Remember when China was supposed to be the next up-and-coming superpower?
With a fifth of the world’s population, a totalitarian regime seemingly secure,
and a well-earned reputation as a rising industrial powerhouse, "Red"
China has long been one of the War Party’s favorite bogeymen. When all else
failed, in the post-cold war world, and the supply of potential enemies seemed
exhausted, they just hauled out the Chinese scarecrow to scare the doves away.
There was that incident over Hainan
Island, you’ll recall, a spy scare that turned out to be completely phony,
and the bombing of the Chinese
embassy in Belgrade during Clinton’s war on the former Yugoslavia, which
provoked energetic anti-American demonstrations on the mainland. Both times
we were treated to a full-court press on the alleged mightiness of the Red Chinese,
who were supposedly just waiting for the opportunity to exercise their awesome
power and challenge Uncle Sam in the world hegemony sweepstakes.
It never happened. What happened, instead, was that China moved steadily along
the road of economic development. Meanwhile the US deindustrialized itself and
ran up a record deficit, which the Chinese bought up — and relations
between the two countries rapidly improved. Yet a certain amount of resentment
remained, at least on the American side: after all, if Beijing called in all
that debt, or even a portion of it, the US government would soon be in receivership,
and that’s not a position we’re used to. The American media, in particular,
is Sinophobic to a noticeable degree, and this came to the fore during the Beijing
Olympics, when US journalists were shocked – shocked! – that
porn sites and Falun Gong propaganda (as well as the BBC and other mainstream
Western media) were
inaccessible. Every time the anniversary of the Tiananmen
Square incident rolls around, the Western media rolls out the outrage machine,
with interviews, photos (the guy standing in front of that tank), and endless
reiterations of the alleged casualty count.
Part of this is fear, with equal parts envy and white-skin privilege thrown
in for good measure: after all, we’re supposed to be the "hyperpower,"
as the French put it, and allegedly above all that. It wasn’t that long ago
when the Western powers, were picking off Chinese port cities and gobbling up
bits of the disintegrating Chinese empire. Today, of course, no one would think
of doing such a thing, because China is a monolithic empire that exercises total
dominion over all 3,696,100
square miles of its territory, and not only that, but maintains absolute control
over its 1,330,044,605-plus
people – right?
Well, not quite. China is populated by 56 officially recognized
minorities, and no doubt more than a few unrecognized ethnicities, and cultural-religious
sub-groups: contrary to popular mythology, which characterizes China as a nation
of Commie-atheists, where all religion is ruthlessly persecuted, tens of millions
of Chinese practice Islam, as well as various forms of Christianity, and the
government rarely interferes as long as adherents pray in "official"
churches, and religious leaders stay out of politics. Far from being a totalitarian
monolith, where everybody wears a regulation Mao-suit, and the only god is Mao,
China is a wildly diverse society, over which the Communist Party manages to
maintain an increasingly tenuous hold.
The Party’s less-than-firm grip on power was underscored, recently, when the
Uighurs (pronounced
Wee-gurs), concentrated in the westernmost province of Xingjiang, erupted with
violent fury. The occasion was the alleged
murder of two Uighur workers at a factory, and the apparent indifference of
the authorities. A protest, supposedly peaceful, was called in the capital city
of Urumqi, which soon turned into a melee, pitting Han Chinese (the majority)
against the Uighur underclass.
Uighurs mobs, armed with crowbars, rocks, and anything they could lay their
hands on, attacked
Han Chinese in the streets, beating several to death and sending hundreds to
the hospitals. The Han retaliated,
attacking Uighur restaurants and neighborhoods, while the police stood by –
and the Uighur counterattacked.
For Chinese President Hu Jintao to abruptly
depart from the G-8 summit in Italy highlights the CCP’s nervousness: they
know they are sitting atop a volcano that could erupt at any moment, and they
were ready for this one: internet communications, including Twitter and Facebook,
were immediately shut down throughout the troubled province, as thousands of
Chinese troops poured into Urumqi and environs, separating Uighur from Han and
establishing a very
visible presence, complete with checkpoints and daily parades through the
capital city. As rioters retreated they were showered with propaganda
pamphlets released from planes flying overhead, attacking one Rebiya
Kadeer, leader of the World Uighur Congress, an exile group headquartered
in Washington, D.C., as the instigator behind the riots: she quite plausibly
denied it. Whatever influence she and her group have inside China, it no doubt
amounts to very little: surely not enough to provoke an eruption such as we
are witnessing in Xingjiang today.
