tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99475782024-03-23T13:44:17.921-04:00China e-LobbyDedicated to exposing the abuses of human rights, threats to the security of the free world, and attacks on general decency committed by Communist China, and to influencing policy in the free world to ensure these egregious acts do not go unopposed.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.comBlogger1028125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-45583309393311442182011-06-27T17:24:00.002-04:002011-06-27T17:26:58.890-04:00We've moved . . .. . . to <a href="http://chinaelobby.wordpress.com/">Wordpress</a>.<br /><br />To all the readers who have continued to follow even as the blog slowed down, thank you. I hope you will come with us to the <a href="http://chinaelobby.wordpress.com/">Wordpress</a> site as we rev things back up again.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-16098231235360380822011-01-04T13:38:00.004-05:002011-01-04T15:23:30.775-05:00Why the Hunstman-for-President speculation badly misses the pointThe complete lack of interest in eastern Asia within MSM was exposed (again) with the recent flare-up in speculation that John Hunstman, current American Ambassador to the Chinese Communist regime, refused to rule out running for President in 2012. <a href="http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2011/01/will-jon-huntsman-run-against-president-obama/#"><em>The State</em></a><em> </em>neatly summarizes the reaction, which completely focuses on Hunstman's Republican <em>bona fides</em> and how (or if) he could manage to run against his current boss (for more on Hunstman himself, see the <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/02/nation/la-na-huntsman-20110102"><em>Los Angeles Times</em></a>).<em> </em>Even Jay Cost of the <em><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/huntsman-2012_525943.html">Weekly Standard</a> </em>was stuck on the domestic political implications.<br /><br />No one, to date, has even bothered to ask <em>why</em> Hunstman would consider leaving in the first place. He is, after all, Ambassador to the CCP regime. If this were an Ambassador to a European nation considering a run against the president who appointed him, or a Middle Eastern nation, speculation would almost certainly focus on <em>policy </em>differences. In fact, given the Obama Administration's recent policies on the CCP, this may be the most important (if unrecognized) reason.<br /><br />Lest we forget, Hunstman <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2009/05/ccps-illusion-of-good-week.html">signed up for the job</a> expecting (as nearly everyone else did) that he would be the point man for continued "engagement" with the ChiComs. Instead, Hunstman has watched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly rebuke the CCP for trying to claim the South China Sea and the Senkakus for itself (Duncan Currie: <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255885/praise-hillary-clinton-duncan-currie"><em>National Review Online </em>- The Corner</a>). Then the president engaged in a <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-beijing-using-north-korea-again.html">post-election tour of Asia</a> that included <em>all </em>of Zhongnanhai's major rivals expect Vietnam, but<em> not</em> Hunstman's posting itself.<br /><br />Finally, there was the reaction to the recent antics from Stalinist North Korea, in which the early inaction (disappointing for those of us looking to send a message to the CCP) was followed by . . . more inaction (a pleasant surprise for those of us expecting concessions to Beijing and Pyongyang).<br /><br />So what does a marginalized ambassador who is watching the Administration for which he works move toward a policy unseen in 20 years - and a policy the ambassador himself opposes to boot?<br /><br />Drop broad hints that you could turn from appointee to rival is a good way to get attention. It worked wonders for opponents of American military action in Iraq.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Hunstman (and fortunately for the rest of us, if only in this case), American MSM <em>still</em> hasn't paid enough attention to Obama's Asia policy. The combination of domestic politics and traditional attention bias toward Europe or the Middle East has blinded nearly everyone to the fact that the policy Hunstman was appointed to promote and the policy into which the Administration has stumbled are quite different.<br /><br />So, I think we can expect more heartburn from Hunstman, until the media begin to notice what the Administration is actually doing in eastern Asia (our allies there already know, and are deeply grateful). In the meantime, it must <em>be </em>enormously painful for the CCP to discover that<em> everything </em>it has tried, from provocations by its Korean colony to rumblings from its American friends, has failed to change Washington slow-but-steadying drift toward anti-Communism.<br /><br />The Obama Administration continues to be far weaker than it should on human rights in the CCP, but in the purely geopolitical realm, its policy in eastern Asia continues to be an improvement over its three most recent predecessors. It would be nice for someone other than the CCP itself or the American Ambassador there to notice.<br /><br /><a href="http://bearingdrift.com/2011/01/04/why-the-hunstman-for-president-speculation-badly-misses-the-point/">Cross-posted to Bearing Drift</a>D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-17564635858677679492010-12-14T10:48:00.004-05:002010-12-14T11:30:09.332-05:00Will Japan re-energize Obama on the CCP?The Obama Administration's reaction to Stalinist North Korea's attack on the democratic South was traditional, conventional, and weak. Once again, the Chinese Communist Party was able to position itself as the supposedly reasonable regional power trying to get a handle on their crazy ally - even though it has to this day refused to criticize Kim Jong-il and his crew. That said, Zhongnanhai has been unable to get policy concessions out of the president yet, and what Japan is about to do with its National Defense Policy Guidelines may get the White House to snap of out its post-attack stupor.