1. The myth of China threat, (originally from Japan Focus) by former Australian diplomat Gregory Clark through his own first hand experience.
- bonus: interesting discussion of other international cases related to the East China Sea dispute.
- Terrill's 6 goals are: 1) internal stability; 2)sustain economic growth; 3)foreign policy to support #2; 4) "to replace US influence in East Asia" in Terrill's words, I would paraphrase it as "expand its regional role", as expanding one's influence does not neccessarily mean drive the other totally away. China knows it is impossible to replace US; 5) 'foster a perception as equal to US; 6) "to 'regain' territories that Beijing feels rightfully belong within the PRC"
- #1-3 are clearly sub-goals of #2. As Terrill said, #2 is also a way to enhance the 'legitimatcy' of CCP's rule.
- #4 also supports #2. More influence in the examples Terrill provided (such as 6-party talk reguading DPRK nuke) will help China negotiate with US on trade issues. In fact, the tough appraoch by US only encouraged (or forced) China to take DPRK as a bargaining chip.
- #5 is not really a goal, it is more an obsession. But international status does help to support the 'legitimacy of the CCP regime'
- #6 is not really a goal. And it is really about Taiwan. (Outer Manchuria/etc were formally relinquished, even though on could argue that new treaties in future could nullify treaties signed today, as Russia had done that in the 19th century) China's goal on Taiwan (for next 20-30 years) is more like to "prevent a formal independence" than "push for re-unification". A formal breakaway of Taiwan will imply losing face and legitimacy of the CCP regime.
- As the 88s commented below: aren't these the basic goal of every government/nation in the world? well, maybe except that of the US and a few others nations, who would like to pursue a grander goal than that.
The essay is full of Western ignorance and uncritical tale copying, which I am not going to waste time to nitpick. I will just provide an example here.
- Terrill said, "Communist China, astonishingly, inherited the borders of the Qing empire at its grandest, including Tibet, southern Mongolia, and the Muslim west that was once East Turkestan." As a matter of fact, the old dynasties prior Qing might not have controlled all of Xinjiang other than during Han, Tang and some other short periods (about 1200-1300 years out of the past 2200 years), "East Turkestan" only existed for two years throughout the whole of history (1932-34, 6 years in total if you count the Soviet puppet from 1945-49). These 2 ETA controlled only a small portion (less than 10% in area) of current Xinjiang. Before Qing's conquest, Xinjiang was under (Mongolian Dzungars Khanate and a number of smaller Khanates, none of them were called Turkestan. Before and during Ming, it was part of the Mongolian Chagatai Khanate. Before that, it was under (Tungus) Khitan Khanate (aka Western Liao).
35 comments:
>They are in fact sub-goals of one simple goal: to feed its 1.3bn people and let them live better lives.
Isn't that the supposed goal of every government? All governments claim that that is there only ultimate goal. In other words, why pay attention to what a goverment claims its goals are? You have to look at its actions.
Why does the CCP stress the concept of "peaceful rise?" For example, did Germany or Japan or Canada (or India today) stress their "peaceful rise?" No. So why does the CCP feel the need to stress this point? Why even mention it?
One theory: Given the history of the CCP and its reputation, it needs to reassure others that its rise will be peaceful. (i.e., the CCP itself knows its own reputation)
Another theory: China has always been peaceful and is just terribly misunderstood by the rest of the world for the past 1,000 years.
I would only say this: China's support for the DPRK, Iran, Zimbabwe, etc., etc., will lead others to question phrases like "peaceful rise."
In any case, every country on Earth, once it gets enough power will start to interfere with other countries to protect its own interests. Will China be the exception to the past 10,000 years of human history? I doubt it. (Note that this has nothing to do with "communism" or the CCP -- if China were a democracy, you would get the same result).
88
conjecture and more conjectures,
why are u theorizing when facts are staring u right in your eyes.?
With this kind of smear campaign going on, Don’t u think the Chinese would feel a bit self conscious ?
----------
Why does the CCP stress the concept of "peaceful rise?" For example, did Germany or Japan or Canada (or India today) stress their "peaceful rise?"