The Uighurs complain
of discrimination at the hands of Han Chinese business owners, and there is
a strong current of resentment against the entrepreneurial Han, who have come
into China’s western regions in increasing numbers. They are now the majority,
and the Uighurs – who have their own religion, their own language (Turkic
in origin), and their own proud history – are not at all happy about it.
What broke out in Urumqi, and surrounding villages, wasn’t a rebellion against
the authority of the Communist Party, nor was it a pro-democracy upsurge that
can be valorized by Western media as a heroic-but-doomed effort to emerge from
a living anachronism into modernity: rather, it was an old-fashioned full-fledged
race riot. The Communist system, which was supposed to have abolished racial
divisions, along with economic inequalities, has done neither: indeed, these
divisions seem to have grown into veritable chasms, in recent years, as China
barrels down the "capitalist road" – or, as the ChiComs would
put it, the road to "socialism with Chinese characteristics."
China’s split seams are clearly showing, and this instance goes a long way
toward exposing the sheer brittleness of the regime. The claim is being made
that Urumqi is fully pacified, but Western reporters – who have not been
barred from the scene, but are being bussed
around under government tutelage – say that tensions continue to boil just
beneath the surface, with several fresh incidents occurring daily, albeit quickly
crushed by the authorities.
China presents itself to the world as a unified entity, marching determinedly
along the road to the "Four
Modernizations," and fully prepared to take its place as a world power
alongside the US, the European powers, and its former Russian allies. Yet the
reality is quite different: in fact, the central government in Beijing has a
very difficult time exerting dominance over outlying provinces, and the leadership,
far from being unified, exhibits several competing centers of power.
What’s more, ethnic conflict is nothing new in the recent history of China:
in
2004, a traffic dispute between two villages in Henan province, one Han
Chinese and the other Hui (Muslim), escalated into a riot that ended only when
10,000 troops were called to the scene. In April of this year, ethno-religious
conflict again exploded into violence, reportedly sparked by a description in
a local newspaper of a Hui leader as "king of the pig-raising." As
one Hui observer wryly remarked, "One
should bear in mind that we Muslims would never raise pigs."
The discovery
of oil in the region has fueled resentment against the Han, and given the small
but vocal separatist movement visions of an economically viable independent
state. Turkey, whose government is motivated by an extravagantly ambitious pan-Turkic
nationalism, has offered
a visa to Ms. Kadeer, and invited her to come to Turkey: Istanbul somewhat
crazily envisions a Pan-Turkic Union that straddles Central Asia, reaching from
the shores of the Bosporus to Xingjiang’s border with Outer Mongolia.
The Chinese leadership is fully aware of the fragility of their regime, and is determined to hold on to power: this means, above all, maintaining the undisputed power of the central government, and reining in all "splittist" elements as they appear. Yet they are forced to maintain a delicate balancing act, one that also keeps a tight rein on Han ultra-nationalism even as it tries to counteract centrifugal forces – racial, religious, and economic divisions – that threaten national unity.
It is an act that cannot be successfully pulled off forever, for the simple
reason that China is far too big, and its government woefully top-heavy and
out-of-touch. Communism in China is but a formalistic religion, all ritual and
no real content, and yet that is the only factor – embodied by the Communist
Party of China — keeping the country together. Whether this hollow dictatorship
can retain its hold much longer is very much up in the air. Events in Urumqi
augur the break-up of the Communist state, just as the Polish upsurge led by
Solidarity prefigured the implosion of the Soviet empire. China’s empire, thought
to made of steel, may very well turn out to be fragile porcelain.