<br /><br />According to the <em><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cac4bfec-05d7-11e0-976b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz185RxKx42">Financial Times</a></em> (UK), Japan's military will release the aforementioned guidelines later this month, and they will call for a major shift in military policy.<br /><blockquote>Officials and analysts say the keenly awaited National Defence Policy Guidelines will signal a historic refocusing of Japan's army and other forces toward securing the line of small islands in the southern Nansei chain that stretches from Japan’s main islands toward Taiwan and are seen as threatened by China's <a class="bodystrong" title="FT - China's show of sea power challenges US" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/261df28e-3067-11de-88e3-00144feabdc0.html">rapidly growing military power</a>.</blockquote><br />Among the islands in the Nansei chain are Okinawa and the Senkakus, the latter of which are claimed by the Communists (they call them the Diaoyus).<br /><br />The implications of this are numerous, and none are good for the CCP.<br /><br />Within Japan,<strong><em> </em></strong>it means a maturing of the Democratic Party of Japan - recently elected to power on a platform that included cozying up to the Communists. According to an analyst quoted by the <em>FT</em>, a recent incident with a fishing boat from mainland China woke up the DPJ and the military top brass about the threat from the CCP. The long-governing Liberal Democratic Party had moved in an anti-Communist direction under Junichirio Koizumi (the last LDP leader to win an election - in 2005). Now the DPJ is joining its rival.<br /><br />Regionally,<strong><em> </em></strong>the CCP may find itself repeating recent history - and not in a good way for the Communists. Last year, Zhongnanhai tried to take advantage of apparent American weakness by declaring the entire South China Sea for itself. Several American allies, including Indonesia, cried foul - and much to everyone's surprise, America joined them. Just weeks ago, President Obama himself called for India to be made a permanent member of the Security Council. Now, Japan will be heavily reinforcing an island chain that at present includes a large (and locally controversial) American military base.<br /><br />If Okinawa is now a regional front-line island, the US military may not be so unwelcome. Or more likely, a strong <em>Japanese</em> military presence may allow the US to pull out of Okinawa entirely, thus replacing an unpopular foreign power with a strong domestic military presence dedicated to defending the homeland, while the Pentagon can score an unexpected boon to reallocate or contribution to overall deficit reduction.<br /><br />I sincerely doubt the CCP was hoping for <em>that</em>.<br /><br />In any event, Obama, whatever one thinks of him, is clearly the most multilateral president America has had in a long time. As I noted earlier, this has led to a focus on our more well-known allies in Europe - most of whom are wheezing social democracies increasingly unwilling to defend themselves from regional and global threats.<br /><br />However, in <em>Asia</em>, America's allies are more practical - and the CCP threat is more pressing and immediate. As such, Obama's instincts have lead him to be <em>tougher </em>on Zhongnanhai then previous Administration's in the South China Sea. Unfortunately, the refusal to accept the reality of the CCP-North Korea alliance (i.e., that it's a tool Zhongnanhai uses to pry democratic nations apart) afflicts Seoul and Tokyo as much as it does Washington. However, the Communists have no such deflection at the ready where the Nansei-Sankakus are concerned.<br /><br />If Japan really does shift its military posture (the report has not yet been released) and Washington stands with Japan as it did with Indonesia, the Obama Administration's unnamed-containment policy may be back on track.<br /><br />Cross-posted to <a href="http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/will-japan-re-energize-obama-on-the-ccp/">the right-wing liberal</a>D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-50976579090670929032010-11-23T09:02:00.002-05:002010-11-23T09:08:08.033-05:00Is Beijing Using North Korea again?<p>Apparently out of the blue, Stalinist regime in northern Korea shelled Yeonpeyong Island in the democratic part of the country (a.k.a. South Korea). The rest of world is trying to come to terms with the shock. There are at least two death as of 8AM EST. The White House "strongly condemned" (<a href="http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4612176">MSN India</a>) the attack, but hasn't had much time to react beyond posturing.</p><p>Analysts are fishing for explanations, but the most popular one is that this has something to do with the power struggle within the regime. As <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/11/23/north-korea-aggression-sets-major-test-for-president-obama/">Iain Martin</a> put it, shelling a South Korean island is "what passes for a campaign ad in North Korean politics."</p><p>I'm not so sure, or to be more precise, I don't think that's the <em>only</em> reason. As much as people would like to think the regime in charge of northern Korea is a lone wolf unable to control or even understand, that regime is wholly dependent on the Chinese Communist Party for its survival. Moreover, the CCP prefers its allies and satellites take full blame or credit for their antics, as it turns Beijing into the "good police state" and enable them to extract more concessions from the democratic world (this is why the ChiComs' closest ally in the Middle East is the Iranian mullahcracy, but I digress).