-------------
why should they, when they arent the ones being demonised?
Did someone actually pay Terrill for his writing? The guy is an embarrassment.
>why are u theorizing when facts are staring u right in your eyes.?
Yes, I listed some facts. You might try the same. So if someone says that China's rise is peaceful, they are not "theorizing," but if someone points out specific past and present actions that will make people question this "peaceful rise," then they are "theorizing."
> why should they, when they arent the ones being demonised?
You missed the point. Why aren't they being "demonized?" For what reason is China being "demonized?" A few reasons:
1) Past actions of the CCP.
2) Present actions of the CCP.
3) Hysteria.
4) Domestic political agendas (e.g., sections of the US Navy hype the China threat to Taiwan because they want more money to build ships)
5) Ignorance.
Those are all factors. However, if you claim that only factors 3, 4, and 5 are valid, then you are just as clueless as those who claim that only factors 1 and 2 are valid.
All countries that rise in power to a certain level will be a threat to US power. That is simply a fact. You might say that is good thing (I might also), but that ignores the basic point: no country in human history, when it has amassed engough power, will stay within its own borders. Power isn't "created." It is simply shifted from one actor to another in varying degrees. So is China the exception to this rule? (which it has not been in its own past, by the way).
Of course, some will hype the "China threat" for their own political purposes. (Hmm, just like some in China have hyped the "American threat" over the past 50 years.) Niether of these points deals with the basic issue, however.
I had the "fortune" to listen to Terrill's talk once. I have to say he was very biased although he pretended or thought he wasn't. The way he picked historical incidents and how he interpreted them without acknowledging the contemprory situations made his conclusions mostly remote.
Hey Sun Bin, how's it goin?
I like your example; any chance to discuss Xinjiang history. You're right, and there are dozens more cultures and peoples in the region stretching back to the Han dynasty and before (like those skiing paintings in Altai, Xinjiang). Terrill gives primacy to the ETA when they were a drop in the ocean historically, so that was a political tip of the hat that perhaps gives credence to ET separatists.
At the same time, the PRC official history of Xinjiang claims it was an "inseperable part" since Han times. That's exactly the same political abuse of history as Terrill is guilty of. So let's not call it "Western ignorance". Xinjiang history is a political football for both the PRC and its critics, and neither is interested in a dispassionate, apolitical approach.
But I'm with you that Terrill comes off in the article like a wanker with ulterior political motives. I too am interested in how the PRC and its people imagine the future, but not discussing it in the terms he chooses to use.
>I would only say this: China's >support for the DPRK, Iran, >Zimbabwe, etc., etc., will lead >others to question phrases like >"peaceful rise."
Why? It's not as if China is going to invade DPRK, Iran, and Zimbabwe. China has national interests (i.e. natural resources from Iran and Zimbabwe, not having an economic collapse in DPRK).
It is true that China doesn't put "human rights" as the top priority in its foreign policy. Neither does any other nation on the planet. It deals with dictators to get what it needs. That's hardly unique in the world.
The other thing to keep in mind is that unlike the United States, China is surrounded by a number of major powers, and there is no way that China is going to amass enough political or military strength to rule the world or even to come close to the dominance that the United States currently has. Even if the United States were to disappear, India, Russia, Japan, and Vietnam have enough military strength to keep China from pursuing expansionist policies.
The notion of a peaceful rise is rooted fundamentally in Chinese self-interest in that a hostile China is going to create a containment psychology which is not in China's interests.
But this debate is sort of being rapidly irrelevant. The fact is that Chinese political, economic and diplomatic power is now essential for dealing with things like North Korea and Iran.
The United States as formitable as it is has reached the limits of its power, and simply cannot go it along in these issues.