Whether such a turn of events will redound to our favor is a question that is far too interesting to tack on to the end of a column, and we’ll save it for another day. Suffice to say that, in China, our assumptions and cultural prejudices tell us very little about what is going on, and what the future will bring. Prepare to be surprised.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- The Orange Revolution, Peeled – February 7th, 2010
- Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — Don’t Go – February 4th, 2010
- Who Was That Well-Dressed Man? – February 2nd, 2010
- Will the Dragon Awake? – January 31st, 2010
- The State of the Empire – January 28th, 2010





bink35
July 10th, 2009 at 6:43 am
What you fail to say in your article (have the neocons gotten to you like they did Hitchens?) is that more than a few people died – it was more than 150 and most of them were Han. Are you sure Kadeer isn't supported by the CIA/NED? You might want to read up on some of the comments to Kadeer's WSJ op-ed:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12470125220910902...
arthurborges
July 10th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Yes, indeed: Xinjiang unrest boils down to race riots — just like in Tibet last year. That major unrest breaks out in the run-up to a major national event with a high international profile is no coincidence. Last year, M.K. Bhadrakumar was among the first to note the Lhasa riots had foreign backing and organization. Ms. Kadeer's World Uighur Congress is a beneficiary of funding from the National Endowment for Democracy. Polices don't block websites for laughs. In Iran Twitter was used to coordinate demonstrations — practically all held in the wealthy northern suburbs of Tehran and who else would use Twitter in Iran? I have to infer from blocking of Twitter and Facebook in China that, after assimilating the art of harvesting information from social networking websites, the US intelligence community is currently exploring their potential for offensive intelligence operations. In short, Ms. Kadeer's denial is not plausible to me.
I am happy this article begins by blowing away a few Western myths about China. Yes, there are 56 ethnic populations. Three out of the 56 are an issue: Hui, Tibetans and Uighurs; the other 53 are doing what most folks do — earning a living and raising families.
On myths, I do tire of hearing that China is a police state: the ratio of police officers to inhabitants is 1:750 in China against 1:350 in the USA, i.e. the US needs twice as many cops on a per capita basis. As for freedom, that too suffers quantification. The prison populations are 1.5 million in China and 2.4 million in the USA — with a population four times smaller, the US is the absolute champion jailer. Moreover, the last PEW Global Attitudes survey for China found 87% of about 3,500 respondents thought the government was "going in the right direction."
The real nationwide unrest concerns labor strikes and local demonstrations over, say, back wages and non-compensation of evicted tenants or eminent domain getting declared on lands to which they had held usufruct. However, these are locally triggered events and unconnected among each other.
To write that "Communism was supposed to have abolished racial divisions" is a distortion. Equality before the law is a founding principle of any republic and that's how the government of PRC chose to incorporate in 1949. Unlike in France where affirmative action is considered a violation of the republican principle of equality and there is only one official language, China has 56 official languages, which entitles children to schooling in that language and citizens, to service in that language in dealings with the authorities. The 55 minorities are also exempt from the one-child policy and qualify for admission to university with lower entrance exam scores.
Stoli
July 10th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Constant internal friction is what makes China strong, not weak. Weak is when your political system is so corrupt and decadent that what passes for debate is polite swipes taken by two wings of the same pro-corporate, pro-war, big-money party. The constant threat of domestic strife keeps the Beijing regime constantly on its toes, and, yes, sometimes honest, even. I promise you if a couple buildings in Hong Kong or Shanghai were hit by airplanes, they wouldn't be collectively wetting themselves like we did.
Yeah, China has problems. Big difference between them and us, though, is that tackling their problems leaves them stronger than before while we keep sinking further and further into the doldrums.
Geo1671
July 10th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Not for long–Israel operatves are in India.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/operatio...
Could India be groomed to attack China? You bet! With USA tax dollars at work.
Little is mentioned that Germany is funding and supporting the uprising in China. At least, the Chinese locals have the balls to take the matter in their hands :^/
arthurborges
July 10th, 2009 at 7:12 am
(cont.)
Another red herring is "forced migration of Han" to Tibet and Xinjiang. First, I don't see why a government should prohibit citizens from establishing domicile anywhere on its territory. Second, Beijing instituted a wide range of tax breaks for investors in Tibet and Xinjiang in a bid to jumpstart the economy. I've spoken to several Han shopkeepers living in Lhasa and the story is pretty much the same: they were farmers who had accumulated savings in order to go into business in order to improve their standard of living. Given that Tibet was relatively underdeveloped, the cost of setting up a business was lower and competition, less fierce than in, say, Chengdu.