</p><p>In fact, there's almost no way a move like this wouldn't get green-lighted by the CCP; keep in mind, the Communists have even gone so far as to make a historical claim to northern Korea as Chinese territory, in part to make it clear who's boss and in part to lay the groundwork for a possible annexation if the Stalinist regime becomes more trouble than its worth.</p><p>So, this begs the question: why did the CCP let this happen? For that, we have to look at the last year in eastern Asia.</p><p>Amidst the European bailouts, the bizzare "reset" with Russia, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the numerous domestic issues the decided the November elections, little attention has been paid to the western Pacific. However, events there have been dramatic, and dramatically unexpected.</p><p>It began when the CCP tried to declare the South China Sea as its own lake. As expected, numerous nations in Southeast Asia cried foul. Not so expectedly, the United States - led by the American apologist President and the Secretary of State whose husband was arguably the Communists' best friend in the White House - responded, essentially, "No."</p><p>One can only imagine the shock in Zhongnanhai from <em>that</em>.</p><p>Perhaps the Communists believed that this was mere posturing for the voters. That notion disappeared with the President's post-election tour of Asia (India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan). It could have been called the China Containment Tour. Now we're hearing elected officials inside and outside the Administration slanging the CCP for their deliberately devalued currency, and while the criticisms stem from economic confusion rather than geopolitical clarity, that's a distinction without a difference to Hu Jintao <em>et al</em>.</p><p>In short, the Chinese Communist regime has watched, likely in subdued horror, as Barack Obama's government moved - haltingly, and with some stumbles, but unmistakably - towards the most anti-Communist Asia policy in twenty years. It has been, almost literally, Nixon-goes-to-China in reverse.</p><p>So, now the CCP - and the rest of us - will see if the Administration's newfound and quasi-accidental policy will come with newfound resolve. It won't be as easy as it sounds initially. In Southeast Asia, the President's backbone was widely applauded, especially in Indonesia (in an even more painful irony for the CCP, Obama's time there may be driving his policy in the region). Japan, by contrast, has a center-left government with a more accomodationist policy towards Beijing (although South Korea does not).</p><p>This is a critical moment. If Obama follows precedent, i.e., comes hat-in-hand to the CCP to enlist its help in "controlling" Kim Jong-il and his would-be successors, then things will come back to normal in East Asia (and that's not good). However, if the President follows his instincts from Southeast Asia, it could dramatically alter the global balance - and in America's favor.</p><p>Nixon's fervent anti-Communist history made him practically the only American politician who could reach out to the CCP. Conversely, Obama's left-wing history may make him the best-equipped American leader to take the CCP on. I believe the ChiComs condoned this incident in the hope to prevent the above from happening. Time will tell if they were right; if not, the Chinese people may get a surprising boost in their fight to take their country back from the Communist regime that enslaves them.</p><p>Cross-posted to the <a href="http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/is-beijing-using-north-korea-again/">right-wing liberal</a></p>D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-24707443424257067942010-05-26T09:34:00.003-04:002010-05-26T21:19:02.319-04:00Korea: the endgame no one sees comingAt first, I was surprised to hear that the Stalinist regime in northern Korea had chosen to sink a democratic Korean ship. The timing (late March) seemed off. The Tibet occupation commemorations had already passed, while the remembrance of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Tiananmen</span> massacre was still more than two months away.<br /><br />Adding to the surprise, the Chinese Communist Party let some of their mouthpieces fire some rhetorical rounds at . . . Kim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Jong</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">il</span> (<a href="http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2010/05/13/18/0401000000AEN20100513008600320F.HTML"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Yonhap</span></a> via <a href="http://www.freekorea.us/2010/05/18/decisive-evidence-implicates-north-korea-in-cheonan-sinking/">One Free Korea</a>):<br /><br /><blockquote><p>In a rare move for Chinese state-controlled media, the Beijing-based newspaper openly criticized North Korea, calling it "proud." </p><p>"North Korea is dancing haphazardly along the nuclear tightrope, fraying the nerves of every world power. It is apparently proud, believing that it has played a dominant role," the <em>Global Times</em> said. "But North Korea fails to realize that the most dangerous role is the one the country itself is playing."</p></blockquote>Joshua <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Staunton</span> (the founder of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">OFK</span>) doesn't think this <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">amouts</span> to much, and he has a point. The <em>Global Times </em>may be a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">CCP</span> mouthpiece, but it isn't <em>the </em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP</span> mouthpiece. Moreover, the cadres in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Zhongnanhai</span> have a history of playing the democratic world for fools. Who can forget when the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP</span> voted in favor of United Nations-imposed sanctions on northern Korea and then told the world - <em><a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2006/10/news-of-weekend-october-16.html">on the same day</a> </em>- that it wouldn't enforce them?