Who lost China's Internet?

[Alinestra Covelia]

I apologize for the somewhat devolutionary nature of this post, but I've got a few comments to make about the article in the first post of this thread.

The overwhelming impression I got through reading it was that the author has a very strong anti-Chinese-government bias. This is not criticism of him, just an observation - and a note that a reader should exercise the same restraint in belief as you might when reading a very strong pro-Chinese-government publication, such as Qing Nian Ribao or China Daily.

Secondly, the author takes great exception to the Chinese government's usage of the internet. Leaving aside his scathing adjectives and other such rhetoric for the moment, his underlying message seems to be that such policing of the internet within the country is unacceptable to any democratic reform, and therefore American firms should not support the Chinese e-conomy.

If you actually choose to take into account his scathing adjectives and rhetoric, then you might end up with an apocalyptic view of the country as some Dantean purgatory run by Satanic control fiends who want to quash all forms of individual thought. From my experience and prolonged residency, this is not the case. You will have to exercise your own judgement here.

But let us return to his more objective points. He seems to be accusing the American firms who actually help the Chinese government with subcontracted work, of cowardice and a betrayal of democratic morality. I can't argue with this, partially because of my limited knowledge of business and also because I don't know much about international law.

However, I think this bears some similarity to the question of the stranger abroad and his relation to their laws. If a woman from a Western country goes to visit a religious society such as the Islamic nations, then what is her status with regards to self-concealment? Does she have to wear the body and facial covers of other native women? Do her personal rights override the practices of the host country, or the other way around?

(I don't have an answer, by the way. I just raise this in order to stimulate some thought.)

My second and more applicable point is that, although the Internet is a western invention, and has indeed helped to speed exchange of information and expression, it is a tool and not a moral code.

The western nations also occasionally police the internet - Jack Straw (I think) attempted to pass a bill in Parliament allowing the UK gov't powers of eavesdropping in emails. This is admittedly not as noticeable as, say, firewalling the BBC news pages (which are not visible from Chinese sites) but the idea of governmental controls and security measures remains the same.

Regardless, the Internet has arrived in China and the Chinese government has decided to apply their own strictures and checks on its use, as many other countries have had to consider before it. Now the reader should check their premises. If their opposition to this act rests in some vague belief that the Chinese people are a simmering rebellion ready to throw off their Communist shackles, then I can offer no other consolation except for a suggestion that their energies are misplaced.

If their opposition to this act rests in the belief that there is a "right" or "wrong" way to use the internet, then again I would urge the reader to check their premises. The internet is a tool, not a moral code. As explicitly stated in the article, a controlled internet is infinitely better than no internet.

If their opposition to this act rests in the belief that the American firms should not aid a government in enforcing unacceptable policies, then I argue that these given policies are only "unacceptable" from the viewpoint of the American culture, which has enjoyed a very privileged level of development in politics, economics, and social standard of living. For a nation such as China that is pulling itself out of the 19th century straight into the 21st, the views of what is acceptable and what is not, is somewhat different.

It is my hope that they may develop to a level where both views may have much in common. Personally speaking, I share the viewpoint of many Chinese people - that the government reforms are welcome, that future economic troubles might occur and should be avoided, that social disturbances should be avoided at all costs, and that democracy "with Chinese characteristics" is a long term but ultimate goal.

Note that the Communist Party is not by definition opposed to democracy - even Premier Zhu Rongji proposed a plan of political reform whereby high level elections would become increasingly democratized instead of their present intra-party status. This proposal was shelved by the present rulership (due to step down in 2002-3) but may well be resumed by the next generation of leaders.

Certainly, a sceptical onlooker in a developed nation could well say "too slow" or "too little" or "too late". But the country we're discussing is vast - larger than America by land and four to five times as large by population. If you continue to measure the success or failures of such an entity by an inadequate yardstick, you are bound to be perpetually unsatisfied, and also to do the other nation an injustice in judgement.

Anyhow, my two cents. Bear in mind that I have my own inevitable bias too and you would be ill advised to take anything I say on blind faith!

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander


Wow, I never thought I had so much power. Note how my choice to boycott Chinese goods (started after Tienamen) has not affected China's trade with Europe, Japan or for that matter the rest of the citizens of my country the U.S. I am perfectly willing to lift my personal embargo when China seems to be moving in the right direction again (ie stops exporting nuclear technology, ballistic missles and other weapon systems to states which are likely to destabalize a region or are currently in a state of undeclared war with the U.S., and when China also starts to treat it's own people with the sort of respect that all people deserve).

I feel that too often people try to get things done by trying to force a policy on everyone in the country using the government. There are a lot of things people can do for themselves which don't require using persuasion + coercion on the rest of the citizenry. I don't do business with China. You can do whatever you please. If China finds that they are losing enough business from people like me to worry them, then they can try to address our grievances. If there are enough people for engagement, mindless consumers and apologists to keep their economy humming along, then there is little incentive provided by outsiders to do much of anything. Whether outside pressure has any tangible effect or not, it is the people of China who will have the final say, regardless of who thinks they 'really' run the country.

If every American thinks like you, we may well have have an all-out nuclear war in the next 5 years. Don't you understand that even the Chinese economy collapses, like in the late 50s and middle 60s, they can still build enough nukes to wipe out all major American cities? After all, they would have nothing to lose and Americans plenty. They would enjoy to drag you into the abyss along with them. Or they can sell the nukes to the crazies like Al-Qaeda. In any case, do you think both China and the US would be any better off?