I realize there are many Christians who would feel safer if China were reduced to its 19th Century condition of being the world's top importer and consumer of opium derivatives. After all the brutality of 500 years of economic extortion and gunboat diplomacy on every continent, it is unthinkable that any country big enough to take revenge might react in any other way.
But if you look at China and actually get to know it, you'll find a set of peoples shaped by their geography. Geography means things like earthquakes, floods, droughts and vulnerability to foreign invasion. When your family has a laundry list of such stories, the lesson that gets hardwired into your DNA is that when the schlitz hits the fan, your personal survival depends entirely on family, friends and personal connections, i.e. your social network. And fundamentally, the Chinese are social networkers. For the same geographic reasons, they are thrifty savers, even hoarders. In short, the Chinese mindset is fundamentally about win/win trading. I realize this is strange for Christ's little flock of European lambs who slaughtered themselves into title to the Americas but non-Christians are different. They really, deeply are.
Nonetheless, let us address the issue of defence. China will spend what it takes to protect its territory and underpin its legal position in a handful of territorial disputes, but not a jiao more: indeed the entire ICBM force targeting the Continental USA is a jawdropping total of 20 to 25 single-warhead DF-5A liquid-fuel missiles of 1960s design, based a few dozen miles southwest of the school where I teach. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the warheads are stored in a separate facility. It is acknowledged today that the Chinese only developed the atomic bomb as a result of public threats by Gen. Curtis E. Lemay and Gen. Douglas MacArthur to "bomb China back to the Stone Age." Speaking of his nuclear arsenal, Gen. Lemay added there were "no real targets" in China but "I'd drop a few." Because of the Ballistic Defense System, China is starting to deploy intercontinental single-warhead DF-31A missiles. Some say 12 are operational. Compare this to five or six US submarines loaded with 24 six-warhead Tridents on station at any given time, of which two are always on hard alert, i.e. able to launch within a few minutes, if not seconds. Unlike the insanity of the Americans and Russians, the total Chinese nuclear arsenal is in the same ballpark as those of France, India, Israel, Pakistan and the UK: 200 to 300. That seems to be the consensus among political and military leaders after bumping heads together and doing the maths.
At all events, in the long term, China has a culture. It has been invaded, taken over by Mongols, brought to its knees by disasters natural and manmade, and divided against itself so so so many times but because it has a culture, it will always come back together. As it always has. This is hard for Europeans to understand. As it now expands amidst rumors the ongoing financial meltdown will break it up, the European Union/NATO are somewhere in what China calls its Era of the Warring States (476 to 221 BCE), which unfolded into the Han Dynasty. It's asking a lot to urge Westerners to make such a quantum jump of thinking to enter a mindset where wealth is based on social networking, not regime change.and ever-more clever nuclear arsenals.
bink35
July 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
The student protest that took place on the main street of the city looks to have been a diversion to the real intent of the day: slaughtering Han in side streets and alley ways:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100...
bink35
July 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
arthurborges,
So much of the reporting about China is so negative and biased against the CCP and now, the Han. Your comment are very informative. Do you have a blog about life in China? Have you considered one?
marko13
July 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
arthurborges:
thanks so much for spending the time to write such interesting and informative commentary. I find it invaluable. I do need to point out in the spirit of fairness though, that Justin didn't talk about forced migration of the Han. Quite the opposite, actually. ".. [T]here is a strong current of resentment against the entrepreneurial Han, who have come into China’s western regions in increasing numbers" sounds to me more like a description of people looking for opportunities than people being forced; which is just as you said, actually.
What I can't quite figure though, is how this violence erupting squares with what you called China's win-win approach. If most people there felt like the situation really was that way, how would foreign interests be able to foment so much unrest first in one place and then have it spread wider?