<br /><br />This time, however, I think something deeper is in play, something that few, if any, will see coming, and dramatically change East Asia - and not for the better, though it will appear that way to the untrained eye.<br /><br />One thing we need to remember is that the cadres have been <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2005/10/on-north-korea-communist-chinas-colony.html">claiming for almost five years</a> that northern Korea is actually <em>Chinese </em>territory, or at least it was back when it was called the Kingdom of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Koguryo</span>. Lest anyone consider this preposterously irrelevant, keep in mind that Mao used a similar <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">verison</span> of revisionist history to conquer Tibet in 1950.<br /><br />Of course, the idea of that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CCP</span> could send in a military force to annex northern Korea and get away with it would be ridiculous - unless the democratic world was scared enough of the Korean tyranny to acquiesce in the move. That's more likely than one would like to believe.<br /><br />Both America and Japan have elected governments more focused on domestic matters and less interested in projecting national power. Russia remains more obsessed with the European "near abroad" than the demographic loss of its own Far East provinces. Hardly anyone else considers the situation on the Korean peninsula as anything but a regional issue (i.e., one which doesn't involve them). All of them would be either uninterested in a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">CCP</span> annexation or secretly grateful to the cadres for bringing "stability" with their conquest.<br /><br />For the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span>, meanwhile, the benefits would be considerable. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Hu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Jintao</span>, facing a party conference in two years and very little to show for his current tenure as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">CCP</span> <em>supremo</em>, could bask in becoming the first Chinese leader since Mao to add territory the Middle People's Republic. This could enable him to handpick his successor as Party leader at least, and perhaps even stay around as Chairman of the Central Military Commission (and thus continue to wield the true power) for years after 2012. For the party as a whole, it would make radical nationalism suddenly look relevant again, especially if it can show the Chinese people that the democratic world endorsed the land grab (silent acquiescence will be more than enough for the cadres to twist and exaggerate to meet their needs).<br /><br />For the Chinese <em>people</em>, however, it would be awful. The day the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span> loses power could be knocked back by decades as a rejuvenated tyranny once again takes aim at political dissidents. The balance of power would be permanently reoriented in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Zhongnanhai's</span> favor. Finally, Korea would never be whole again.<br /><br />Naturally, democratic Korea would be furious, and loud. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">CCP</span> would have to make sure Washington can and will restrain South Korean President Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Myung</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">bak</span>, especially given that Korean nationalism would quickly transform from a long a left-wing phenomenon exploited by Kim and Beijing to a right-wing fury that would never forgive them for the annexation.<br /><br />That's where <a href="http://www.freekorea.us/2010/05/25/north-korean-milfspionage-takes-a-scary-turn/">the latest news Joshua dug up at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">OFK</span></a> is so revealing (emphasis added):<br /><br /><blockquote><p>Now, there is the story of Kim Soon-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Nyeo</span>, whose targets included a 29 year-old college student, two travel agency workers, and her grand <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">sugardaddy</span>, a former executive of the Seoul Subway system. </p><p>. . . </p><blockquote><p>The spy collected “confidential” information about the subway system from Oh, information about local universities from the student, and a list of names of high-ranking police and public officials from the travel agents.</p><p>Oh maintained extramarital relations with the spy since his first encounter with her in China in May 2006, and transferred nearly 300 million won ($252,000) to “help” her cosmetics business. In June 2007, he became aware that she was a North Korean spy, but continued the relationship.</p><p>“What Oh handed over to the spy included contact information of emergency situation responses and other not-so-important internal data,” Kim Jung-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">hwan</span>, a Seoul Metro spokesman, told The Korea Times, dismissing <strong><em>concerns that it could be used in possible acts of terrorism here by the North</em></strong>. Kim retired from his post in 2008. [<a href="http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/113_66344.html">Korea Times</a>]</p></blockquote><p>Yes, I can imagine a circumstance in which we or South Korea might face a provocation or a threat so serious that we have to do something more dramatic, in which case what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Halloran</span> calls for might have to be our first step. But I’m not there yet, because I fear that North Korea’s most dangerous weapons are <em>already</em> inside South Korea.