There is also a second point you don't understand. A prosperous, open, and informed population will eventually topple the tyranny, while a poor, closed, and ignorant population will be easily controlled by the government. By boycotting China, you are denying Chinese population the access to properity and information, while giving the tyrants a common enemy to focus on. Very counter-productive.

Finally, my impression is that you just hate the Chinese and want to keep them as weak as possible.

[DaShi]

China has never been very effective control the population through information. The people generally, know better than to fully trust the government. China's most commonly used and effective measure to control the population has always been the threat of death and/or imprisonment to individuals and their family members.

My Chinese history teach put it bluntly in this scenario:

Emporer: You will obey me.

Citizen: I will not.

Emporer: Then I will kill you.

Citizen: Kill me, I will not obey you.

Emporer: Then I will kill your wife.

Citizen: Fine, I will not obey.

Emporer: Then I will kill your children as well.

Citizen: Do what you want, I will not obey

Emporer: Then I will kill everyone in your family

Citizen: Hrmph

Emporer: Then I will kill your friends as well.


You get the point.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Transcend

If every American thinks like you, we may well have have an all-out nuclear war in the next 5 years. Don't you understand that even the Chinese economy collapses, like in the late 50s and middle 60s, they can still build enough nukes to wipe out all major American cities? After all, they would have nothing to lose and Americans plenty. They would enjoy to drag you into the abyss along with them. Or they can sell the nukes to the crazies like Al-Qaeda. In any case, do you think both China and the US would be any better off?

You are spewing hyperbole. There is no chance that every American would ever think like me (and thus no chance to prove or disprove your assertion) Why would you think that either country would be so hot to destroy themselves / each other? We had far worse relations for most of the last 50 years, and we managed to keep from nuking each other even when we were locked in a bloody conventional war, and the U.S. had a nuclear monopoly.

You seem to think that you hold the Chinese in higher regard than I do, but the assumptions you make here seem to indicate the opposite. You also seem to think that China's economy would collapse without U.S. involvement, which is simplistic at best.

If for some reason I could convince a majority of the U.S. populace to pay attention to something other than the mindless consumerism which seems to be the dominate factor in our culture and boycott Chinese goods for the same reasons that I do I think it would be helpful to at least our situation (in the U.S.)

For one thing the cozy leadership style of the Communists would be ill suited to addressing the problem because they would not be able to bargain behind closed doors with our leaders, which spares them an immense amount of embarrassment both in the sphere of having to address their human rights record and in the sphere of exposing types of blackmail they use to get what they want from the U.S. If the average American was aware of what goes on when Bush or whoever sits down with Jiang or whoever they would balk at making the deals that are routinely made. Why should they make those deals? They don't get money from big companies to ignore human rights violations and keep the trade flowing. They also won't like being threatened. They currently get cheap products for their assignation, which as I stated earlier they would have to be willing to give up for moral and strategic reasons. The Chinese government would either have to try and engage a motivated American public, or write off the trade.

Originally posted by Transcend
There is also a second point you don't understand. A prosperous, open, and informed population will eventually topple the tyranny, while a poor, closed, and ignorant population will be easily controlled by the government. By boycotting China, you are denying Chinese population the access to properity and information, while giving the tyrants a common enemy to focus on. Very counter-productive.

Finally, my impression is that you just hate the Chinese and want to keep them as weak as possible.

Well I hope that a prosperous populace will overthrow the tyranny. That seemed to be what was happening in slow motion for many years. Two things have changed. Firstly, the communists have retrenched due to the rising threats to their power from within. They have decided to try for the money without allowing the freedoms. Perhaps this is impossible, but I am not completely convinced of this.

The other thing that has happened is that the Soviet-U.S. conflict has ended, and the power has shifted to the extent that the Chinese view the U.S. as their most worrisome competitor. This view has had very little to do with U.S. actions, as it has been formulated over a long period of time, during the vast majority of which the U.S. had no coherent China policy, and had not taken any aggressive actions in the region. Thus our cold war level of cooperation has diminished greatly, while the Chinese have embarked on a long term campaign to upgrade their military capabilities to fight the U.S. Make no mistake about it, they view the U.S. as the key to all of their strategic problems. If they can beat us locally, then they can have their way with Taiwan and a host of other neighbors.

While we are not seeking to expand our influence in the region at the expense of the Chinese, we are not seeking to decrease it for their benefit either. East Asia is a huge factor in our economy, and we have a number of close allies who would be hard-pressed to stand up to China in the long run without the U.S., and would not feel comfortable dealing with a dictatorial government whose moral precepts are so divergent from their own.

You are correct that I do not want the Chinese to be strong while they are aiming that strength at my country. I had no problem with their strength while we both were more worried about the Soviets. I hate the Chinese government it's true, they are Communist thugs who are responsible for many deaths and huge amounts of grief and wasted potential. As for the Chinese people, it's hard to have an opinion about 1/5 of the world's population when you have only met a few dozen of them, but I assume that they are as worthy as any other group of people on the planet. I hope that they can change their government into something that better represents their aspirations than the police state that currently represents them on the international stage.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander

You seem to think that you hold the Chinese in higher regard than I do, but the assumptions you make here seem to indicate the opposite. You also seem to think that China's economy would collapse without U.S. involvement, which is simplistic at best.

