34 replies to this topic

[davidals]

^I definitely agree.  I was young in the 70s, but I do remember both the unsettling nature of things that would turn up on the news, and of the chaos of the times.  More clearly, I recall being a college freshman when TS happened, and - even to American college kids (at least my friends and I) we were galvanized by what we were seeing; it was people the same age as us, and it was (and remains) extremely upsetting to see how it all played out.

As for background on the SE Asia developments 1970-1990; I had to do some research into it in college, and there is some in-depth scholarship I could recommend to anyone interested, but it's very, very heavy reading.  Phillip Short and David Chandler's investigations into the structure of and ideological evolution of the KR are fairly brilliant analyses which, beyond their historical scholarship, give great consideration to the philosophic intersection between morality, psychology, pragmatism, the limits of ideology and theories, and the necessity of recognizing human nature.  Elizabeth Becker's work gravitates more towards human rights, basic history and real-life geopolitical intrigue, but she was one of the only westerners allowed into Cambodia between 75 and 79, as a 'visiting journalist' (coincidentally, the week before Vietnam invaded), and her recountings of the trip radiate both detail and horror at the events swirling around her.

[dgreco]

PghUSA, on Jun 16 2006, 03:27 AM, said:

That is very interesting analysis of the KR situation, very interesting.  

America is by no means a blameless nation, but that is besides the point of wether or not China will lead in peace or in dominance.  As far as the KR situation you cite instances of an administration that brought a nightcap oil crisis (after Nixon/Ford learned our national lessons for us just 6 years before), the Iran hostage crisis, stagflation at 20-30% rates, the eventual fumble of the Canal Zone into the hands of a communist government monopoly, the Marielita international crime wave (think "Scarface"), initially fumbling Afganistan to the Soviets, and the death of any "human intelligence" at the CIA (which some scholars have argued planted the seeds for our impotence to prevent 9/11) among many other political highlights.  The DIFFERENCE is the peace loving and prosperity seeking American people got their 1980 referendem on what some could classify as Carter's incompetence.  Do the peace and prosperity loving Chinese people get their 1980?  

What troubles me is that we elected a well meaning but arguably spinless leader in 1976 that "went along to get along" even if it was with the likes of the KR, Castro unloading the criminally insane, addicts and perverts to Florida, and initially with the Iranian rebels etc.  In the 1940s China supported an equally dangerous leader, but never got a referendem on him or his party.  This while all attemps including TS in 1989 and the other "revolts" were mercilessly crushed.  Where is the citizen forum to debate human rights abuses (Tibet to the gulags to Falun Gung)?  America is not an angel in the least but any leader weak or crass enough realizes that the people will have their say in 2-4 years.  China's leaders could quite possibly care less, there is no reprucussion for supporting the Khemer Rouge or Pol Pot or the terror spread in the Koreas or Vietnam.

It is not the Chinese people I am worried about it is if their leaders will obey them, like Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were forced to obey their people in January 1981.

[gaoanyu]

Thank you very much for your insight views which really have broaden my minds. I think davidal's made a very good point because after the 1960's, the China-USSR relation became so bad and they almost went into an open war with each other. Back then, most of China's actions were actually OKed by the US. A good example is the China-Vietnam war in which US clearly stood alongside China. In fact, without US's clear stance, China dare not attack Vietnam because the Viets had very good relationships with the USSR.

The TS incident was a sad story for China, and should never happen again. While almost everyone in China now agrees that it is definitely wrong about the killings, most people also agrees that the earned stability was crucial for China's later rapid economic development. A few more points that you may have missed out from reading reports from the west media:
1. Sending troops may seem iron-handed at first, but back then, China had no riot police or such because such large scale and long lasting demonstration had never happened in China before. So China's only bet to restore its capital back to order was to use soldiers. Actually, troops were brought into the capital before the night of 6.4, armed forces were only sent to the TS square after the government declared martial law and asked everyone to leave the square (some people failed to obey to the martial law). Who ordered the soldiers to open fire, how many people really dead are still open questions, we can only wait until the government account to be revealed.
2. It may seem brutal to send troops against the students. But the protest were not just students. In fact, a number of weapon-free soldiers were killed by the demonstrators as well. Most soldiers were around the age of 20, younger then the students.
3. The incident also showed struggles inside the CCP itself. Of course, the hardliners won at last.

About freedom of speech and human rights issues.
1. It is improving quite fast, especially when we enter into the digital era. Although people always mention about the great firewall. It is now, not difficult to find Chinese sites where voices against the CCP were publicly published, something you'll never find 10 years ago. China is of course not as free as say UK or UK, but it's improving step by step, and most Chinese people are happy with the status quo.
2. Falungong. I have to say that Falungong people behaved much better after going abroad, they didn't set fire to themselves in the public to scare kids. I have a classmate, his aunt jumped out of the window from 5 stories after practicing Falungong and died. She believed she could go to haven. Another relative of my another classmate, he refused to take medicine after getting illed, because he believed by practicing, he could be cued. And these were just stories happened around me, not to mention the others. Do you honestly think that China's government should allow its citizens, normally less educated than the west, to practice something like this? Said that, I perfectly understand there are people who practice Falongong and then became healthier, BUT all other Qi Gong methods can do the same, why allow something that could let people kill themselves? I bet the US media never reported case like this.
3. Tibet. First off, I can understand westners always pay sympathy to Tibetans and wish them an independent country and condemn CCP's "invasion". But, even Dalai Lama himself has stated that he didn't want independence; and Tibet was part of China since the Ming dynasty, not that CCP or PLA invaded.