</p></blockquote>In other words, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Stalinists</span> were gathering information to conduct terrorist attacks that could cripple the democratic South <em>while leaving American troops at the demilitarized zone unscathed.</em><br /><br />One can imagine what could happen next: terrorist attacks in Seoul, Lee demanding retaliation. America and Japan wringing their hands. When suddenly, the People's Liberation Army crosses the Yalu River, pounds their <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">de</span> facto</em> colony's military and industry, dusts off the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Koguryo</span> claims, and reassures the rest of the world that it will all be over soon. Koreans may be enraged, but in Washington the reaction will be a sigh of relief, and strong reminder to Seoul of just who depends on whom for military protection. Game, set, and match to the cadres.<br /><br />Now, there are still a number of variables that can stop this: Kim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Jong</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">il</span> may calm down; the various would-be successors to his weakly gripped crown could defuse the situation themselves (or argue among themselves enough to have the situation defused by inactivity); the terrorist network the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Stalinists</span> would use against the South might not be in place; someone in Pyongyang might even be smart enough to figure all this out (probably not Kim himself, but in his current condition, the right word at the right time can be awfully persuasive).<br /><br />Still, we need to be prepared for the possibility that the cadres will decided using Kim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Jong</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">il</span> and his cronies has run its course, and annexation is their next move. Whatever one thinks of Kim and his regime, we must not forget that it is only in place because the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">CCP</span> wants it in place. Replacing Pyongyang's anti-American tyranny with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Beijing's</span> anti-American tyranny is no solution.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-29844624317575143022010-05-17T12:16:00.003-04:002010-05-19T07:03:29.920-04:00Why the Administration's policy toward Communist China is so dangerousThe president sent his Assistant Secretary of State to discuss human rights, and in response to the Chinese Communist Party's labor camps, one-child policy, and indiscriminate imprisonment of political prisoners, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner . . . apologized for an Arizona state law on immigration.<br /><br />The Obama Administration has entered new territory in regards to its policy towards the Chinese Communist Party. The new way of doing things is mind-boggling, sickening, and outrageous (and lest anyone think I'm being partisan, Obama's Ambassador to the CCP - Jon Huntsman, who according to Posner's comments on <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Apologizing_for_Arizona.html?showall">Politico</a> was in on the self-hate fest - was formerly the Republican Governor of Utah; if he's representative of the Utah GOP elite, then that's one more reason Senator Bob Bennett's campaign <a href="http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/bob-bennetts-loss-will-be-lamented-in-many-places-this-isnt-one-of-them/">bit the dust</a>). However, it is also very, very dangerous for several reasons. They are as follows.<br /><br /><strong><em>It risks further harm on the political prisoners themselves: </em></strong>One comment I will <em>always</em> carry with me is from a speech Richard Gephardt gave when he declared his opposition to permanent free trade with the CCP. He talked about how sensitive the cadres were to outside criticism, so much so that the prisoners <em>themselves </em>could gauge how much flak the Party was getting - the more critics chirped, the nicer the guards were. Nonsense like this makes the cadres think they have a free hand to do whatever they'd like to their opponents behind bars - and when Chinese Communist hands are that free, they usually end up very bloody.<br /><br /><strong><em>It demoralizes and confuses current dissidents: </em></strong>Does anyone think Hu Jia would be that upset over Arizona's attempt to battle illegal immigration? Think about it, an Arizona cop might ask Hu to show his green card if he's pulled over while driving within the state. <strong><em>Cadres in Henan province let as many as one million people die of AIDS and had Hu arrested for trying to expose them. </em></strong>How about Chen Guangcheng? <strong><em>The regime imprisoned and beat him for helping women violently abused by cadres enforcing the "one child" policy.</em></strong> Don't get me started on Falun Gong, independent Christians, or Hanyuan County.<br /><br />What this nonsense out of Washington does is make these victims feel completely ignored by the <em>one</em> nation that should remember their plight. This will make it much harder for them to help the Chinese people take their country back.<br /><br /><strong><em>It gives the CCP international prestige that it will use to enslave more people. </em></strong>After all, if the Chinese Communist Party is the same as the Arizona legislature, what's the big deal about the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong? Or the invasion of Taiwan, should it happen (and I am increasingly convinced that it will)?<br /><br />My last point doesn't deal with Arizona, but rather the larger context (which, as <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGU4ZjQxZmJmNjhmNTlkYTdhZjNjYWVhZmRjZTMwOGQ=">Jay Nordlinger</a> ruefully notes, included American apologies about "crime, poverty, homelessness, and racial discrimination."