I have no illusion about people who lost their wealth and felt being unjustly treated. Just look at Germans after WWI. China's economy, as it stands, would implode without the trade with America. The foreign investment and trade is actually what keeps China's economy growing and preventing millions from losing their jobs. If China is rejected by the world as you suggested, then only extreme communists and fanatic nationalists are going to benefit. You know what can happen if these people get to power.

If for some reason I could convince a majority of the U.S. populace to pay attention to something other than the mindless consumerism which seems to be the dominate factor in our culture and boycott Chinese goods for the same reasons that I do I think it would be helpful to at least our situation (in the U.S.)

Then you can also start preparing for a war that will eventually consume everything you hold dear and valuable. I mean China doesn't even have to attack America directly since there are enough people out there who want us dead.

Well I hope that a prosperous populace will overthrow the tyranny. That seemed to be what was happening in slow motion for many years. Two things have changed. Firstly, the communists have retrenched due to the rising threats to their power from within. They have decided to try for the money without allowing the freedoms. Perhaps this is impossible, but I am not completely convinced of this.

China is moving currently into the direction of Singapore. Singapore is not a democratic state, but I haven't heard anyone boycotting its products.

The other thing that has happened is that the Soviet-U.S. conflict has ended, and the power has shifted to the extent that the Chinese view the U.S. as their most worrisome competitor. This view has had very little to do with U.S. actions, as it has been formulated over a long period of time, during the vast majority of which the U.S. had no coherent China policy, and had not taken any aggressive actions in the region.

Or does the US view China with suspision? Provocations and hostile views go both ways. It's almost like all those finger-pointings on the Balkans and the Middle East, but on a far more dangerous scale if things get out of hand.

Thus our cold war level of cooperation has diminished greatly, while the Chinese have embarked on a long term campaign to upgrade their military capabilities to fight the U.S. Make no mistake about it, they view the U.S. as the key to all of their strategic problems. If they can beat us locally, then they can have their way with Taiwan and a host of other neighbors.
While we are not seeking to expand our influence in the region at the expense of the Chinese, we are not seeking to decrease it for their benefit either. East Asia is a huge factor in our economy, and we have a number of close allies who would be hard-pressed to stand up to China in the long run without the U.S., and would not feel comfortable dealing with a dictatorial government whose moral precepts are so divergent from their own.

I think the US government is already pursuing this strategy, maintaining the status quo.

You are correct that I do not want the Chinese to be strong while they are aiming that strength at my country. I had no problem with their strength while we both were more worried about the Soviets. I hate the Chinese government it's true, they are Communist thugs who are responsible for many deaths and huge amounts of grief and wasted potential. As for the Chinese people, it's hard to have an opinion about 1/5 of the world's population when you have only met a few dozen of them, but I assume that they are as worthy as any other group of people on the planet. I hope that they can change their government into something that better represents their aspirations than the police state that currently represents them on the international stage.

A country can be of these 4 types:
1. Strong military and poor population;
2. Strong military and rich population;
3. Weak military and rich population;
4. Weak military and poor population.
It should be obvious to you which type of country is biggest threat to peace. China currently is a type 1 country and trying to become a type 2. Of course the US wants everyone to be a type 3 state, but your way of boycotting Chinese consumer products is going to keep China as a type 1 state.

[mindseye]

How do you figure China has a strong military?

Sure, the Peoples Liberation Army is huge, but it can be deployed only against nations sharing a border with China, as air- and sea-lift capabilities are miniscule.

Also, the army may be massive in size, but if you could see some of these peasant boys in their ill-fitting uniforms you might guess that a large portion of that enormous army is not well equipped or trained.

Outside of a small number of highly capable late-model Soviet fighters (Su-22s?), the airforce is not very modern, and its ability to conduct well-coordinated missions with the army/navy is questionable (inter-bureaucracy cooperation of any sort is a challenging task in China).

The navy has two nice, new Soviet Sovremeny destroyers, but outside of that most of the fleet is Korean-war vintage. The Navy is largely a defensive force, with little capability of projecting force beyond China's coastal waters. Their is a single SSBN, but because it has not been seen to leave port in quite a while, its seaworthiness is questionable.

Of late China has been building and deploying quite a few ground-to-ground missiles within strike range of Taiwan. This arsenal could cause a great deal of damage to Taiwan's cities, but there is not sufficient amphibious or paratrooper capability to follow-up with any sort of invasion. Because of their limited range, these missiles could only be deployed against nations quite near China.

China's intercontinental nuclear force consists of about twenty aging missiles. Whether these things would actually leave their silos when the red button is pressed is anyone's guess. Because of its small size, the nuclear arsenal is highly vulnerable.

Okay, given the composition and strength of China's military, can anyone explain how it poses a credible threat to the US - or anyone else not neighboring China itself?

[Sikander]

The biggest threats to the U.S. come in two flavors:

1) The increase in size and modernity of China's nuclear arsenal.

2) The increase in size and modernity of China's submarine fleet.

