even plant the crops without fossil fuel, let alone have the widespread knowledge to do so? I am not a doom-sayer, indeed I am optimistic about the [re]emergence of China. However, I know which world leaders will be more relaxed about a world oil shock in the short term.
My China experience is not travelling and sightseeing, it is not going from doss house to doss house and living on noodles, it is not travelling on public transport (though I did go on an extended overnight train journey to KunMing, of which I will regale you with tales of woe and discomfort later), it is not business, it is not teaching. It is fitting into the heart of a middle class Chinese family and a close network of friends in a small Chinese city largely un-influenced by the west. Indeed, I have only met two Europeans while in China. When I am in China, I live in an apartment in the centre of the city beside a lake.
Nanning is located about 250 north of the Vietnamese border. It has always been the trading city between China and Vietnam and still is. It hosts a major Expo each October for SE Asia and is looking to become a hub for SE Asian commerce. Like all cities in China, it is constantly evolving and growing, with apartment blocks springing up like the proverbial mushrooms.
On my last stay, as I was being driven around, rather alarmingly in a taxi, I could not help thinking to myself that if the people in America are wondering where all their money has gone, I can tell them. It has been and is being used to build high-rise buildings and factories in China.
I think of America and China as two houses side by side. America had built a large mansion and tended its gardens very well, growing food and flowers. Beside it was a small mud hut with the land being inefficiently tilled. Then the people in the mud hut started to make clothes for the rich people next door, who soon forgot how to make their own clothes. Then the people in the mud hut built a second mud hut and asked the people in the rich mansion if they could help them set up a factory and show them the technology to make widgets, of which the people in the rich mansion where particularly fond and which were a real pain to make. Best of all, the people in the mud hut could make the widgets for less and less money. And, although widgets had onlya limited life, that was OK, since they could keep on buying them from the people in the mud hut for ever and ever, cheaper and cheaper. There was obviously no need for the people in the rich mansion to ever work again; the people in the mud hut would do it for them. And so on and so on. However, the people in the rich mansion soon found that without working they could not buy widgets, or clothes. So rather than work, they first spent their savings, which didn’t take long, since they were very meagre indeed. Then they persuaded their friendly central bank to print lots of money and being devilishly clever, they paid for the widgets with bits of paper. Ha Ha Ha, sucks on you Chinese. BUT! those little bits of paper were still real claims on the wealth of the Rich Mansion. Counterfeiting is such and ugly word.
Over time, the people in the rich mansion not only gave all their money to the people in the mud hut and told them how to make just about everything, they, rather than work, borrowed money to purchase their widgets from the people in the mud-hut who all the time were very polite and smiled a lot, while reading Sun Tzu, 'The Art of War'.
Now, in 2008, the people in the rich mansion - which is starting to need some maintenance, I gotta tell you - are in effect renting from the people in the mud hut who have watched in amusement as this young nation full of hormones goes around the world fighting everyone and throwing its wealth away. 'The Art of War' counsels that you should never extend your lines or dissipate your strength on far away battles, and that the nation that does will surely lose the war.
I use the references to 'The Art of War' in an economic tactical and strategic sense not a military sense. China is certainly not looking for a war (in the western sense) with any county. Well, possibly with the exception of Taiwan ... in the fullness of time ... when it is propitious .…. when the people in the rich mansion are fixing their leaking roof.
Now, courtesy of Mr and Mrs Lehman, the people in the rich mansion are bankrupt and the people in the mud hut are eyeing off the rich mansion. I wonder how the people from the rich mansion will go living in the mud hut?
Tai gui le - too expensive!
Sydney Morning Herald
Advantage Chinalco: West loses credit race
Kaixin – So, over the past three and a bit decades the west has been busily creating money out of thin air and borrowing it to throw one of the biggest parties in history. No need to work, those busy Chinese will do it for us. One long holiday. Alas, all holidays have to come to an end, and this one has. As we leave our Ferrari behind us and trudge home we look over the dusty road and see a vision. All the time we were on holiday the Chinese had been converting their inexhaustible supply of cheap labour for real money, and, horror of horrors, saving it. Definitely unsporting of them. Now as the west tries to come to grips with the deflating of their debt economies they go in search of partners with real money. Yes, they trudge across their dusty road to the paved roads of China and give away huge chunks of their companies.
Note, the Chinese aren’t using thin air money to invest, they are using real money. The west has gone from being taken for a ride by their central banks to hitching a ride from those thrifty Chinese.
China can't stop India's missile system
By Peter J Brown
Kaixin – ‘The US seems determined to surround China with US-built anti-missile systems.’ Relax! Good ol’ Uncle Sam will protect you, they’re just for defence, honest. We can’t even spell containment.
The Age
Beijing clamps down on critics
John Garnaut, Beijing
CHARTER 08
This year is the 100th year of China's Constitution, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 30th anniversary of the birth of the Democracy Wall, and the 10th year since China signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. After experiencing a prolonged period of human rights disasters and a tortuous struggle and resistance, the awakening Chinese citizens are increasingly and more clearly recognizing that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal common values shared by all humankind, and that democracy, a republic, and constitutionalism constitute the basic structural framework of modern governance. A "modernization" bereft of these universal values and this basic political framework is a disastrous process that deprives humans of their rights, corrodes human nature, and destroys human dignity. Where will China head in the 21st century? Continue a "modernization" under this kind of authoritarian rule? Or recognize universal values, assimilate into the mainstream civilization, and build a democratic political system? This is a major decision that cannot be avoided.