88,
you are probably right, that the goal is a mixture of both. china's emphasis of 'peaceful development' is a reaction to the accusation it has received.
because US and many others have delivered such accusation when it bids for olympic and WTO. it was forced to make such clarification, and follow up with actions such as border demarcation with its land neighbors. (although the 2000 olympic was partly a ripple effect of TAM incidence)
for reasons of demonising, may i add the following:
5. realpolitik
6. domestic interest groups in japan and US (e.g. defense contractors)
7. commercial protectionism
8. false believe that the world is a zero sum game, so that it you hurt another country you would have a bigger pie to your share.
as for china's support of DPRK and Zimbabwe, iran/sudan. another view to this is that it has no choice. had it been accepted as a normal nation and allowed to bid for unocal it won't need to search for oil in iran/sudan. had US not threatened china' border in 1950 china would not be so much tied up with kim dynasty......most chinese people i talked to in Jilin detest and despise the Kim dynsaty, and i would like to see it gone as well. however, US needs to be blamed for china's support of DPRK. things are just more complicated than we could say in a few lines.
dave, thanks for the note.
terrill creates more damage than CCP in the sense that we automatically look at CCP documents with critical eyes, but most people are not as alert when reading terrill.
that is why you see my post (and some others, e.g. ESWN) seem to be more critical on western biase than CCP ones. because no one needs to be reminded of CCP's biased propagnada.
I'm in agreement with you, Sun Bin. That's why I said both are guilty of the same abuse of history. Think about it from Terrill's angle; I just said his representation is just as disingenuous as the CCPs. I don't think he'd like that.
I made a similar point to the one you're making re: reading Western stuff with a critical eye in my last post:
http://silkworms.chinesetriad.org/?p=262
about Reuters "China invented skiing" article. Remember we had a whole discussion on the ancient noodles? My point is the same, that the cultural diversity behind some of these archaeological finds could be mentioned more often. But instead, Reuters finds it more convienent to discuss China as a monolithic entity that claims it invented everything, even when Xinhua's article on the ski paintings quite clearly avoids such claims. But no one criticized Reuters; instead, all the response to the skiing find was "here the Chinese go again", even when the Chinese press seemed more careful than in other instances.
Joe,
>>Why? It's not as if China is going to invade DPRK, Iran, and Zimbabwe.
The question "Is China a threat?" requires that you specify "to whom?" The issue isn't whether China will invade Iran or the DPRK, etc. This "threat" topic is usually limited to three spheres: 1) The US, 2) East Asia, 3) the current global power structure.
How does support for pariah states (whatever the ultimate cause of that support is) affect those three spheres? The DPRK is a destablizing force in Asia. Iran is a destablizing force in the Mideast. Both are rabidly anti-American. Both are involved in weapons proliferation, etc., far beyond their own "spheres." Ok, those states affect all three spheres I mentioned. (Notice that I didn't even mention human rights or what those states do to their own people.) So China's support for these regimes would lead many in the West to question whether or not China's growing role will be constructive and peaceful (read "will not disturb the current system") or antagonizing and aggressive.
That is just one minor example.
>>China is surrounded by a number of major powers,
Germany was surrounded by a greater number of major powers before both World Wars, so I don't find that argument convincing.
>>keep China from pursuing expansionist policies
You are lumping things togther. China can be a "threat" without wanting to expand its borders or to take over the world. I don't know of anyone claiming that China is going to start invading countries. That isn't the issue.
88s,
i understand you have a good point. however, china was just treating iran as a normal nation like korea, vietnam or malaysia. i wouldn't say china is supporting iran.
(the only nation china is really supporting, physically, is probably DPRK, in my view)
china is only doing business with iran. if i extend your argument, i run into some problem with Cuba.
Cuba is no threat to anyone, including US. yet, the Bush Admin view it as a prime enemy. Mexica and Jamaica are doing business with Cuba. Can we call Mexico a Cuba supporter?
SB,
I agree with all of your additions to that list. My point is only this: you need to separate the intentions of the CCP leadership from the unintended reality/conflicts that will arise from China's changing position. For instance, I sincerely believe that the CCP does have the desire to rise peacefully. I do not think the Chinese leadership seeks conflict at this stage. Even on Taiwan, despite their rhetoric conflict is the last thing they want. So my criticism is that people are focusing on intentions too much.