Thanks again for your post. I hope to see many more of your insightful revelations about China.
renntiger
July 10th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Justin's central thesis is that China Threat is a myth. He is one of the very few prominent voices in the blogosphere to consistently make this argument, typically from a rational, informed perspective. In this article, he seems to be making the point that an internally unstable China makes it even less likely to challenge the current world order. I do think he is overstating somewhat the significance and true impact of these ethnic riots (after all, the Chinese nation has lived through far worse challenges than this in its history, and the Chinese are known for holding a 'long view' when dealing with setbacks), but his overall thesis is still sound, and he should be commended for his willingness to openly champion an unpopular stance (with either the left or the right, or indeed much of the readership of this blog) on this politically (and often emotionally) charged, but usually poorly understood subject.
arthurborges
July 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Bink35, I like the WSJ article that starts with "The Real Story…"
When Ms. Kadeer says the US needs a consulate in Urumqi as "a beacon of freedom in an environment of fierce repression" that will "monitor the daily human-rights abuses perpetrated against the Uighurs", well, the rhetoric carries a particular signature and you know who's subsidizing her.
One detail worth quibbling over, among others, is that Peoples Armed Police intervened more than once to separate Han avengers from Uighur rioters: the last thing that Beijing (or anybody else anywhere) needs is race war.
I hope the name "Peoples Armed Police" impresses everyone suitably. If it does, you should know that most cops operate like London bobbies: no firearms and, here, not even a nightstick.
arthurborges
July 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Dear Marko13,
Perhaps I abused Mr. Raimondo's article by exploiting it to launch off on different tangents. My only excuse is an intention to expand on certain points as much as to put a different spin on others.
The answer to your question of course is that some Uighurs riot because not all of them are happy and not all of them are nice. As in other market economies, wealth and power tend to concentrate in the same hands, wealth stays in the family and the income gap has been widening since Deng Xiaoping's shift into a market economy three decades ago. Personally, I have a liking for Uighurs, perhaps because they were Buddhists before conversion to Islam, which dovetails with adherence to Buddhism and the imprint left by an Algerian ex-girlfriend that'll never wash out even if I tried. That said, like Tibetans, there is no shortage of scoundrels among the Uighurs and every now and then, the odd backpacker gets waylaid and left for dead, particularly if a mixture of cold temperature, thin air and stale food compromises their physical fitness. Uighur migrants to other provinces also have a reputation for petty theft and violence and Han tend to be wary of Uighurs; the Hui have a similar reputation. Curiously, Tibetans, who can be just as rough and ready, have had a better public image of late.
Multiethnic societies are problematic. On the one hand, they provide a myriad of opportunities for unique social and business networks; on the other, when outside players decide to rouse rabble, these networks are quick to collapse. Lebanon is a case in point. Through to the 1960s it was as close to heaven as any Mediterranean country could get. Then the Vatican, the Israelis, the Americans, the Syrians, the French and whoever started pushing pawns to make a mess of the place such that big money fled to Greece, a chunk of the intelligentsia skipped town to France and folks wonder who's going to push which pawn what way.
UtopiaNow
July 11th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I think in fact the proportion of USA debt owed to China is actually small. Who owns the lions share & collects the interest I would like to know? Where do they pay tax on it also I would like to know? I honestly don't pretend to know but I suspect this is the real driver, via the IMF & Fed, of domestic & foreign policy. Whatever it is causing our policies of "importing debt & exporting jobs" it must be looked at as it's clearly a failure. My take on the Chinese is they have a lot of "Confucius" type thinking there and it is smart stuff. I suspect all "our" (West & Mid East) moral & religious ideas really come from the Chinese originally. cont.
SeanSilverSpear
July 11th, 2009 at 1:11 am
China is not even near to being porcelain. It's much more like tempered steel.
But as Justin points out the Chinese scarecrow gets dragged out of the closet every once in a while to drum up defense spending.
Excellent comparison of US and China, by Arthur Borges, showing who the real bogeyman is, always has been and always will be.
UtopiaNow
July 11th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I believe China will win in the end if we don't change because the are investing in poor countries with real development projects that actually get things built and not with phoney IMF & World bank scams where our billions of money seem to just "disappear due to the poor countries corrupt leaders"….Ha! Ha!….Why were moneys advanced without proper project "progress payments?
Apart from all this is the matter of others huge dollar assets being destroyed by war.
So, I think China will win the hearts & minds of the of the whole world. They don't need US markets to go ahead anymore than we needed Chinese markets in the past.
They are doing just what we should have been doing for 60 yrs….taking care of business & helping other with business…Win/Win!….and making friends!