Kaixin – Until I met Xiaosui, I thought that democracy was, indeed, just political common sense. However, Xiaosui has pointed out that in history when China has been waring with itself, with no clear leader, it has been weak and vulnerable. When China had a clear, strong leader, it was also strong. She says that if your counry is weak, you are weak. If your country is strong, you are strong.
She illustrates this with history, but also with the story of her uncle whose factories were consficated by the Japanese in the late 1930’s. She points out that if China had been strong, then the Japanese could not have raped and pillaged their way through the land in the 1930’s/early 40’s. They could not have taken her uncle’s factory.
Her concern is that democracy will simply weaken China. She voices the concern of the middle class in China I believe.
A basic pre-requisite for democracy is education. Is the general population of China, including the rural and urban workers, sufficiently educated now? I don’t know. Is the general population of Australia, America, and so on sufficiently educated. I sometimes doubt it. It is a big call to make.
The masses now can readily unite in China through the internet and mobile phone text messages, a formof democracy. Will that grow into a call for democracy as envisaged by the west? I see little evidence of that.
I suspect that if you asked a cross-section of those calling for democracy to define just what they meant, you would get a startlingly diverse range of answers.
The middle class will not rebel against a system that has given them so much material wealth. Xiaosui, her family and her friends are all middle class. They are certainly not calling for a change of political regime. They are highly educated, intelligent and aware. They are just not interested in politics on the level of Charter 08.
I am sure the government in China realises that all it has to do to avoid a democratic revolution is make sure that wealth is more evenly distributed. Indeed, it is doing just that.
Widipedia has a good section on Charter 08, but the critics of China are the usual bunch of suspects. Whence does the general call for change in China come from? It is, I suspect, but a small eddy in a da feng.
Graeme Mills (Ed: of Kaixin)
A return to De Gaulle's 'eternal China'
By David Gosset
Kaixin – It’s all about timeframes. The west is hooked on the 24 hour news cycle and those 3 monthly company reports (works of creative fiction) which allowed a generation of gamblers to think of themselves as prudent investors. Napoleon had a vision of a united Europe, probably without Britain. He was just a little early. Charles de Gaulle could see through the muddy waters of Mao’s China to the latent power of the stirring dragon. When Hu Jintao was asked about the French revolution his reply was informative, ‘it is too early to tell’.
When you think of China, think of 5,000 years of history. Mao got rid of the old China, which had become moribund. Deng Xiaoping freed the shackles of Mao’s communism to allow the latent power of the dragon to stir. The 21st century is only 100 years out of 5,000. A sneeze for a dragon who has plenty of time.
The Australian
Chinese police quiz human rights petitioners
Kaixin– ‘and even police calling’ – that about sums it up. The headline screams in moral outrage that these communist dictators and their stazi police are quizzing human rights petitioners. Yet, it is clear from the article that, some police, may have questioned, the petitioners according to unsubstantiated reports.
Note, that the petition is not about human rights but about political reforms. Yet the headling cleverly slips in human rights as the issue.
Kaixin has previously noted that the Communist Party will not tolerate a direct threat to its power. Not that a petition signed by 303 ‘intellectuals’ (masters of theory who seem to believe that the application of their theories will not have unexpected consequences) is a threat to anything really. Kaixin has also noted that most Chinese are pretty content with a single strong party in power and are not calling for democracy. The article clearly shows the gap in understanding between China and the ‘west’ on this issue.
Kaixin wonders what would change if these 303 intellectuals were given power. After all, the Communist Party started with a small group of dissident intellectuals. Which is probably why they are keeping an eye on this particular candle of dissent. Not much would change if you think about it. This lot of dissidents would make decisions based on information given them by officials and some of those decisions will be right, some wrong, and most will have unexpected consequences.
The Age
China's Olympic purges revealed
Kaixin– The connection between those arrested and the Olympics is based on the opinion of one human rights activist. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it is a poor source on which to base such a biased headline. A headline that hints at the dark days of the Stalin purges and in breathless excitement as though from a journalist who risked all to get the story ‘reveals’ this dastardly purge. When actually it was the mutterings of one person safely ensconced in America.
The Age
China threatens massive internet crackdown
Kaixin – This is a fraught issue. If it is just about pornography etc then the officials are treading that thin line between free speech and censorship. In Australia they are planning to bring in a nanny state that censors pornography on the net. This is being righly resisted.
All governments know the power of the press and now the power of the internet. How this is managed over time will be interesting to watch. Big brother is definitly watching.
Asia Times Online
In China, Bush nostalgia
By Kent Ewing
Kaixin - Well worth a read as it traces the rise to power of China v America
Chinese aim for the Ivy League
Kaixin sees the reverse stating to take place, the first stirrings. The parents who are obsessed with getting their children into foreign universities came through the Cultural Revolution. They have seen the rise of China but are still influenced by times when the best thing you could do for your child was send them overseas to be educated. China’s top universities are world class – perhaps not at the level of Yale, Oxford and the like, but still world class. They are producing graduates who are not out of touch with their society after a decade or so of study abroad. Twenty years ago a foreign degree was highly sort after by employers in China. Now it is starting to be viewed with a degree of scepticism.
Kaixin’s prediction is that over the next twenty years the tide will turn and students from all over the world will go to China to study.
Two of China's quake victims rebuild their lives
Kaixin – Perhaps that is the message for this ‘western’ new year – ‘Let the past be the paste we have already started a new life’.