[gaoanyu]

Quote

It is not the Chinese people I am worried about it is if their leaders will obey them, like Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were forced to obey their people in January 1981.

I don't think any Chinese leaders would do anything against the majority of the Chinese people's will. Even in the Mao's era, all defensive wars were largely supported by the Chinese people. I bet that if there were referedums on these wars, the rate of support would be very high. Just like in WWII, when USA was attacked by Japan, almost every American agreed to kick Japan's ass; whereas when G.Bush wanted to attack Iraq, a great number of people actually disagree with his decision.

[davidals]

PghUSA, on Jun 16 2006, 01:27 AM, said:

What troubles me is that we elected a well meaning but arguably spinless leader in 1976 that "went along to get along" even if it was with the likes of the KR, Castro unloading the criminally insane, addicts and perverts to Florida, and initially with the Iranian rebels etc.

Again, quite correct, though I would pull back to the larger picture - we've played nice with some nasty political leaders, internationally before Carter, and after as well, so his moral relativism is a far from unique phenomena.  And, for all he might have known and been able to act upon, there were situations - like the Marielito boatlift (and maybe the Iranian revolution) that hit with little warning.  Were it not for pre-Carter 'playing nice' with the Shah, for example, the Iran situation (and it's paradigm-shifting fallout) may never have occurred.  But I do agree that Carter really washed out much of his promise as a proactive leader very early on, and it's definitely not - in retrospect - what we needed at the time.

gaoanyu, on Jun 16 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

Thank you very much for your insight views which really have broaden my minds. I think davidal's made a very good point because after the 1960's, the China-USSR relation became so bad and they almost went into an open war with each other. Back then, most of China's actions were actually OKed by the US. A good example is the China-Vietnam war in which US clearly stood alongside China. In fact, without US's clear stance, China dare not attack Vietnam because the Viets had very good relationships with the USSR.

Gaoanyu - I also appreciate the perspective.  We hear a lot about growth and the new economy in China - from politics to life in general it's important to hear some opinions from China as well.  I'm certain that China is turning into one of the great powers of the world, which is fine with me.  There are a great many connections between the US and China, and I doubt leaders in either country would want to jeopardize that.  And the optimist in me expects that - with greater numbers of people in both countries thinking globally - both societies will evolve in beneficial ways.

[PghUSA]

Gaoanyu, the majority of Americans supported the war in Iraq, and that is not just poll numbers but election numbers from 2002 and 2004.

With the KR and Pol Pot situation, you are correct that the USSR had broken ties with Bejing at the time, but the US-Chinese relationship did not consist of Washington making policy for China, if anything the weak kneed Carter administration (I say that for the numerous reasons I mentioned in my last post) was in the habit of taking policy from Moscow, Bejing, Havana, and Vienna (OPEC), thus the numerous human disasters that plagued those 4 years.

As far as having Chinese leaders not do anything against the will of the people, one will never know will one.  They won't even let the alternative viewpoint be heard on the radio, television or internet sites let alone run a platform on any referendum.  If you quit having Coke and Pepsi and only have Pepsi, I wouldn't be surprised if Pepsi claims the "will of the people" on their side, what possible other side could you have.  

Maybe I have watched "Red Corner" once too often, but I am saddened at how much great talent and potential was wasted by some old guards that perpetrated TS, the gulag and other actions that never got a vote by the people.  Maybe things have gotten better, but until we actually hear from the people of China through the internet or other media I am left asking what is thier will?

[gaoanyu]

I understand that the majority Americans supported the Iraqi war, but the majority Iraqi people don't. In the end, it's their country.

State broadcast news earn very few geniune followers in China, most Chinese people switch channels when they see news prasing the CCP party. Althought not found in public media, people are free to criticise the gov at their leisure times with no problems. Said that, media is indeed controlled, but the Internet in China, I think, is much freer than you've expected. If you understand Chinese, you can easily find BBS sites and forums where people post posts against the gov policies and CCP, and most of them have no problems at all.

[Mikejesmike]

Pertaining to the original question I don't see it happening, you would have to assume China will keep it's explosive growth rate while the United States will barely grow or stagnate, don't forget that the United States is growing faster as a nation.

China is a weird place, for one despite still calling itself communist it's almost practically a capitalist nation. Deng was pretty smart, he knew steps had to be taken or China would be where Russia was with the breadlines and shopping shortages. So by allowing capitalist ventures they were able to not only raise the standard of living but to also bring in the money to modernize the nation.