There are a lot of ridiculous assertions made by some in the West about the rising China threat. I do not share their views. I am pointing out, however, that there is a rational basis to question the theory of "peaceful rise." A few reasons:
- Historically speaking, when one power rises rapidly, conflict ensues (this isn't a "law," just experience)
- China's form of government is viewed with disdain in the West and violates core Western democratic values (this plants seeds of suspicion and conflict).
- Political power is a zero sum game by definition. Political power is only defined via realtionships -- one actor measured against another. Economic power is not zero sum.
- As you pointed out,a rising China has greater energy needs. Energy is limited. China's demand ($$) for oil could realign/finance the entire Mideast -- i.e., the US isn't the only game in town anymore (well, soon).
Those are just a few, there are many more. In other words, some see systemic reasons that China could be a 'threat' -- and, again, a threat to whom? The three spheres I mentioned above.
>>Can we call Mexico a Cuba supporter?
That is a good question. I will answer like this:
1) Cuba is not Iran nor the DPRK because Cuba is not a destablizing force and is not involved in weapons proliferation. The Bush admin. views Cuba as an enemy through the prism of Miami politics; it definitely does not consider Cuba a "threat," while it definitely does consider the DPRK and Iran threats.
2) If Mexico were (supposedly) on the verge of becoming the world's next superpower, its actions would be viewed entirely differntly. So even though Cuba is not the DPRK, Washington WOULD view current Mexican support/trade/business/etc. with Cuba entirely differntly if Mexico were in China's current position.
88s,
thanks. i think your discussion on mexico highlighted a few important issues. it is china's size and growth that generated unease and skeptism (compounded with excuse/correlation of some unpleasant history which are fault of both imperialists and communists and chinese leaderships themselves, as listed by you above). in other words, democracies such as mexico, india, or even brazil and australia could generate similar unease had they got china's size and growth.
Bushism of 'you are either with us or with the terrorists/enemy' dichotomy only made things more polarized than it should.
of course, we shall not deny the difference between china and brazil/australia in the view of US (and the West) also includes unfamiliarity, difference in culture/religion/language, and let's also admit it, racism to a certain degree for some in the west.
SB,
I agree with most of that. I don't think racism plays a large role -- not in policy formation, etc. It plays a minor role "on the street," however.
The major issue, I think, is China's form of government. I'll go beyond that: if everything were exactly the same in China right now and the CCP changed its name to the "Democracy Party" and condemened Chairman Mao and communism, you would hear way less talk of the "China threat." That is the sad truth. The symbolism/facade of "communism" is doing China way more damage than it can ever realize.
For example, if you ask the typical American what he thinks of Russia today, he will say, "They are our friends." -- even though almost nothing actually changed within Russia since the CCCP. Why? Because Russia officially threw off "communism."
Ok, sorry, that is a whole separate story....
Sun Bin,
why do you only list Greg Clark as an Australian diplomat with first hand experience? Terrill is exactly the same. In fact at one time he was feted as a "friend of China". That he has come to different views than Clark (and one might add, to you) should not detract from the point that he is almost exactly the same as Clark in terms of credibility (if one could call it that). For me the most interesting thing is that two people with similar experiences could come to such different views about China and East Asia.
88
[Of course, some will hype the "China threat" for their own political purposes.]
u can say that again, there is a veritable army of “experts” from various think tanks
out there who make a living hyping the “china threat” to justify building 20 billion battle groups.
The likes of , bill gertz(a cia plant ? ), , and this terill chap etc are just the tip of an iceberg.
Oh, how could we forget the biggest fear monger of them all - Mr rumsfeld?
They don’t mind cooking the book to make china 10 feet tall too
[Hmm, just like some in China have hyped the "American threat" over the past 50 years.) Niether of these points deals with the basic issue, however]
I see lots of seemingly objective comments like this, putting equal blame on yanks and Chinese hawks who use the bogeyman for their hidden agendas. But this is pure bullshit.