China navy mission makes neighbours nervous
Kaixin – That just about sums it up. Why do you need a navy when we have a really, really good one? And, besides, we’re such nice guys. It is unlikely China will want to rival America in any sort of serious arms race to Armageddon. Yet, at the same time, China is in effect surrounded by the U.S. and needs to maintain her defensive capability as a deterrent.
Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, best buddies with Pakistan, bases in the ‘Stans’, bloody big navies in the pacific and middle east ….. and so on.
Sun Tzu councils not to fight in far off places as it dissipates your nations resources and leaves you vulnerable.
This is a sortie to protect China’s growing interests in Africa. It is also a message to America that China is capable of defending herself against an aggressor who is far from home with extended supply lines.
So, China will indeed allow America to spend huge sums of money on its self appointed role as the world’s policeman. It will, however, not lose sight of the fact that policemen have big boots.
Asia Times Online
China kills chickens to frighten monkeys
By Verna Yu
Kaixin - (see below) While the west has been busy squandering its capital and creating inequality, China has been amassing capital and is now addressing inequality.
It occurred to Kaixin that China paid for the Olympics from the savings of its people. At the same time the west is busily either borrowing money or creating it out of thin air to pay for its excesses; to keep the whole bloated carcass alive. Wake up fellas, that movement is coming from the maggots inside, not from any sign of life.
The Age
Online manifesto draws Chinese
Kaixin - In a population of 1.4 billion, there has to be the full range of views and opinions. Kaixin does not seem to mix in these circles, we mix with basically middle-class well educated people. Indeed, we had two friends from that strata of society staying with us on the weekend.
The call could be a tiny, tiny, tiny (3,600 people out of 1.4 billion is hardly a political movement) breath of change, or it could just be a few people having a whinge.
Why is the west so obsessed with China becoming a democracy? Democracy grew slowly in the west and works in these societies. However, that does not mean that it will work in China. I have not spoken to any Chinese who are calling for democracy. They all say that to be strong, and face up to the west, the United Staes in particular, China needs strong and united leadership. That comes, they say, from a single party.
In China a call for a change from communism to democracy is called reform by the western media. A call for a western country to change from democracy to communism is called revolution by the same media.
Kaixin has noted before the power of the internet, and in particular the power of the mobile phone text message to give the average person a voice in China. The Chinese government heeds that voice and change is taking place in China, reform if you will. Change is slow, it is hard to stir a dragon the size of China.
The Chinese government does not suffer a direct challenge to its power for that is a direct challenge to the stability of China, hence the well being of the Chinese people. The last successful challenge to the established order took almost 40 years of turmoil to finally throw up a clear winner, the Communist Party. In that time China was so weakened it suffered the invasion by Japan. There are not many people in China who want to go back to that turmoil just for the sake of coming up with a new set of leaders who will make just as many mistakes as the current set.
Intellectuals call for change because they believe they see clearly, where as, in their lofty opinion, the masses do not. It is an arrogance to believe that they have the answer to any problems that may beset China. They have answers, yes, but they also have unexpected consequences. Hence back to square one. The Chinese people we mix with are happy stick with the devil they know, or should I say, the dragon they know.
International Herald Tribune
Chinese graduates recruited for rural work
Kaixin – This is the new China we know. A China that is using its wealth and educated youth to bring about reform in the countryside. In a remarkably short time China has industrialised. What took around 200 years in the west, was achieved in around 30 years in China. China, of course, had the advantage of all that hard won technology and know how from the west. The social and economic divide between the urban and the country grew alarmingly in that time (with all sorts of distortions inherent in such massive change). However at the beginning of that change, China, as an under-developed rural society, did not have the wealth to address all the issues, so it concentrated on industrialisation and in unleashing the full potential of its people. Now it is a wealthy industrial society and it has the means to address issues such as rural inequality. While the west has been busy squandering its capital and creating inequality, China has been amassing capital and is now addressing inequality.
And the west calls on China to mimic it …………..
Q – On what basis?
Asia Times Online
CHINA'S DOLLAR MILLSTONE, Part 5
Restoring China's national destiny
By Henry C K Liu
Kaixin - A must read - all 5 articles are linked to this article
Kaixin - The following article has more of an international relevance. It is well worth reading.
Human rights and climate wrongs
Asia Times Online
India quakes over China's water plan
By Sudha Ramachandran
Kaixin - Conventional Wisdom is that the next major war will be over water .............. yikes!!!
Asia Times Online
SUN WUKONG
Cracks in a great wall of silence
By Wu Zhong, China Editor
Kaixin - The Internet and mobile phones have bought a grass roots democracy to China. It will be interesting if that translates into a call for democracy. I doubt it. Most Chinese instinctivly know that to be strong, China needs strong leadership from a unified government. Most Chinese that I meet are happy with the current form of government and will use their new found democratic voice to improve the existing structure, rather than call for its downfall. After all, they ask, what would they replace it with? And the turmoil would weaken China, just as it is taking its place on the world stage.
The Australian
Chinalco shifts Rio Tinto stake after Lehman collapse
Gindalbie ponders Chinese funding deal
Kaixin – the significance of the above two articles is their presence. China is now using its wealth to buy into the raw materials it needs to generate wealth. It’s capacity to weather the current financial storm will be the forward thinking that has seen it diversify its markets, domestically, into Asia, into Africa. It no longer relies on America to buy its widgets. Now, it is also looking to buy into the profits being generated by its voracious appetite for raw materials.