<br /><br /><strong><em>These comments reveal an appalling ignorance of reality in Communist China. </em></strong>Lest anyone forget, the Chinese Communist Party Member card is a license to steal. Outside of the Potemkin cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen), China is mired in a poverty unimaginable in the United States. Millions are "relocated" due to land seizures by corrupt cadres. As for "racial discrimination," try being a Korean in Communist China - actually, on second thought, <strong><em>don't</em></strong>.<br /><br />In the end, it all points to one thing: <strong><em>the Chinese Communist Party no longer has any reason to take America seriously</em></strong>. This will have catastrophic repercussions, be it with Taiwan (as mentioned), our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq (who have been past receivers of Communist support), the mullahcracy in Iran (long the CCP's best friend in the Middle East), North Korea, or anywhere else.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there was no mention of the long arm of lawlessness interfering with Chinese-Americans trying to exercise their political rights in <em>this </em>country, although this dangerous combination of repression and espionage has been unchallenged by Administrations in <em>both </em>political parties.<br /><br />CCP-watchers have long since gotten used to dissapointments in Washington. No one who remembers the Clinton or Bush Administration were completely shocked when Obama went the "engagement" route. However, this president has been <em>far </em>more obsequious to Beijing than any other, and given the Ambassador, Obama's political opposition is hardly without blame.<br /><br />There will come a time when the American people will demand a bona fide anti-Communist president, and (s)he will help bring down the CCP, but that future looks more expensive and, quite frankly, much bloodier today than it did even last week.<br /><br />Cross-posted to the <a href="http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/why-the-administrations-policy-toward-communist-china-is-so-dangerous/">right-wing liberal</a> and <a href="http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/why-the-administrations-policy-toward-communist-china-is-so-dangerous/">Virginia Virtucon</a>D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-79958547379469684222010-04-22T08:49:00.004-04:002010-04-22T09:34:56.526-04:00Reflections on Earth DayI write this on April 22 - known before 1970 as Lenin's birthday and since then in America as "Earth Day" (when you are reading this, of course, I cannot know). With each passing year, the irony of grafting environmental awareness on the birthday of Communism's founder and examining the ecological records of his largest political heir (the Chinese Communist Party) grows more painful, more cynically amusing, and more impossible to ignore.<br /><br />This will surprise the casual observer who only sees the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CCP</span> press releases on alternative energy sources (yes, Tom Friedman, <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2009/09/fall-of-tom-friedman.html">that means you</a>), but there is arguably no regime that damaged our planet as much as the Chinese Communist Party. The cadres have been forced to account for such exotic chemical spills as cadmium, benzene, and heaven knows what else. They have a slew of mining accidents - annually. Their hydroelectric dam addiction has thoroughly disturbed and distorted water flows, while turning such natural treasurers as the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers into toxic soups. Air pollution is so bad in the interior that the cadres in one city actually explored cutting out the tops of mountains to allow fresh air in. Then there are the open-air nuclear tests from last century, which killed over 200,000 people in occupied East Turkestan (also known as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Xinjiang</span>) and sickened many, many more.<br /><br />In short, the regime in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Zhongnanhai</span> has taken its rightful place among Communist defilers of the environment. The Soviet Union was infamous for its toxic-caused animal mutation, and the Chernobyl fiasco was a shocking example of Moscow's lax concern for nuclear safety both before an accident <em>and</em> during one. Yet in the free world, environmentalism remains a largely left-wing phenomenon, complete with the lack of concern for Communist regime's <em>actual</em> records.<br /><br />What the Western left may be thinking is not the point here, but rather the strange dichotomy between the <em>presumed </em>notion in the free world of government superiority in ecological matters and the <em>reality</em> of totalitarian regimes where the government is <em>itself </em>worse than any corporation - or entire industry - imaginable.<br /><br />Most economists, environmentalists, and elected officials in the democratic world understand that in making decisions about what to buy, build, or bring together, long-term environmental consequences are not usually a major factor (the term in economic geek-speak is "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">externality</span>"), and that government can have a role in countering this. However, that assumes government is an <em>arbiter</em>, or at most a facilitator, in the market, without any interests of its own.<br /><br />Whether this assumption is correct or not is one of the disagreements that have driven politics in the free world for decades, if not centuries. However, there is one important point missed: <em>a totalitarian regime is <strong>never</strong> an uninterested arbiter; it will always have its own interest - namely survival - front and center</em>. Therefore, the aforementioned long-term environmental consequences are just as irrelevant to the Chinese Communist Party as it would be to your average consumer in the free world. In fact, one could argue that it's <em>less</em> relevant to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP</span>, as the regime will assume it has enough power to protect itself from the consequences of the ecological damage it does (the people are, of course, left to suffer).