There is nothing surreal about the threat from the us
There is not necessary for the Chinese “hawks” to hype it, all they need to do is pointing to the .facts
The article below is good analysis, funny its no longer available on the net, NOT EVEN IN THE GOOGLE CACHED ARCHIVE, a whole lot of files in my archive are no longer available, but its kinda weird that they aren’t in google’s archive too, hmmm
Anyway I am posting the entire article below,
===============
China crisis: More than a war of words
By Conn Hallinan
Special to The Examiner
Reading U.S. press accounts concerning the recent crisis in U.S.-China relations could make one think the whole brouhaha is about language: The Chinese say they want an "apology," the U.S. wants to just express "regrets." But the genesis of the April 1 collision between a U.S. EP-3E spy plane and a Chinese F-8 fighter over the South China Sea has very little to do with linguistics. The Chinese are afraid, and they have damn good reason to be so.
Cut through all the so-called cultural pre-occupation about "face," and consider the following:
* When the Bush Administration took over, it immediately changed the U.S. designation of China from "strategic partner" to "strategic competitor."
* The Pentagon soon followed with an announcement that the U.S. would build an anti-ballistic missile system (ABM) that "coincidentally" could cancel out all of China's 18 ICBMs. Asked if the action might not upset the Chinese, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld briskly dismissed China's anxieties: "China is not a concern. It's not a party to the ABM."
* The White House not only halted talks with North Korea (aimed at restraining the North Korean missile program that the ABM system was originally designed to deal with), it pressured South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung into appointing hard-line conservative, Han Seung Soo, as defense minister. Han immediately re-established the Team Spirit war games, which recreates a joint U.S.-South Korean invasion of North Korea. The 1950 U.S. invasion of North Korea was what sparked Chinese entrance into the Korean War.
* The U.S. is contemplating the sale of advanced destroyers armed with the Aegis ABM system, Advanced Patriot Missiles, and submarines to Taiwan.
* Japan, again under pressure from the Bush Administration, is debating a tongue-twisting piece of legislation entitled War Laws on Measures to Deal With Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan. For the first time since the post-war Peace Constitution, Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF) will have the authority to seize land and expropriate a civilian workforce. It would also give free port and airfield access to the U.S. during military emergencies. There are already 47,000 U.S. troops in Japan.
The "War Law" resonates strongly in Asia, where memories of WW II are still fresh. While most Americans think of the Japanese more as an economic force than a military one, Japan has the fifth largest navy in the world, and the 15th largest air force. Its SDF would match all but the four biggest NATO countries in armor and artillery. At $37 billion, its military budget is slightly more than China's.
There is also a growing nationalist movement in Japan, and recent publications that glorify Japan's World War II exploits and downplay Imperial atrocities have drawn sharp protests from China. Nor has China forgotten earlier atrocities at the hands of the great European empires, from the 1839-42 Opium Wars, when the British forced drug addiction on the Chinese, to the sack of Peking in 1860. An eyewitness for the London Times recorded the behavior of British troops when they stormed the Yuan Ming Yuan, or summer palace: "When they first ran into the palace, they had no idea what to take. In order to take the gold, they threw away the silver. In order to take the gems, they threw away the gold. A lot of priceless china and porcelain was just destroyed because it was too big to move."
Imagine, if you will, President James Buchanan fleeing the White House (and President-elect Abraham Lincoln remaining in Illinois for safety) while British troops pillaged Washington in the same way. Is this something the Chinese are likely to forget?
When the Bush Administration (and most media outlets, this one excepted) claimed that the downed plane was "sovereign territory," the claim was little different than when the European powers carved out pieces of China, like Hong Kong and Macao. You could almost taste the Imperial arrogance coming out of Washington and hear the martial tone of Kipling: "Send 'Chinese' Gordon up the Yangtze to give the wogs a whiff of the grapeshot. That'll learn 'em some manners."
But this is not 1860, and imperial language is not simply inappropriate, it's damned dangerous. Washington and the U.S media have failed to confront that China has serious national security interests that we have routinely violated for years.
This was not the first flight of an EP-3E near Chinese territory. For years, EP-3Es, RC-135s, Blackbirds, U-2s, and a variety of airborne and seaborne intelligence-gathering devices have overflown or spied on the People's Republic. Since the tense 1996 standoff over Taiwan, when U.S. carriers stationed themselves off the Chinese mainland, the U.S. has been aggressively monitoring the PRC's military.