Abusive Chinese official sacked after internet hunt
Jane Macartney, Beijing
Kaixin – The Internet and mobile phones are bringing a new democracy to China. I first witnessed the power of this in the lead up to the Olympic Games. Many people in China, in particular the youth, were angry at the disruption of the torch relay. Foreign companies with a presence in China, in particular WalMart, were targeted if they showed support for the Tibet issue, either by commission or omission. The text message was used to mobilise 10,000’s of people to boycott these businesses, thus forcing them to take a stand.
It occurred to me then that a new form of democracy has come to China. I should hasten to add, that the people were not directing their anger at the Government, nor were they calling for democracy. Indeed, there was a strong pride for China and definite support for the Government.
Once again, we see the people of China voicing their disapproval via the I.T. Revolution. I wonder how long it will be before it is used for a political purpose. The Government in China is no doubt aware of this, and are watching it carefully.
Asia Times Online
A China base in Iran?
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
China tests its mettle in Syria
By Chris Zambelis
Kaixin - The Middle East provides a source of that critical raw material, oil. It also becomes a market for all those widgets that China is so good at producing.
SUN WUKONG
China's yuan in conspiracy crossfire
By Wu Zhong, China Editor
Kaixin - ……. And why should China play the $US game. The game is rigged in America’s favour and that corrupt and self serving institution, the Central Bank of America, has debased the $US for its own purposes. China has played a more astute game. It has effectively used the $US to create massive wealth and is now powerful enough, economically and militarily, to thumb its nose at America. China will increase the value of the Yuan when it suites China, not when it suites America.
Online Uproar in China as drunken official grabs 11 year old girl - AFP
Kaixin – The Internet and mobile phones are bringing a new democracy to China. I first witnessed the power of this in the lead up to the Olympic Games. Many people in China, in particular the youth, were angry at the disruption of the torch relay. Foreign companies with a presence in China, in particular WalMart, were targeted if they showed support for the Tibet issue, either by commission or omission. The text message was used to mobilise 10,000’s of people to boycott these businesses, thus forcing them to take a stand.
It occurred to me then that a new form of democracy has come to China. I should hasten to add, that the people were not directing their anger at the Government, nor were they calling for democracy. Indeed, there was a strong pride for China and definite support for the Government.
Once again, we see the people of China voicing their disapproval via the I.T. Revolution. I wonder how long it will be before it is used for a political purpose. The Government in China is no doubt aware of this, and are watching it carefully.
International Herald Tribune – 23rd Aug 08
Who can begrudge the ordinary Chinese their joy?
Kaixin - The China that I experience is of friendly, helpful people. People who are secure in their lives. People who are immensely proud of their country and who support their government. People who look askance at the western media and openly question the purported benefits of democracy. They are happy to let their government govern while they get on with their lives. That is the relationship the Chinese people have had with their government for millennia.
Now, China is an awakening giant with an immense geopolitical presence in the world. It is now being noticed by the ‘west’. A ‘west’ that is essentially industrialized and democratic. A ‘west’ that is proud of its democratic freedoms. A ‘west’ that is secure within itself and fails to understand a different reality, a different socio-political way of life.
The Olympics has been China’s coming out party. China has been quietly growing over the last thirty years since Deng unleashed the economic shackles in 1979. Now the dragon has taken centre stage. The ‘west’ will have to accommodate and try to understand a different world view if it is to engage with China.
The ‘west’ can either be threatened by those differences or it can embrace them. It can either snipe at China and pretend it is still the China that the out of date journalist still fondly remembers or it can accept that the new China will only respond to reasoned and respectful dialogue as befits a world power. Move aside America, you ain’t the only lady on the stage no more.
International Herald Tribune
China says Web use surpasses that in U.S.
Kaixin – The Internet has bought a new form of democracy to China. People across vast geographic and social distances can now communicate with each other. However the Internet is subject to control and censorship. The real techno-democracy is the mobile phone network. Kaixin witnessed first hand the power of the text message during the Olympics. The worldwide furore over Tibet stirred up Chinese pride and nationalism, particularly in the technically savvy younger generation. International companies that overtly supported Tibet were the target of every effective boycotts and were forced to disavow any support of Tibet. Kaixin wondered at the time if the youth of China realised that they had found a democratic voice; one which the Government could not easily censor or shut down. Yet, the Government has little to fear if our son’s attitude is any indication. He is very proud of his country and his heritage. He understands that to be strong China needs a single strong government. In China, techno-democracy will be used to support the Government and make China strong. Yet, Kaixin is sure that the leaders of the Communist Party have heard the whisper of democracy and will stay attuned to this new political summer wind, lest it become a gale.
Kaixin - China sits quietly and watches the financial meltdown of the west; in particular the socialisation of losses.
I do not seem to recall any of the hotshot banks or their executives volunteering to socialise the profits.
So, these doyens of capitalism run to mummy and embrace communism when the proverbial hits the fan.
My suggestion to the system – grow up and take your medicine like men, and the occassional woman.
The system needs to purge these people and find new people of integrity to man the ships of capitalism and State.
Perhaps now the young whipper snipper, America, will stop telling the old man, China, about life.
No?? I don’t think so either.
China's Paralympic possibilities
By Kent Ewing
This time around the success of the Games should not be judged by their ceremonial majesty, their state-of-the-art infrastructure or by the number of gold medals the Chinese team accumulates. The Paralympics can be deemed a success if the spectacle of 4,000-plus mentally and physically disabled athletes performing in a challenging array of sports manages to change widespread, deeply ingrained prejudices against the handicapped in Chinese society.