The nuclear arsenal even as it stands is certainly capable of taking out at least one, and probably several major metropolitan areas. With some work the Chinese could upgrade their force into one capable of assured destruction of the majority of the U.S.'s metropolitan areas. We know that this force is being both upgraded and expanded. The degree of the expansion is not decided as yet according to the Chinese, but they claim it will be larger if the U.S. deploys a missle defense system. Even if the U.S. and China decided to become the best of friends, the Chinese would want to continue to build up their nuclear capability in order to maintain their qualitative and quantitative lead on the Indians. We have to rely on MAD in the end, because I don't see how we will be able to keep the Chinese from building enough weapons to defeat any countermeasures currently contemplated.

The other main threat to the U.S. is the Chinese submarine fleet. A very significant portion of U.S. trade passes near enough China to be threatened by a submarine fleet. A conventional war with China, or even between China and a state with which we do not have a defense treaty with could severely impact our ability to trade with Asia. The world's economy could be seriously threatened if China decided to prey upon vessels headed for Korea, Japan, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, etc.

I agree that at the moment China doesn't rate superpower status in regards to force projection on land or in the air.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander
The biggest threats to the U.S. come in two flavors:

1) The increase in size and modernity of China's nuclear arsenal.

2) The increase in size and modernity of China's submarine fleet.

The nuclear arsenal even as it stands is certainly capable of taking out at least one, and probably several major metropolitan areas. With some work the Chinese could upgrade their force into one capable of assured destruction of the majority of the U.S.'s metropolitan areas. We know that this force is being both upgraded and expanded. The degree of the expansion is not decided as yet according to the Chinese, but they claim it will be larger if the U.S. deploys a missle defense system. Even if the U.S. and China decided to become the best of friends, the Chinese would want to continue to build up their nuclear capability in order to maintain their qualitative and quantitative lead on the Indians. We have to rely on MAD in the end, because I don't see how we will be able to keep the Chinese from building enough weapons to defeat any countermeasures currently contemplated.

The other main threat to the U.S. is the Chinese submarine fleet. A very significant portion of U.S. trade passes near enough China to be threatened by a submarine fleet. A conventional war with China, or even between China and a state with which we do not have a defense treaty with could severely impact our ability to trade with Asia. The world's economy could be seriously threatened if China decided to prey upon vessels headed for Korea, Japan, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, etc.

I agree that at the moment China doesn't rate superpower status in regards to force projection on land or in the air.

You seem unable to explain how you can reduce China's military threat by boycotting Chinese consumer products.

[ranskaldan]

Sikander, you've been telling us about the PROBLEM, which we know about already. We are not questioning the existence of the PROBLEM, namely, the presence of a large communist government in China. We are questioning your SOLUTION. Your solution has been to boycott Chinese consumer goods. We question the effectiveness of this SOLUTION, and we think this will only make the PROBLEM, which you have described, worse.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
Sorry, UR but I've got a German documentary that says Tiannanmen was far worse than what the US media reported.

Okay, what about this? I send you a copy of my VCD, you send me a copy of yours, and we both send a copy of our doco to Adam Smith who will act as an arbitrator.

I double dog dare you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye
You are relying on the words of one person? And he saw everything going on all over town that terrible morning?

It wasn't a morning. The PLA finally entered the square at 22:00 IIRC. He was right near Tiannamen at the whole time, or most of the time anyway.

Originally posted by mindseye
UR, you should read what John King Fairbank has to say about it.

I did. I have his China: A New History. He didn't have much to say about it.

Originally posted by mindseye
You might also ask around next time you are in Beijing, quite a few saw the PLA in action that day.

I am sure many did.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
Please, show us all how to properly make an argument. Yes, I calling you out.

Or maybe you'll just disappear for awhile again.

I am still waiting for you to post some evidence backing you up.

BTW was it you who said something about "one-line" replies? Talking about not practising what one preaches.

[Urban Ranger]

Given that the US has the biggest store of "weapons of mass destuction," (nuclear, chemical, and biological) and the willingness to use force against countries it doesn't like, it seems ironic that the US would assert this or that country to be a "threat."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
it seems ironic that the US would assert this or that country to be a "threat."

How is that ironic? Does a country not have the right to decide who constitutes a threat to its interests?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Sikander, you've been telling us about the PROBLEM, which we know about already. We are not questioning the existence of the PROBLEM, namely, the presence of a large communist government in China.

Actually, I draw an issue here. I don't agree that the "large Communist government in China" is all that much of a problem. I do agree that the western media seems to think it is, and I also agree that anybody whose sole source of information about China is the western media will probably believe that China is in a sad state.

Just like anybody whose sole source of information about China is the Chinese media will think that China is in a great state.

The real facts lie somewhere between the two extremes. Most Chinese people (in the cities, at least - I haven't had the chance to go to the rural areas) have told me that they have great trust in the government, and that they do not appreciate western countries (especially America - that name crops up a fair bit) opposing the government so much. In fact, several citizens also voiced the belief that America's government is specifically trying to undermine China's own government, and they strenuously object to this.

As for my own opinion, the government is doing pretty well in that it has the support of its people. It has also succeeded in raising the urban living standard by a very large margin since the days of Mao Zedong. I can see from both sides' media that both sides are prone to distorting (or just plain not reporting) facts about the other and about their own situation. What really scares me is how successfully the western media (which, unlike the state controlled Chinese media, purports to be fair and free) has maligned the Chinese situation. The very proof of this lies in this thread.

It's clear from this thread that many well-educated, intelligent, and articulate people strongly believe that China's government is malignant and that Chinese people are oppressed. As somebody who has lived there recently, I can only offer my confused bewilderment and a plaintive "No, guys, really - it's not like that at all!"

Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan. The best way to prove this is to come and see it for yourselves. You might find yourselves very surprised.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


Actually, I draw an issue here. I don't agree that the "large Communist government in China" is all that much of a problem. I do agree that the western media seems to think it is, and I also agree that anybody whose sole source of information about China is the western media will probably believe that China is in a sad state.

Just like anybody whose sole source of information about China is the Chinese media will think that China is in a great state.

The real facts lie somewhere between the two extremes. Most Chinese people (in the cities, at least - I haven't had the chance to go to the rural areas) have told me that they have great trust in the government, and that they do not appreciate western countries (especially America - that name crops up a fair bit) opposing the government so much. In fact, several citizens also voiced the belief that America's government is specifically trying to undermine China's own government, and they strenuously object to this.

As for my own opinion, the government is doing pretty well in that it has the support of its people. It has also succeeded in raising the urban living standard by a very large margin since the days of Mao Zedong. I can see from both sides' media that both sides are prone to distorting (or just plain not reporting) facts about the other and about their own situation. What really scares me is how successfully the western media (which, unlike the state controlled Chinese media, purports to be fair and free) has maligned the Chinese situation. The very proof of this lies in this thread.

It's clear from this thread that many well-educated, intelligent, and articulate people strongly believe that China's government is malignant and that Chinese people are oppressed. As somebody who has lived there recently, I can only offer my confused bewilderment and a plaintive "No, guys, really - it's not like that at all!"

Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan. The best way to prove this is to come and see it for yourselves. You might find yourselves very surprised.

Well, you're right, I understand what you're talking about, coz I've lived in China too. But to Sikander as well as many other Americans, a powerful opponent for the US is a problem for the US, regardless of human rights or any other issue except for military might and menace. I'm trying to phrase it to show that even with that problem acknowledged, boycotting still isn't the solution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan.

*cough*Falun Gong*cough*

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Transcend
You seem unable to explain how you can reduce China's military threat by boycotting Chinese consumer products.

I have explained it, we have had a couple of exchanges, and I don't buy your appraisal of the potentialities, and you don't buy mine. As we are speculating about the future, neither of us is going to be able to prove anything. Since we have stated our views, and don't seem to be convincing each other, what's left to say?

By not sending my money to China, I know that it cannot be used to buy weapons to attack the U.S. or it's allies, nor can it be used to supress religious or ethnic minorities, nor used to jail political dissidents. I would be happy to do business with China if I felt that my money would not be used for these sorts of activities. This is my point once again. You disagree. I understand that, and I respect your viewpoint (ie engagement) even though I completely disagree about the degree of economic impact of U.S. trade on China, or that China will just go ballistic like Japan did 60 years ago given the fact that the U.S. is well-armed with nuclear weapons.

The post of mine which you copied in full was a reply to Mindseye's post directly above it, which in the end asked the question:

"Okay, given the composition and strength of China's military, can anyone explain how it poses a credible threat to the US - or anyone else not neighboring China itself?"

Feel free to comment on my reply in the context it was written in.

ranskaldan,

Does this clear things up for you also? Your post directly after Transcends seems to indicate that you thought I was missing 'the point' in what was in fact my reply to Mindseye's question directly above it.

[Adam Smith]

Alinestra:

Most Chinese people (in the cities, at least - I haven't had the chance to go to the rural areas) have told me that they have great trust in the government, and that they do not appreciate western countries (especially America - that name crops up a fair bit) opposing the government so much. In fact, several citizens also voiced the belief that America's government is specifically trying to undermine China's own government, and they strenuously object to this.

The people I spoke with in various Chinese cities (July 1998, mostly Beijing and Changzhou, but also Nanjing and Guangzhou) indicated the opposite.

As for my own opinion, the government is doing pretty well in that it has the support of its people. It has also succeeded in raising the urban living standard by a very large margin since the days of Mao Zedong.

Some commentators have argued that the government and the populace have struck an implicit deal: you keep us in power, and we will let you grow rich. Would you agree with this assessment?

Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan.

Firewall and Fa Long Da Feng (Pinyin correct?) examples have already been raised. (One could understand, but still not sympathise with, the government's response to the latter, given the prior Chinese experience with religious movements.) Also, when we were there in February 1996 and July 1998 there were substantial restrictions on freedom of movement. People could not live in cities or obtain city services (health, sanitation, education) without official permission. Permission often required Communist Party membership, which led to political control. As a result, many people who were seeking jobs but did not have official permission lived in shanty towns just over the city line. (We walked through such a place outside Changzhou.) Are such restrictions still in place? If so, to what extent are they still enforced?

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander
By not sending my money to China, I know that it cannot be used to buy weapons to attack the U.S. or it's allies, nor can it be used to supress religious or ethnic minorities, nor used to jail political dissidents. I would be happy to do business with China if I felt that my money would not be used for these sorts of activities. This is my point once again.

Nothing disrespecting, but this is where you are wrong with your assumption. You seem to assume that oppressions need money. The truth is exactly the opposite. Back then, Mao didn't need money to commit his atrocities, and neither did Pol-Pot, Stalin, and the rest. The poorer a country is, the more oppression there will be. Or are you oblivious to the fact that most autocratic countries are poor? Actually, the jailing of dissidents and surpression of minorities have been reduced by many times since China opened up to the West. You NEED to finally recognize this fact.