While the U.S. media have highlighted recent complaints by the U.S. that Chinese military aircraft have come dangerously close to American surveillance planes, PRC complaints about aggressive U.S. spying have gone unreported. The Chinese are particularly touchy about their two new submarines, a quiet-running Kilo class diesel that appeared about a year ago, and the 093, modeled after the Russian Victor III. The latter has the ability to launch cruise missiles while submerged, allowing the Chinese to challenge U.S. aircraft carriers. In China's front yard, I would add, not off the Golden Gate or Nantucket.
Things got so dicey last month in the Yellow Sea that a Chinese frigate pulled within 100 yards of the USNS Bowditch, a high tech surveillance ship, and trained its guns on the U.S. craft. While the EP-3E might have, indeed, been in international airspace when it was intercepted, it was international airspace near Hainan Island, just south of the Zhanjiang headquarters of the South China Fleet, the port for China's new subs.
Given the recent Cold War rhetoric of the Bush Administration toward Russia, its unilateralism on everything from global warming to the bombing of Baghdad, if the Chinese are worried, they have every right to be. China spends one-eighth of what the U.S. does on its military, so when Rumsfeld talks about the dangers of PRC military spending, the Chinese know he is blowing smoke--right into the eyes of most the American media.
What no one seems to be willing to say is that the U.S. simply has no right to endanger another nation's national security and not expect a reaction. Of course we should apologize. We scared the hell out of the biggest country in the world, one which has far more reason to fear us (and our allies), than we them. More than that, we should immediately halt these dangerous and destabilizing spy flights, which have killed 152 Americans since the end of World War II.
As intelligence expert James Bamford, author of the "Puzzle Palace" and the soon-to-be-released "Body of Secrets" about the National Security Agency argues, "There are good reasons to consider ending our frequent, provocative, costly and often-redundant close-in air patrols. The purpose of intelligence is to reduce tensions and the possibilities of war, not raise them."
Examiner columnist Conn Hallinan is a journalism lecturer at U.C. Santa Cruz.
-----------
some text got messed up somehow even though its alright when i preview it
>>funny its no longer available on the net, NOT EVEN IN THE GOOGLE CACHED ARCHIVE
Yes, it is the vast conspiracy of the free press!! Rumsfeld controls Google!! He scrubs their cache at midnight!
>>putting equal blame on yanks and Chinese hawks who use the
You're wrong. I don't put equal blame on the two. No one could match the threat-hyping of the CCP over the past 50 years for domestic political purposes.
88
[No one could match the threat-hyping of the CCP over the past 50 years for domestic political purposes.
]
jeeze, did u even read my post?
how about showing some examples of the chinese fabricating this "imagined threat" from the us?
take your time, thats enough for me for now.
很明显，DENK近50年来没看过CCTV和人民日报.
dylan,
clark is probably in the minority. so i was interested in his background and checked it out. since the minority views is more in need of credibility, i listed what I found.
As for Terrill, I do not disagree with his conclusions (the 6 goals) at higher level, although I think he was being sloppy at suggesting outer manchuria as part of the territory to be 'regained'. My problem with Terrill is his sloppiness and carelessness in taking convenient rhetoric against China, mixed with a lot of dis-informations. A research associate at the fairbank center should have much higher academic rigor than Terrill.
"even though almost nothing actually changed within Russia since the CCCP"
Please, let be serious. You don't know what you're talking about... A little revision of history and common sense are needed...
F.
Frank,
I meant in relation to democracy. My larger point is that most people on the outside pay more attention to symbolism than what is actually happening inside a country. If you think Russia is currently a democracy, all i can say is, "Please, let's be serious."
88
[China's form of government is viewed with disdain in the West and violates core Western democratic values (this plants seeds of suspicion and conflict]
core Western democratic values?
U mean when they abetted an “election” conducted under gun point?
or,
kicked out the locals and converted diego Garcia into yet another US military base?
between the yanks and the brits, who are the most vociferous on democracy and all that jazz, they have toppled dozens of democratically elected governments in the past half a century…..
spreading democracies?