Kaixin - I fully concur. However the ‘west’ cannot rest on its laurels. There is still a way to go. As a person with a disability I know too well that there is still a level of prejudice in the west. It is understandable in any society. A well person cannot relate to an unwell person. It is fundamental to human nature. Any advances made go against a profound and elemental lack of empathy. I applaud the advances made in any society and understand that any further progress will come through quiet persistence. The paralympics are a chance to show the world that while the body may have a disability the mind is still strong and with the right attitude great things can be achieved.
China's quake orphans get cold shoulder
Kaixin – another example of picking the eyes out of a story to create a false headline. After less than three months, June, out of an estimated 5,000 displaced children only 1,019 had not been re-united with their parents. Yes, some of the families do not want to take on a child with obvious problems. That certainly does not show a big heart. However, a small minority of small hearts does not translate to a headline – China’s quake orphans get cold shoulder. It may be taking some months to sort out the paperwork and there may be un-necessary delays, but surely it is better to first of all make sure the parents are not still living and then have a careful procedure for the adoption process.
The issue of families taking a child gets tied up in the one child policy. However, the article describes concern by the agency to try to give families who lost children in the earthquake priority. There is also concern by the agency about schooling.
All of which clearly shows that the headline could just as easily have read – China’s quake orphans finding homes again.
China sentences 2 elderly women to labor for seeking to protest
Li said his mother and Wang, a former neighbor who is nearly blind, were allowed to return home but were told they could be sent to a detention center at any moment. "Can you imagine two old ladies in their 70s being re-educated through labor?" he asked.
A man who answered the phone at the Public Security Bureau declined to give out information about the case.
Kaixin – So, this is either heartless repression by an authoritarian regime or a complete beat up.
The information comes from the son of one of the ladies. There is no confirmation of the story. Finding a human rights activist to comment would be a doddle
If the details are true then it is a definite demerit. It could of course, just have been one of the security police sending the women on their way with a flea in their ear. Not good, but not a story worthy of such a headline.
From On-Line Opinions
TIBET
It is interesting to compare the history of Tibet with Australia.
Tibet had been part of Greater China since 1279. Well, from China’s perspective. Tibet has always begged to differ, but as long as they sent some loot to the Chinese Emperor and were duly obsequious, things rubbed along OK. Tibet had evolved from a warrior state to one of peace, love and monasteries. Monasteries where the monks sat around all day contemplating peace, love and how to live for many, many lifetimes while the average ‘joe’ worked their tails off to supply the necessary loot to build the monasteries and staff them with contemplative monks. In 1949 the ‘New’ China marched in and changed all that.
Australia was looked after, extremely well, for around 50,000 years by an essentially peaceful peoples who had learned to live in harmony with nature. It certainly was not a warrior state, and did not go around the region kicking other States in the googlies.
The life was not arduous, and consisted mainly of wandering around getting enough to eat, which usually did not take all that long, so the rest of the time was spent in contemplation and ceremony. In 1788 Britain marched in and changed all that.
For both countries it has been an exercise in real-politick, the defeat of the weaker power by the stronger power.
Indeed, that has been the history of the world. It is the basis of co-existence between all species, all plants, all microbes ……………….. everything.
For the last 220 years the Australians who looked after this land for 50,000 years have had to come to terms with the invasion and defeat of their nation(s). Reconciliation is a recognition of that reality, the ‘is’. What ‘ought’ to have happened is a mute point, because it ‘didn’t’. Reconciliation is the final capitulation that tries to salvage some measure of dignity. It is the recognition of the real-politick, the defeat of their nation by the stronger power.
For nearly 60 years the Tibetans have had to come to terms with the invasion and defeat of what they thought was their nation. There has been weak and very peaceful protest for all that time, which has had all the effect of waving a wet tissue at a very self-satisfied dragon. A dragon that occasionally breathes fire onto the protestors to show where the real power lies.
And the rest of the world? Well , lets face it, apart from a few ineffectual bleeding heart liberals, the rest of the world couldn’t give a toss. Bleeding heart liberals, I have found, seem to mix up their ‘is’ with their ‘ought’ and get into terribly confused muddles. They are the ‘wombats’ of the world; well meaning, cute, but essentially pointless.
From China’s point of view, Tibet has always been a part of China. Tibet is also the roof of the world and was (and is) a key strategic area in a threatening world. Mao, for all the demonising of the West, essentially wanted to reduce the inequality between the haves and the have-nots. He perceived that Tibet was run by a lot of very rich monks in very rich monasteries who lived off the sweat and labour of the peasants. He reasoned that all the wealth should be more evenly distributed. He also believed that you cannot have many nations within a nation and many competing leaders. To be strong, China had to be unified under one leader. So, the Dalai Lama was regarded by China as simply another leader who wanted (wants) his power back. The monks, as a ruling elite who simply wanted their power back.
They were never going to get it because they were the weaker power.
From Britain’s point of view, Australia was terra-nullius, the land of no-one. It may have been a false assumption, but it was the assumption of those who wielded the power. So, it was the reality, it was the ‘is’. From a strategic point of view, it is interesting that Britain thought that having a naval base in the Pacific was probably not such a bad idea, bit like Tibet. Though, at first, the need for a place to send the riff-raff as far away as possible was the paramount imperative.