Certainly the US has enough nukes to wipe out China or the rest of the world. But I don't consider it a victory if it means the loss of 30 million Americans.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
The people I spoke with in various Chinese cities (July 1998, mostly Beijing and Changzhou, but also Nanjing and Guangzhou) indicated the opposite.

The atmosphere can turn hostile if Americans start acting like Sikander.

Some commentators have argued that the government and the populace have struck an implicit deal: you keep us in power, and we will let you grow rich. Would you agree with this assessment?

That's better than the outright oppression before the 1990s. At least now the government has to do something for its citizens to ensure its hold on power. If the population keeps making more demands(which I think it will since humans are inherently greedy), then the country is moving in a more democratic direction.

Firewall and Fa Long Da Feng (Pinyin correct?) examples have already been raised. (One could understand, but still not sympathise with, the government's response to the latter, given the prior Chinese experience with religious movements.)

Although I did not agree with Falungong's teaching, I also disagree with government's handling of the whole situation. The government was the one who brain-washed its population for decades and made the people succeptable to the non-sense sects like FLG. They(the commies) were the one initially supporting and encouraging these sects for some very obsure reasons. Finally, they were the one who used the most harsh methods available to crack down on those sects. Ironic, huh?

Also, when we were there in February 1996 and July 1998 there were substantial restrictions on freedom of movement. People could not live in cities or obtain city services (health, sanitation, education) without official permission. Permission often required Communist Party membership, which led to political control. As a result, many people who were seeking jobs but did not have official permission lived in shanty towns just over the city line. (We walked through such a place outside Changzhou.) Are such restrictions still in place? If so, to what extent are they still enforced?

I think a major reform about the residence permission is going on right now. There is definitely more freedom today than 4 years ago.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Okay, what about this? I send you a copy of my VCD, you send me a copy of yours, and we both send a copy of our doco to Adam Smith who will act as an arbitrator.

I double dog dare you.

Two days for this?

I'm finished with you. I shouldn't bully you. Instead, I feel pity for you. You will always have this problem, and never be truly happy. The more you try to convince yourself otherwise the worse you'll get.

[mindseye]

Sorry, I haven't been around for awhile, and wanted to catch up on this interesting thread ...

Urban Ranger wrote about his friend who was at Tiananmen and claims the popular version is wrong:

It wasn't a morning. The PLA finally entered the square at 22:00 IIRC. He was right near Tiannamen at the whole time, or most of the time anyway.

I think your friend was hours late and some distance from most of the killing. Most of the casualties were inflicted on civilians manning blockades on the main streets leading to Tiananmen, to the west of the Square and several miles to the east of it. The army entered the city around sunset on June 3, the worst of the combat took place that evening, before the army reached the Square itself around midnight. However, there was still plenty of bloodshed in and around the Square on the morning of the 4th. Here's a very detailed account written by a Canadian Chinese witness apparently much closer to the action than your pal.

Really, UR, you should be embarrassed by your selective blindness about China's history (I recall you also claiming hardly anyone died during the monstrous famine caused by the Party's policies during the Great Leap Forward). The events of June 3rd and 4th are well documented by Chinese and western sources. You are ranking yourself with Holocaust denyers!

... and about Fairbanks:

I did. I have his China: A New History. He didn't have much to say about it.

You are right, it's the last thing in the book, it looks like an afterthought. For a better treatment, you might check Maurice Meisners' "Mao's China and After" (The Free Press, Third Edition 1999) which provides a much more detailed account.


DinoDoc coughed:

*cough*Falun Gong*cough*

Just out of curiosity, did the western media cover the self-immolations in Tiananmen Square by misguided Falun Gongers in early 2001? While I wouldn't dream of defending the CCP's heavy-handed treatment of them, there's more to Falun Gong than tai-chi-like exercises, as the western media so often would have it.

On a related note, I asked an American friend about the Christmas services he attended at the state Catholic church. He said it was basically the same as back in his native Chicago.


Sikander declared:

By not sending my money to China, I know that it cannot be used to buy weapons, ( ... etc)

Well, yeah, but as has been previously mentioned, the products you are buying almost certainly came from private companies, so little of that money is finding its way back into state coffers. Do you also boycott French goods? Have you every taken a look at French arms exports and who they go to?

I think on this issue we will just have to agree to disagree. I concur with most of your postings hereabouts (thank you for vomiting over Michael Milken), on this topic important to us both, we differ.

The post of mine which you copied in full was a reply to Mindseye's post directly above it, which in the end asked the question:

"Okay, given the composition and strength of China's military, can anyone explain how it poses a credible threat to the US - or anyone else not neighboring China itself?"

Feel free to comment on my reply in the context it was written in.

Sorry, finally getting around to responding to this ... you wrote in more detail:

We have to rely on MAD in the end, because I don't see how we will be able to keep the Chinese from building enough weapons to defeat any countermeasures currently contemplated.

I don't think it matters if they build one more or two thousand more. We have to rely on MAD either way. I really don't see China's nuclear arsenal as a threat as long as it is so overwhelmingly counterbalanced by that of the US. They are hardly going to launch a first strike with less than 20 ICBMs - or even a hypothetical force ten times that number.