<br /><br />Thus, tyrannical regimes - interested only in surviving and protecting the group of tyrants (however large or small) - are all but certain to be <em>worse </em>stewards of the planet than democracies are, and the Chinese Communist Party is proving it every single day.<br /><br />In time, this reality will become harder and harder for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CCP</span> to conceal (the truth about the Soviets started to leak out in the 1980s, but the USSR collapsed before it became common knowledge). Thanks to the regime's faulty policies, China has become the largest carbon emitter on the planet. Its major electric dams are pollution havens. I shudder to think what will happen as they build more nuclear power plants (and I say this as a fan of nuclear power).<br /><br />As the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Zhongnanhai</span> regime limps ahead, it will become abundantly clear to the free world's legion of "green" activists that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP</span> is as much their enemy as it is the enemy of everyone else. It may very well be an event celebrated on the birthday of Communism's founder that become the tipping point for the end of Communism's largest regime.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-65345139924834458002010-04-15T07:59:00.001-04:002010-04-15T08:56:48.680-04:00On the Chinese Communist Party and Nuclear ProliferationSo the nuclear summit has wrapped up in Washington, and we have learned that we are safer today because we no longer have to worry about loose nuclear material from . . . Canada. France, on the other hand, refuses to join the nuclear-free fantasy. I suspect Washington will be keeping an eye on Paris for a while - again (of course, it's not exactly unusual for America and France to be at loggerheads; it's just a little strange to see the Parisians take the side of reason - but that's for another day).<br /><br />If the above paragraph sounds flippant, then I've written it correctly, because so much of what happened this week was utterly useless. The "big fish" in nuclear proliferation - namely, Iran and North Korea - were never really going to be "caught," largely because the regime responsible for each one's nuclear ambitions - the Chinese Communist Party - was let off the hook, again.<br /><br />The two large mistakes Washington has made regarding the Iranian and North Korean regimes - and it's a mistake shared by both this Administration and its predecessor - were these: an insistence that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CCP</span> can be a useful partner without being coerced, and a refusal to replace the chimera of non-proliferation with the more robust <em>counter-proliferation</em>.<br /><br />The first problem is in no small part due to the actions of Tehran, Pyongyang, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Zhongnanhai</span>. It is no accident that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CCP</span> has escaped blame for the actions of the rogue regimes. The cadres have continually sought out allies who meet three key characteristics. They are<br /><ul><li>a willingness to frustrate American ambitions or American interests</li><li>a willingness to defend the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">CCP's</span> interests on the global stage when asked to do so, and</li><li>most importantly, <strong><em>a willingness to take all the blame for their antics, leaving the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">CCP</span> unnamed and unaccountable</em></strong></li></ul><p>These are what make Tehran and Pyongyang perfect allies and tools for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP</span>, especially the last one - and it is only by removing that last characteristic that the free world can get the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CCP</span> to seriously address these two regime's nuclear ambitions.</p><p>Simply put, the president should tell <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Hu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Jintao</span> the following, in no uncertain terms:</p><ul><li>If the North Korean regime uses a nuclear weapon, Pyongyang <strong><em>and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">CCP</span></em></strong> will be held responsible</li><li>If the Iranian regime uses a nuclear weapon, Tehran <strong><em>and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP</span></em></strong> will be held responsible</li><li>If a terrorist organization uses a nuclear weapon, given that the sources would almost certainly be Tehran, Pyongyang, or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CCP</span>-ally Pakistan, that terrorist group <strong><em>and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP</span> </em></strong>will be held responsible</li></ul><p>The painful fact is this: Tehran and Pyongyang are looking to become nuclear powers in order to use the weapons as blackmail to the rest of the world. It is no surprise that both have pursued their ambitions amid signs that their regimes are undergoing serious decay. They see their survival in blackmailing the free world to keep them in power. Moreover, the Chinese Communist Party finds these regimes useful, and has no incentive to restrain their behavior. That may change if it becomes clear<em> they</em> will suffer consequences from the actions of their allies.