All of which is interesting and academic, but does not change the reality for the original Australians not one jot. They lost their nation(s) to the stronger power.
So, when does a defeated nation accept the defeat and get on with it?
These protests coming out of Tibet will have little effect except to provoke a fiery breath from the Dragon. The bleeding hearts will run around in another breathless muddle and get terribly excited. To be consistent, if China has to give back Tibet, then they should give back Australia, or at least their own property. Strike a moral blow, fellas. The rest of the world will watch the Olympics on Sky TV and then get back to making money.
Real-politick.
Tibet
A short History through Chinese eyes
My wife, Xiaosui, grew up immersed in Chinese History. She talks about her father a lot. He was a natural historian and a very wise man. He always said that you must try to choose to see from another way. Try to understand how the other person sees the world. I have tried to do that with this short history of China as seen through Xiaosui’s eyes.
Essentially, from China’s perspective Tibet, or Xi Zang as it is called in China, has been closely associated with China since the 7th Century and a part of Greater China since 1271AD under the Yuan Dynasty.
In the 7th Century Tibet was unified under Song zan gan bu and friendly relations were established with the Tang Dynasty. The Chinese Emperor sent his daughter to be married to Song zan gan bu, thus consolidating the ties of State in the time honoured way. Tibet was allowed to remain an autonomous State but with strong allegiance to China. This relationship lasted until the Yuan Dynasty, founded 1279.
The Yuan Dynasty consolidated power in China. The Yuan Dynasty came out of the Mongul invasions and as Tibet had strong ties with the Monguls it was happy to become part of the Greater China. There was no war between Tibet and China, it was by choice.
The Ming Dynasty, 1368, ruled Tibet through Governors who were appointed from the Tibetan ruling class. So, the presence of China was not strongly felt. However, that was equally so in all the outlying provinces of China. That did not mean that China did not regard these provinces as separate, or autonomous. They were regarded as very much a part of the Greater China.
In 1644 the Qing Dynasty replaced the Ming Dynasty and once again took a strong interest in Tibet, giving it a strong system of law and government. China saw itself as the father, bestowing strength, wisdom and discipline. In 1652 the Monk Leader, Wu Shi Da Lai, went to Bei Jing and was bestowed the title of Da Lai La Ma by the Emperor Shun Zhi. In 1713 Kang Xi, the Chinese Emperor, further strengthened that title and from this time the Monk Leader ruled Tibet as the Da Lai La Ma. The Monks held the power and the secular Governor was relegated to a care-taking rule in civil administration.
The Qing Dynasty, from 1727, lost interest in Tibet as it tried to cope with the issues of colonisation by Britain and other rapacious European powers. They contented themselves with appointing civil governors and allowed the Da Lai La Ma to in effect rule Tibet. However, at no point, did they regard Tibet as autonomous.
Until 1750 civil Governors could be appointed from the Tibetan Ruling Class or from China. From 1750 the Governor was always Chinese. This lasted until the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.
The Qing Dynasty’s death rattle took around twenty years and in that time China lost much of its power. Helped not a little by Britain peddling opium. Tibet now sensed that China was at an end and its grip on power was finished. The power of the Monks under the Da Lai la Ma, increased.
1911 – 1949 were very turbulent years in China. Looking inward and immersed in its own internal conflict, China lost control of the outlying provinces, of which Tibet was one. Then in 1949 Mao emerged the victor and seized power.
Mao had fought the Japanese (unlike Chiang ki-shek, who lost the support and respect of the people because of this) and had learned the hard way that China could not afford to be divided if it were to be powerful. Being raped by another nation is not pleasant and tends to stick in the mind, somewhat. One of Mao’s first priorities was to bring the outlying Provinces, over which China had a historical claim, back into the fold. Tibet was one of those provinces.
It is interesting and informative to note that Mao did not try to extend his reach any further. He had a powerful and experienced army at his command. The West had been weakened by WW11. He could have easily taken many small countries around those outlying provinces. However, he chose only those over which China had a historical claim. Thus not provoking Russia, Britain and America. Although weakened, they were still very powerful. To understand that strategy, it is best to read Sun Tzu, ‘The Art of War’, which counsels a Ruler not to extend his(her) lines and concentrate on consolidating power. For the Ruler who extends his(her) lines weakens the State and inevitably the extended lines will be cut off, unless they are very, very strong. Let your mind mull over the current actions of America, which is running the around world like a hormonal adolescent, in contrast to the actions of China. Honk Kong was a waiting game. Taiwan?? What is 50, 100, 200 years in 5,000?
Note also, that China took a stand in Vietnam and Korea, but did not push through. The West saw it as the advance of Communism. China saw it as the invasion by he West.
Xiaosui, when I first started to talk about Tibet from my eyes, was surprised. For her it was clear-cut. Tibet had always been a part of China. The Monks were a parasitic lot who oppressed the people. She looked around to find a word that described the people of Tibet at that time. The word she found was ‘helot’. From the ODE - a member of a class of serfs in ancient Sparta, intermediate in status between slaves and citizens. She talked of autrocities being committed on the 'helot' class in Tibet by their own ruling class.
China, through its eyes, did not invade, it liberated an oppressed people. Indeed, the average Tibetan welcomed the Red Army at first. However, the Red Army did not understand the close nexus between the Tibetan People and their religion. The Tibetans were no doubt pleased to see the end of any oppression, but did not want to see the end of their culture both secular and religious.