The other main threat to the U.S. is the Chinese submarine fleet. A very significant portion of U.S. trade passes near enough China to be threatened by a submarine fleet

It's true that the Chinese sub force could certainly cause great disruption to trade through the Taiwan Strait, however I don't see how this poses much of a threat to the US, either. Think of the context such a deployment would take place in - if China was at the point of blockading or attacking merchant shipping, much larger trade considerations (i.e. direct US-China trade) would presumably already be in complete disruption. The loss of trade through the Taiwan Straits (or other coastal waters) would be peanuts in comparison. In other words, the sub force would only be a problem if there was already a far worse situation occurring. And in that case, the US Pacific fleet could probably deal with most of those outdated Chinese diesels pretty quickly (they only have a handful of truly modern subs).

Transcend mentioned:

I think a major reform about the residence permission is going on right now.

Really? Hope so, although I have not seen or heard anything about this. I have to join Adam Smith in reminding Alinestra of the houkou system (residence permits) as being one major infringement on personal freedom that the average Chinese has to deal with.

On the other hand, I heartily concur with her that in general, the personal freedom conditions of the typical city dweller are much more like life in an American city than most Americans realize (I certainly did not realize this before I moved here). I don't think a media conspiracy is behind this, just lazy reporting (stories that buck the prevailing perception are less likely to be published/aired) and a speed of change that is difficult for anyone not here witnessing it to keep up with.

- mindseye

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Just out of curiosity, did the western media cover the self-immolations in Tiananmen Square by misguided Falun Gongers in early 2001?

Yes they did.

If the Falun Gong isn't your cup of tea we could discuss the numerous other examples of religious persecution in China in an effort to make the discussion accessible to both sides.

[mindseye]

(sigh) As has been stated before, there is undeniably religious oppression occurring in China, but you would be mistaken in ignoring the larger picture of rapid improvement.

Geez, I can see a church from my apartment window!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
(sigh) As has been stated before, there is undeniably religious oppression occurring in China, but you would be mistaken in ignoring the larger picture of rapid improvement.

You might want to take a look at the context in which I brought up the plight of the Falun Gong and religious persecution in China before accusing me of myopia.

I was responding to Alinestra that personal freedon in China is similar to that taken for granted in the US which I found to be an out and out lie.

Geez, I can see a church from my apartment window!

I'm sure you can see a CPA church. I was refering to the supression of the 80 million members of the underground church, etc.

[mindseye]

You might want to take a look at the context in which I brought up the plight of the Falun Gong and religious persecution in China before accusing me of myopia.

Same difference. Whatever light you look at in, it's changing fast. You keep pointing at a single point on the graph while ignoring the steep trend line.

I was responding to Alinestra that personal freedon in China is similar to that taken for granted in the US which I found to be an out and out lie.

Call it an "out and out lie" if you like, but I would say it's more or less true, at least for the inhabitants of major cities. I'm basing my claim on my experience living here for over a year. Most of the expats I've talked with (western and Asian) agree. In fact, in some important ways, life here is MORE free due to the lack of crime, another thing routinely ignored in the western media.

Chinese people are often profoundly baffled that westerners think they are oppressed - I have had friends and students laugh out loud over the notion. Most people in big cities simply don't give a hoot about the things westerners obsess about. For instance few city dwellers could care less about Christian religion or organizing a new political party. It's simply not important to them or anyone they know.

Take the much touted issue of "human rights" - most Chinese I encounter think Americans don't know what they are talking about, and think the US should clean up its own human rights abuses before poking its nose into Chinese affairs. For example, if you want to talk about Tibet, you better be prepared to talk about Native American reservations. Anyway, this is what I hear from students and friends, not newspapers or speeches. This is what I gather from walking the side streets, not reading biased web sites.

I'm sure you can see a CPA church. I was refering to the supression of the 80 million members of the underground church, etc.

I'm sure it is a state church, but as two of us mentioned so far here, there seems to be little difference between the state church and the Rome-based version. I'll try to go to a mass soon to verify this, right now I'm going on the first-hand claim of an American friend who attended services here in Shanghai. Do you know of any differences in religious practices of the two churches?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Transcend

Nothing disrespecting, but this is where you are wrong with your assumption. You seem to assume that oppressions need money. The truth is exactly the opposite.

You are taking my statement too far. Oppression can be done for very little cash money, but it does take a lot of labor. Weapons can similarly be built for the cost of labor and materials, but there is a fairly high opportunity cost involved, and a likely tradeoff in quality if foreign designs and expertise are not utilized by a state which is not one of the leaders in military technology. Money makes it all a lot easier.

Originally posted by Transcend

Back then, Mao didn't need money to commit his atrocities, and neither did Pol-Pot, Stalin, and the rest. The poorer a country is, the more oppression there will be. Or are you oblivious to the fact that most autocratic countries are poor?

Most countries are poor period. Autocratic countries are more likely to stay that way. I see no reason to attempt to change this dynamic by propping up an autocracy with my money. Poverty itself is no inducement to Autocracy. Many hunter-gatherers live lives which are very free of coercion, despite their extreme poverty. There are also a number of well off and wealthy states which are pretty autocratic. What wealth brings is stability. People who have enough to eat are less likely to push for a change in the status quo.

Originally posted by Transcend
Actually, the jailing of dissidents and surpression of minorities have been reduced by many times since China opened up to the West. You NEED to finally recognize this fact.