More like planting compliant governments, creating vassal states to me…
[How does support for pariah states (whatever the ultimate cause of that support is) affect those three spheres? The DPRK is a destablizing force in Asia. Iran is a destablizing force in the Mideast. Both are rabidly anti-American. Both are involved in weapons proliferation, etc]
hmmm, pariah states? You are sounding more and more like the neocons
“rabidly anti Americans,”?
folks don’t pick a fight with a 1200 lbs gorilla for nothing, unless they are tired of living,
have it ever occurred to you that the Iranians or north Koreans might have good reason to be “anti americans”
88
[很明显，DENK近50年来没看过CCTV和人民日报]
as a matter of fact, i havent read those estemed publications,
anyway, while there is overwhelming evidence (59900000. to be exact) to show that the yanks have been hyping up the chinese threat for their ulterior motive,
u have yet to show me one exemple to support your sweeping claim that "No one could match the threat-hyping of the CCP over the past 50 years for domestic political purposes. "
if they have been doing it for the past 50 years, it shouldnt have been so hard to find even a shred of evidence?
88,
I don't think Russia is currently a democracy, I think it's a country in transition (difficult transition) to democracy (with authoritarian involutions).
But USSR was a totalitarian regime, a marxist-leninist dictatorship, a gulag-state.
You have to admit that your sentence "even though almost nothing actually changed within Russia since the CCCP" is a bit out of touch.
Frank,
>.But USSR was a totalitarian regime, a marxist-leninist dictatorship, a gulag-state.
You need to be more specific. For example, China was all of those things once, too, most dramatically during the Cultural Revolution -- is it the same today? Was the USSR in 1987, let's say, a whole lot different from Russia is today? If you say the USSR under Stalin is a lot different than Russia under Putin, then I will agree. But if you say the USSR under Gorbachev is a lot different (in terms of democracy), then you'd have to prove it.
And if things keep going in the current direction, you will see more Gulags popping up anytime now.
88,
Actually, I think CCTV is quite pro USA and even pro Bush; Go to CCTV9 if you don't understand Chinese.
http://www.cctv-9.com/2005/default.asp?videoName=live&videoSpeed=300
About the last few comments about CCTV, etc....I'll stick to discussing reality with Sun Bin.
"Was the USSR in 1987, let's say, a whole lot different from Russia is today?"
Yes, it was.
88,
It is the reality. If you watch their news or discussion sections very carefully, you will notice CCTV tends to say only good things about the US government?
Somebody asked for example of America hyping the "yellow menance" thing? Here's an article from armscontrolwonk on US government's lies about Chinese spying in America:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/727/how-many-chinese-front-companies
Fear stemmed from the lack of understanding. Many people when dealing with China forget to remember that Chinese are heavily influenced by its 2400+ years of confucius-monarchy rule. This influence is much more deeply rooted and potent than any modern political ideology.
Remember a few facts about the history of china will help to understand its psyche:
1. Military expansion by ANY dynasty inevitably failed.
2. Foreign forces that occupied China have always been absorbed and integrated into the chinese governmental and cultural system.
3. Dynasties in China are almost always ended by its peasant. However, these peasants preseved the court system with minor adjustment (One could make a case that current CPP is only a slightly modified version of the chinese court system). As a matter of fact, I don't agree with sentiments that said CPP is in control of China. They are no more in control than any emperor in the history (whose power, when scrutinized, is actually severely curtailed). Chinese are not ruled by any person and/or political party. They are ruled by a mindset. Emperor and a dominant party is needed as a figurehead.
4. Chinese uprising always occurs when the court fails to provide them with a stable life. The farmers in China are resilient and submissive, but they have the resolve and experience to topple dynasty and government. (Unlike citizens of certain new imperial State, I might add)
I often watch with amusement when westerner grapple with the chinese problem. Chinese is complex, but it has nearly 2000 years worth of detail research data to draw on. Much of it is still relevant today.
In any case, I noticed the comment stopped last year, so it's something of a late addition. Just like to contribute my share in this enlightening discussion.
Post a Comment