Xiaosui agrees with this; that the culture of Tibet should have been and should be preserved. However, as she points out, that is not the way of the world. That is not real-politick.
The strong, inevitably dominate the weak, which equally inevitably diss-appear over time.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON CHINA IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS NEWS ITEMS
What the feaking heck do you think the average Chinese worker is thinking? “Oh, so glad to serve you, you condescending prick”, delivered with inscrutable oriental smile.
OR, perhaps he/she is thinking, “I get paid nothing so you can swan around the world taking photos of quaint people……………… fluck off!”
We in the west moan and groan about human rights, about pollution in China, about how terrible it is that these poor people are paid so little to produce this lovely designer doodlywhat or thingamigiger. Yet we line up and keep on buying those lovely cheap doodlywhats that are a direct cause of pollution in China. We line up and say loud and clearly to the Chinese Government, “we couldn’t give a bugger about anything as long as you keep on sending those lovely cheap thingmigigers.”
Tiananmen Square??? The world snivels and weeps for a few moments and then heads of to do business with China.
Low Wages???? First the west sends all the manufacturing jobs to China, et al, and then concentrates on reducing the real wages of the remaining workers, who are becoming an endangered species.
Human Rights?? An Olympic sized problem.
The Environment ???? Com’on pay up! Who is prepared to pay the full cost of products from China?? The cost with the full externalities factored in. You know, ‘externalities’……. that isn’t the air around you after a huge Chinese meal, or Indian curry. That is the cost to the world of producing something that causes pollution, or any form of environmental degradation. For example, the full cost of that Chinese meal with all the externalities factored in, should be the intangible cost of me gasping for breath after your particularly noxious ‘feng pi’. Which reminds me, what cost the visual pollution or the drowning of whole areas of heritage landscape?? If it is not in the price we pay now, then we have left it for our children to pay.
So when you are swanning around pretending to be rich, with six and a half times the purchasing power for your dollar (ie: you haven’t done a thing to earn it), don’t be surprised if someone is less than impressed and seriously considers doing something about it. That poor bastard in China had just suffered the worst winter in 50 years and believe me, the poor in China really get the raw end of the pineapple when it comes to suffering. Had a member of his family frozen to death because they could not afford proper food, clothing or shelter because we in the west are not prepared to pay the full cost of products from China, cost that includes social and environmental externalities.
I expect not, after all, what are the odds that all the clothing worn by those tourists were made in China?
Xiaosui, has become very involved in the current issue of Tibet. She asks why people in Australia see it only one way, why they don’t try to understand the Chinese thinking. She says that in China they say that only the person trying on the shoe knows if it fits or not.
This issue is undoubtedly complex. It will be solved through dialogue and respect. Not though mistrust and insult. Most definitely, it will not be solved through violence.
Xiaosui asks what the Australian Government would do if there such rioting and violence on the street. She points out that when the Tibetan protestors broke the law the were arrested.
It is instructive, I think, that reports are filtering through the much of the Western reporting has been biased and inaccurate. It has pandered to what it perceives as prejudice rather than contribute to better understanding through un-biased factual journalism.
This is not to say that the Chinese government is perfect and blameless. Neither is it the ogre that many in the ‘West’ make it out to be.
Chinese newspapers everyday are talking about Tibet.
People in China are all paying attention to what is happening in Tibet. I read one news report about how Tibetan people were helping the Han people when they were threatened by the rioting Tibetans. One old woman helped a Han family whose home had been surrounded and was in danger of being set on fire with them in it. She escorted them to a safe place, then she walked back home in the freezing cold for three hours.
Another Han woman, who has a shop in Lhasa, saw many people on the street coming to break into the shop so she quickly closed it. Just before she shut the door, two Tibetan students ran into her shop asked for help. They were being attacked, even though they were Tibetans. She let the students come in her shop and closed the door. She waited a long time until she thought the people had left before opening the door again to let the students go home. Many of the rioting Tibetans had been hiding outside. They forced their way in and attacked her, her husband and her son. The rioting Tibetans then cut off her ear. She had been very brave to protect the two students who, eventually, were able to get safely home.
When the elderly Tibetan woman were asked why she had helped the Han Chinese, she said that she did not support the rioting and could not hurt another person; that was not the Tibetan way. She also said that the Tibetan people’s standard of living had increased over the years so they were happy living with Han Chinese.
Also a German newspaper said sorry to Chinese Government for incorrectly reporting the news about what was happening in Tibet.
From Kaixins earlier contributions to On-Line Opinion
n the last few weeks I have tried to present another perspective to the current protests in Tibet. I have tried to argue my case in a consistent and respectful way. Having presented another perspective, I would now like to suggest a way forward and answer my friend's question, "What would I do about Tibet?"
I watched the television coverage of the joint media conference by President George Bush and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Their respective answers on the issue of Tibet were informative. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in a measured and articulate response, called on the Chinese Government to recognise the concerns about human rights abuses and suggested that discussions with the Dalai Llama would be productive. President George Bush then said that he had rung Hu Jintao and told him the same thing. He then praised Kevin Rudd’s obvious expertise on China.
The tone of Kevin Rudd’s response was respectful and measured. The tone of George Bush’s response was self-satisfied with a touch of arrogance.
This morning I talked to my wife Xiaosui (degree, teacher, historian, successful businesswoman, mother, born in 1966, father branded a counter-revolutionary so the entire family suffered during the Cultural Revolution) and asked her how the West could best approach the Chinese Government on this issue.