I do recognize it. My first impression of the PRC was in the early to mid sixties, and it was not a good one. The only people I met from there were refugees, and they didn't have anything good to say about it. By the time I was in college in the late 1970s there were a few Chinese nationals there who weren't defectors. They were extremely hesitant to speak about politics at all, and most of them were children of the ruling class, and considered politically reliable. By the 1980s there were many more Chinese in the U.S., and a few of them were quite willing to speak their mind about political matters, though many of these people never returned to China. So through most of my life there has been a steady improvement in what I perceive to be the conditions in China.

The crackdown against the pro-democracy demonstrators seemed to herald the first sustained retrenchment by the government. It has gone on for years, and it is my impression that China has at best marked time in the human rights sphere while it's integration into the world politically and economically has continued at a steady pace. We have continued to trade, China has continued to grow economically, and I have yet to see an improvement in the human rights picture from my admittedly limited perspective here in the U.S. What's the hold up? If your theory that money promotes a freer governing style is correct then China should be making great strides as their economy has been growing at a dizzying pace. This seems to better support my impression that economic well-being tends to promote political inertia.

Originally posted by Transcend
Certainly the US has enough nukes to wipe out China or the rest of the world. But I don't consider it a victory if it means the loss of 30 million Americans.

You seem to be saying that if we don't trade with China, then they are going to nuke us, even though it's obvious that we will wipe them off the face of the planet for doing so. What possible justification do you have for such a pessimistic view of the situation? My point is that even if the Chinese get pissed because Americans are refusing to trade, they are not going to start throwing nukes around. I am no fan of the Chinese government, but I don't think that there are more than a handful of Chinese people who would trade their existence as a nation for 30 million American lives. What sort of scenario do you have in mind whereby an American embargo ends in a nuclear conflagration?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Whatever light you look at in, it's changing fast. You keep pointing at a single point on the graph while ignoring the steep trend line.

Present actions that are showing no obvious sign of change are of much more concern than actions that might happen in some possible rosy scenario for the future.

Call it an "out and out lie" if you like, but I would say it's more or less true, at least for the inhabitants of major cities.

What is freedom without freedom of conscience?

In fact, in some important ways, life here is MORE free due to the lack of crime, another thing routinely ignored in the western media.

I can imagine that people living in Nazi-era Berlin or Stalinist Moscow saying very much the samething. Would that have made thier contemporaries cries about an opressive regime wrong as well?

Most people in big cities simply don't give a hoot about the things westerners obsess about. For instance few city dwellers could care less about Christian religion or organizing a new political party. It's simply not important to them or anyone they know.

Since when is a de minimis arguement sufficent basis to deny people freedom? I'd very much like to hear the answer to this question.

For example, if you want to talk about Tibet, you better be prepared to talk about Native American reservations.

But I don't want to talk about Tibet at all. I wish to speak about the persecution of Christians in China. What would I have to be prepared to talk about in that instance?

This is what I gather from walking the side streets, not reading biased web sites.

Show me the bias.

Do you know of any differences in religious practices of the two churches?

There are two differences that I know of acording to my sources:

1) To qualify for the clergy, one must demonstrate "political reliability" and pass an examination of their political knowledge.

2) The State-run version does not acknowlege the authority of the Vatican which seems to jive with the State's concerted attempts to eradicate the underground Catholic Church.

[ranskaldan]

A lot of you have obviously never been to China before in your life. Go there and take a look for yourself!

(Oh yes, I forgot, you aren't supposed to spend money in China, oh yes...)

What most people don't seem to get, is that A NATION IS DIFFERENT FROM A COMPANY.

In a company, the more money you pour in, the easier it is for the company to survive.

NATIONS don't work that way.

---------

Sikander has objected to "spending money to prop up an autocratic regime".

But the fact is:
You aren't propping up a regime. The regime will survive, whether or not you spend that money. The regime will be nasty, whether or not you spend that money.

However, the people of China will be richer, leader happier lives, and have brighter futures if you spend that money.

Are you going to, in your futile attempt to save 1.2 billion from human rights abuses (which actually only a fraction of them suffer from anyway), throw these very same 1.2 billion people into poverty and desperation?

----------

The Chinese economy and the economies of the West, Japan and Taiwan are already entwined. But even if they weren't, an equally important factor is OPENNESS. A well-educated, well-read population cannot be cheated and swindled by a government. An ignorant, fanatic population can.

Openness leads to better lives. If you truly want to help, you shouldn't close the door that is opening.

----------

Also, comparisons of China today to "Stalinist Moscow", and claims that there haven't been "significant improvements in human rights", are totally ridiculous.

25 years ago, you couldn't choose your job in China. All consumer products were rationed. You couldn't buy a car. You couldn't travel to foreigner countries. You couldn't speak to foreigners. You couldn't listen to American radio.
All of these have changed. Totally.

You can, in fact, live your entire life in China in the same way you would in America, without feeling oppressed. I'm not saying that everyone would be able to do so, since there are human rights transgressions. But you, me, Sikander, DinoDoc, or anyone else here, certainly can, with ease. (Well, don't write any books that criticize the government. But I'm sure you weren't planning to do that anyway.)

Before you think of living in China as "a hellhole", try to actually listen to those who have lived, or are still living, in this "hellhole". The very fact that they vehemently object to this tells you something.

As I would want to say once again, some of the posters here need to spend some time in China, to see what is really like, instead of what it sorta looks like on CNN.