I assume a positive of totalitarianism might be that they are permanent and IF (big if) they are good & honest they can NOT be bought (as with Monarchy systems). A big negative is that if go bad they can repress everyone and be incredibly dangerous…..My verdict on China will always carry that caveat….
Democracies also can become so corrupt they can become hideously repressive too. I think as always, the price of our forebears terribly hard won "Freedom" & "mistakes" & "wrongs" is eternal vigilance and I might ad scepticism, open Govt which can be held to investigation, criticism and prosecution and, a truly independent justice system. And, not allowing the "merchants of division" to hoodwink people.
silqworm
July 10th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Justin,
First comment after reading your site forever. "We" are bankrupt, saith David Walker again yesterday. Any foreign action we take is illegitimate until we flush the 70-80-100-300-1000? trillion pile of Federal Reserve baloney down the toilet. The risk is that Washington wants to double down yet again, though Merkel telecasts that this is not an "exit strategy". So wherefrom comes your absurd blindness about China? I suspect it's something about your lifestyle, frankly.
arthurborges
July 11th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Dear Bink35,
I guess I should do a blog. Thanx for the encouragement.
Beyond the vested interests, the Western assumption is that Western democracy is exportable and desirable for the rest of the world.
China has been a one-party state for centuries. That's what works best here. The nice thing about a one-party state is that everyone knows where the buck stops and leaders know they're on the spot, even if they have elbow room to fudge here and there. In the two-party state, party A leaders blame the voters' woes on the last party B administration, which was only fair of course because it, in turn, had blamed party A as soon it took office.
bink35
July 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Please let us all know (somehow?) if you should decide to do a blog. I'll definately subscribe!
Do you suppose the West is intent on destabilizing China in order to install a puppet government to ensure that the current "joint ventures" become wholy owned subsidiaries of
the U.S. Government (now that they own our former blue chip companies and we're broke?)
I wonder too if perhaps China's biggest, unforgivable sin is that it has been making business deals counter to the interests of the U.S. i.e. it allows poor countries the option of doing business in their own terms rather than on ones "negotiated" from a gunboat.
I'm not sure if I have this right but didn't the British force opium sales to China to settle its
huge trade deficit and when China needed to pay its opium bills it did so by "leasing" Hong Kong?
arthurborges
July 11th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Bink35, the folks you want to read are Henry CK Liu and Naomi Klein. All of Liu is at http://www.henryckliu.com and free of charge; for her part, Ms. Klein's "Shock Doctrine" is heavy-duty research that puts globalization into bottomline perspective.
To answer your question, in the USA, foreign policy is hammered out in the think tanks while US officials express themselves way more cautiously. The think tanks in vogue say flat out "China is our next war." That the chairman of the JCS is an admiral is significant in that engagement against China would be heavily dependent on US naval assets, particularly submarines. Land invasion is not much of an option given that the invader's rule of thumb is 4:1 superiority for assured victory.
Given the track record of US policy to carve up the USSR, I extrapolate the attitude to China is the same: break it up into bite-size backwater republics headed by tinpot saakasvilis. Western CEOs like it when they're talking to a head of state whose GDP is smaller than his company's annual capital turnover and the goal is to buy the country's natural and other resources on the cheap.
On the Opium Wars, it wasn't just the British. The Americans, French, Germans, Russians and Swedes were in on the game too — Yale University, for example, was founded with drug profits. Their idea of a drug war was a war to create and lock in a nationwide market of addicts. Which they did. And it lasted until 1949 when Chairman Mao had the dealers shot and sent the druggies into rehab — much is made of the millions he killed; I rarely hear a peep about the millions he saved. Now that China has returned to a market economy, drug addiction is up. Predictably enough.
There's only one thing you have entirely backwards: it was a _British_ trade deficit; the Chinese had the surplus: cheap opium marketed at monopolistic prices was a tool to bankrupt China. Which it did.
At the time, the colonial business model was to rip off resources on the cheap, transform them into manufactured products for forced resale to the colonies and repatriate the profits in gold or silver. Today the business model is to get developing countries to manufacture on the cheap and pay them off in IOUs called dollars (USD) that are hard to spend (look up China's bids to buy Unocal and, now Rio Tinto) or convertible only into low-yield T-bonds and T-bills that yield little interest or, when US pressure to upvalue the USD/CNY crossrate succeeds, those Treasury certificates yield negative interest as soon as they're converted back into yuan (CNY). In a way, it's now "Trident-boat diplomacy" with a customer who has the option to get ornery if you refuse to give him vendor credit on the merchandise you're selling him, although this is not the full picture.