I did this because I have come to realise since meeting and marrying Xiaosui that my knowledge of China is basic to reasonable, but more importantly, my understanding of the Chinese mind is rudimentary at best.
The following is based on her response. She could do it herself in Chinese, as she is an excellent writer and highly articulate. However, most of the readers could not read it. She does not feel that she could do justice in her second language, which she has only been using for a little over one year now.
In the West we hold proudly to the notion of “freedom of speech”. This allows vociferous fringe elements to loudly voice their opinion, usually with personal verbal abuse. Heaping disrespect and verbal abuse on our politicians is a time-honoured sport. It is the way we do things. In our societies it works. It is robust and brings out the issues.
Xiaosui points out that in China for most of their history, arguably until 1979, China has been ruled by one person; a King up until 1911, then Mao as a dictator from 1949. The usual response, throughout Chinese history, to dissent or personal criticism of the King was to have the entire family killed. Xiaosui points out that this notion is held deeply within the Chinese consciousness.
Mostly people learned, assiduously, to mind their own business. The way to have wrongs re-dressed or things done was to petition the King. It was still fraught with danger, particularly if you by-passed a powerful Governor, but it was available. Naturally, it had to be done respectfully and be well supported.
Xiaosui points to recent history where the Governor of the Guanxi Province was executed for fraud and corruption. People in Guanxi petitioned the Government in Beijing. The Governor was investigated and found guilty. The system may not work perfectly, but how perfectly does it work in the West?
Freedom of speech was not possible under Mao. Criticism of Mao or the government was met with severe punishment. Deng Xiaoping loosened the shackles and allowed criticism of the government and open discussion. People in China are slowly warming to this idea. Small peaceful demonstrations, in a park or a government building, are allowed without a permit. Large Demonstrations are now allowed with a police presence and government permission.
It may not be as open as the West, but it is happening. If the demonstration is peaceful then there is no intervention. If it is not and there is danger to people and property, then the police step in. Permits are required for large demonstrations mainly for the purpose of traffic control and police presence, similar to the West.
There is debate in the West that the requirement of any permit is a de facto form of state control. The same argument applies to China, no doubt. I have seen quite large “demonstrations” myself with the police standing around looking extremely bored. China has come a long way since Mao, when criticism, even within the home, could be dangerous.
Within China, the exception is a demonstration that openly challenges the power of the government, in effect, the Communist Party. That will not be tolerated: which leads to the current state of affairs in Tibet.
The information that I have received, which no doubt will be challenged, is that the Chinese Police in Tibet were ordered to monitor the demonstrations but not intervene. It was when the demonstrations turned to violence that intervention became necessary. I would ask that readers give time and wait until more, verifiable, news filters out of Tibet from eye witness accounts (not journalists who have flown in after the event) before coming to any conclusion on that point. I believe there are three Australians, non-journalists, who elected to stay in Lhasa. Their accounts will be interesting.
If a demonstration in the West turns to violence, then the police intervene and the politicians refuse to negotiate with the demonstrators. Once again, I fail to see the difference with China. Ponder that in relation to Tibet.
The point I am trying to make is that respectful and reasoned argument will be listened to. Violence and threats will not. How is that so different to the West?
Think about how you would respond to someone who threatened and verbally or physically abused you. Consider the difference if that person approached you reasonably to discuss the issue. Which do you think would be the most effective approach?
We in the West seem to want everything to happen now. We want instant agreement. Instant action. I would suggest that there seems to be arrogance in that attitude. It is the West that wants to engage with China. It is the West that wants China to consider the issues. Issues the West thinks are important. Surely we should consider how China approaches negotiation and change.
China is a huge country with many and diverse provinces. It has about 1.4 billion people. Change does not happen quickly. However, the first step is getting the government to consider change. I would submit that the West, in general, is going about this in a fundamentally wrong way.
It is seldom that a government of any country agrees to everything that is proposed. It is important to find a first step. With trust and mutual respect that can be built on over time.
I believe Prime Minister Kevin Rudd understands this. In all probability so does President George Bush and the other Western leaders. However, they have to bring their constituencies along with them.
Tibet has been a part of China for several hundred years. There have undoubtedly been good times and bad times. Now is a bad time. The point that the West has to accept is that Tibet is a part of China. That is non-negotiable from the Chinese perspective and they have historical record to back that up.
Xiaosui recounts that the Chinese King who engaged with the newly united Tibet sent his daughter to marry the new King, Song zan gan bu. She also points out that China regarded the people of that region very much the same way that Britain regarded the native inhabitants of the lands they forcibly dragooned into the British Empire, including the Australian Aboriginal. The Chinese King sent his daughter as a mark of respect. He was aware that a positive relationship could only be developed out of respect. I would like to see anyone suggest that the King of England would have sent his daughter to marry an Aboriginal Leader in the late 1700s.
In conclusion, I would suggest the following would be a starting point to engage China in meaningful discussion on this issue:
1. give the Chinese Government the respect owed to a Nation with 5,000 years of history and to President Hu Jintao, the respect owed to the leader of that nation;
2. do not ask for the impossible: accept that Tibet is a part of China;
3. be sure of your ground when supporting the Dalai Llama. On what basis does he speak for all of Tibet?
4. find a simple basis on which to agree and then build on that; and
5. give it time.
The Beijing Olympics are an opportunity for the West to positively engage with China. Boycotts and ill-informed, empty rhetoric will destroy that opportunity.