So they are now capitalist, maybe they'll get rid of the communist government too.

[Mikejesmike]

I forgot to add that I'd like to see another nation take over as the #1 power, let us get a rest and get out of the limelight. It'll be  funny seeing how many of those nations that used to complain about the United States now wish we were #1 again. If you think another nation upsurping us means all the "world policing" will end guess again. When you're on top you find you have interests practically all over the globe, not just in your quiet little neighborhood like Thailand or something like that. So you see to them knowing if it effects them it effects you too.

[dpbaker]

If it is possible, China is the only nation on the planet capable of doing it. The problem is, you still have essentially a police-state with a poor record on human rights and a lack of certain, basic freedoms. Yes, things are changing and I hope they will change completely for the sake of the Chinese people. Whether we like it or not, China is here to stay as a major if not the major player for several decades to come. And then they will be pushed out by somebody else, perhaps India??

[MrTudo]

A threat to the US becoming the new Roman Empire? Yes. A threat to the "freedoms" in the US? LOL. The US is nearly as communist as China with the biggest difference being China marching toward a free market and the US marching into and almost begging for more and more socialist government.

[davidals]

dpbaker, on Oct 15 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

If it is possible, China is the only nation on the planet capable of doing it. The problem is, you still have essentially a police-state with a poor record on human rights and a lack of certain, basic freedoms. Yes, things are changing and I hope they will change completely for the sake of the Chinese people. Whether we like it or not, China is here to stay as a major if not the major player for several decades to come. And then they will be pushed out by somebody else, perhaps India??

Hmm...India.

I haven't been, but I would guess that India wouldn't exactly push either the US or China out of anything, but will grow to be that large moderating influence that can't be ignored.  

One of my closest friends grew up in Bangalore, and lived in Mumbai before coming to the US, and just listening to his description of the changes there in his lifetime (30 yrs) is pretty dizzying.  He's also described the problems of the place, and a great many of them (convoluted or unresponsive government, bureaucracy, class and ethnic tensions, occasionally callous responses to poverty, rural vs urban political divides) sound awfully familiar to American ears.  But China has a lot of those problems as well, any vast nation will...

[Snowguy716]

No.  China will not overtake the U.S.  They might become more powerful, but China doesn't have the resources to keep their country thriving.  They are simply catching up after many decades of stagnant development.

Also, their one-child policy means that their population will be falling by 2030 or so while our population continues to grow.  

The U.S is 19% arable compared to only 10% of China.  The country's ability to grow enough food to feed themselves is a huge challenge.

[City_of_Lakes]

Snowguy716, the one child policy does not encompass all of China.  In the countryside it's pretty much nonexistent and many large cities, such as Shanghai, have changed policies regarding that over the years.

This comes from experience in living there and having friends from both urban and rural areas that had not just one sibling but several in some cases.  Though, as is typical, the birthrates in the urban areas are much lower than that of the rural ones.


Side notes:

I find it really interesting how China decided to dam up the mother river and flooded a great percentage of their own arable land for flood control and energy production.  Already there is the need to dredge shipping channels all the way up to Chongqing and the reservoir is not to full capacity until 2009.  More sediment will pile up very quickly cus this river is as muddy as the Mississippi.

IMO: In regards to Tibet, I have to bring into question the destruction of 6,000 monasteries and the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans when it is pointed out that the CCP did not ‘invade’ that area.  (That being said, I know that the USA is definitely guilty of a great number of atrocities as well).  Today Tibetans are outnumbered 3 to 1 as ethnic Han are given incentives to move in and set up house and start businesses.  The amount of money spend on the railway over the Tibetan Plateau could have been put to much better use, for the permafrost is melting and there are going to be great problems for that service in the near future.

[City_of_Lakes]

Snowguy716, the one child policy does not encompass all of China.  In the countryside it's pretty much nonexistent and many large cities, such as Shanghai, have changed policies regarding that over the years.

This comes from experience in living there and having friends from both urban and rural areas that had not just one sibling but several in some cases.  Though, as is typical, the birthrates in the urban areas are much lower than that of the rural ones.


Side notes:

I find it really interesting how China decided to dam up the mother river and flooded a great percentage of their own arable land for flood control and energy production.  Already there is the need to dredge shipping channels all the way up to Chongqing and the reservoir is not to full capacity until 2009.  More sediment will pile up very quickly cus this river is as muddy as the Mississippi.

IMO: In regards to Tibet, I have to bring into question the destruction of 6,000 monasteries and the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans when it is pointed out that the Beijing did not ‘invade’ that area  (and yes I have been there and talked with local people before, so no, I am not speaking of something with which I truly have no idea about).  

(That being said, I know that the USA is definitely guilty of a great number of atrocities as well).  

Today Tibetans are outnumbered 3 to 1 as ethnic Han are given incentives to move in and set up house and start businesses.  The amount of money spend on the railway over the Tibetan Plateau could have been put to much better use, for the permafrost is melting and there are going to be great problems for that service in the near future.