SeanSilverSpear
July 11th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Another great point brought up by Arthur is the difference in mindset and belief systems. Self righteous Christian nations seem to believe they are entitled to all the bounty this world has to offer, so it's "onward Christian soldiers" until they reach their goal of making our world, PLANET CHRISTIAN.
I think the bigger question, with a very long view for the western powers that be is: "Do we want our world to be Planet Christian or Planet Islam?" Religion still has great power to control the masses, so naturally it is a very useful tool of governments.
Justin intimated that the Chinese only have their belief in communism to hold them together. This is a very uninformed idea.
The Chinese are held together by Tradition, community, family and scrabbling for survival more than anything else. Secondly, they are held together by an amalgamation of religions,
mainly (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism). The government is just riding shotgun over the roundup and I don't think they are in any danger of losing control of the herd.
The recent riots were more than anything else about scrabbling over turf. Secondly, they were about race. But the powers that be are quick to give the riots religious and political overtones in order to exert control.
arthurborges
July 11th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Sean, I have no idea how to treat the psychopathology of monotheism: Christianity, Islam and Judaism each preach the Master Race Doctrine to their flocks, which is founded on the principle of a monopoly on The Truth. "Our" religion has it; everybody else is clueless and therefore inferior. You read Christian Americans who make assertions such as: "It's good we killed all those Indians — it stopped them from having lots of pagan babies that would have all gone to hell." Their Muslim counterparts consider that if you kill a sinner or non-believer, you save him by preventing him from doing further evil. Both indoctrinate their followers to seek out converts, which is pure and simple spiritual colonialism. For its part, Judaism is more exclusive; it seeks no converts but has the doctrine of Greater Israel, which it has been busily and mercilessly claiming piece by piece since 1948. For Islam and Judaism, I see hope for a change of dogma in their women; for Christianity, its military and economic preeminence has generated a level of pretty bulletproof self-satisfaction and I see only a capability for creative repackaging of the same old handsoap. These last lines are pure intuition that I wouldn't bother to defend because I might be wrong, and indeed, hope that I am so.
SeanSilverSpear
July 11th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Hi Arthur,
Could you please delete those quotes.
arthurborges
July 11th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Sean, this website is not entirely user-friendly, so for the benefit of third parties, I'll start by reposting the pertinent content of the notification sent me:
QUOTE
Probably the only hope for humanity would be for Aliens from another planet to come down and vaporize the followers of Abrahamic religio= ns, for starters. Then teach all about the cosmos, science and technology.
Are you still in China? I live in Taiwan.
Personally I think Justin doesn't know squat about China. He is just regurgitating the things he= has heard about from uniformed sources.
ENDQUOTE
If you're still expecting pennies from Heaven, you might as well count on Jesus — your neighbours will imagine you're less weird and will sleep all the better for it.
Yes, I'm 61 in Zhengzhou and I might as well run out my clock here. Do reach me by email: just google my name and I'll probably be at the top of the list.
I have no idea of Mr. Raimondo's depth of acquaintanceship with China. However do not underestimate the ability to read, screen, analyze, digest and concisely regurgitate unsorted, almost random data. Whatever his direct experience of this place, he is not far off what I think is the mark. Otherwise, I'd've laughed off the article and moved on to the next URL without contributing a single keystroke here.
Have a great day!
UtopiaNow
July 12th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Sean, your quote below is quite mad, do you really think it's "the Christians" DRIVING the agenda of Fed, IMF & World Bank? The Media today & in the past?
Who do you think really drives "Law making" of western lawmakers if its not the money lending, oil & military industry boys etc?
Have you ever considered that politicians might have been bought?
"Another great point brought up by Arthur is the difference in mindset and belief systems. Self righteous Christian nations seem to believe they are entitled to all the bounty this world has to offer, so it's "onward Christian soldiers" until they reach their goal of making our world, PLANET CHRISTIAN."