</p><p>That said, while forcing the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CCP</span> to accept responsibility for their allies can help the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">situation</span>, there is still the regimes themselves to consider. Beijing is not Moscow, and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span> is still the party of the late Mao Zedong - who famously deadpanned that a weapon capable of blowing up the Earth would only be "a major event for the solar system." Thus, Tehran and Pyongyang probably need more incentive than half-hearted warnings from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Zhongnanhai</span> to behave.</p><p>This is where counter-proliferation comes in. I first mentioned it <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2006/10/communist-china-has-killed-non.html">three-and-a-half years ago</a>, and I still consider it valid. Tehran may not feel so frisky about its nuclear capability if it new Georgia had a nuclear deterrent of its own (in fact, while Georgia with nuclear protection may mean little to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">CCP</span>, it may be enough for Russia to push Tehran to disarm entirely). Pyongyang may have the same concern if Japan, South Korea, and/or Taiwan had ready nuclear deterrents (that would <em>certainly</em> get the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">CCP's</span> attention). These actions would also make <em>abundantly</em> clear that these regimes will be held responsible for any "loose nukes" that wind up in terrorist hands (the latter set of nuclear deterrents could make the message more pointed for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span>).</p><p>Of course, as I said back in late 2006, these actions won't solve our problem, because the issue is not the nuclear weapons <em>per <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">se</span></em>, but who has them. This is where my opening paragraph becomes more serious. The idea of democratic France posing a threat to world piece is laughable, but tyrannies like Iran, North Korea, and Communist China are something else again. It is the <em>regimes</em>, not their weapons, that are the threat. Thus, as I've also said before: America will never be secure until Iran, Korea, and China are free.</p>D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-78845470010463293322010-03-25T09:11:00.003-04:002010-03-25T10:00:48.538-04:00This is ITFor years, the Chinese Communist Party has benefited from a tidal wave of foreign investment in a slew of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">sectors</span>, none more dramatic than that in information technology. The cadres had high hopes that IT firms from abroad - unable to resist the lure of "one billion customers" - would come banging on the door of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Zhongnanhai</span>, hat in hand and ready to little the information superhighway with whatever tolls or lane restrictions the Communists demanded. Instead, IT may just be the sector that points to the regime's future demise.<br /><br />It all began with Google, who reacted to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CCP's</span> refusal to address their concerns about censorship and <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-google-incident.html">hacking</a> by shifting their search engine base to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Hong</span> Kong, where (for now) speech is still largely free, and self-censorship is not demanded (<em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032202041.html">Washington Post</a></em>). What this means for "one country, two systems" (or, as it has increasingly become, one country, one-and-a-half systems) remains unclear. It's reflection on the business environment in Communist China was far more revealing.<br /><br />In effect, Google announced to the world that the Communist tyranny was incompatible with its business model. This makes Google arguably the first - and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">inarguably</span> the largest - firm to make that decision. It shattered the myth that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP</span> is a business-friendly regime, while putting a much-needed focus on how the Communists distort the market with their political objectives - to say nothing of their taste for corruption.<br /><br />Google may not be alone for long. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">GoDaddy</span>, an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">internet</span>-domain firm best known in America for advertisements floating somewhere between provocative and bizarre, told a Congressional committee that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP</span> regulations for domain registration - including one that requires a domain buyer provide photo identification - left them "concerned for the security of individuals" (<em><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7517291/Dell-and-Go-Daddy-threaten-to-follow-Google-out-of-China.html">Daily Telegraph</a></em>, UK), enough so that they could follow Google out the door.<br /><br />An even bigger surprise came from India, where Dell is opening up a new computer production plant. According to India's Prime Minister, this could be the start of a dramatic shift (same link):<br /><blockquote><p>Mr Singh told the Hindustan Times: "This morning I met the chairman of Dell Corporation. He informed me that they are buying equipment and parts worth $25 billion from China (£16 billion). They would like to shift to safer environment with a climate conducive to enterprise with security of legal system."</p><p>. . . According to the Indian media, tax breaks given to Dell make it cheaper for the company to supply the Middle East, Africa and Europe out of India, rather than China.</p></blockquote><br />Read that last line from Singh very carefully: "They would like to shift to safer environment with <strong><em>a climate conducive to enterprise with security of (a) legal system</em></strong>." That is clearly a shot at the Communist tendency to treat the Party card as a license to steal. It appears Michael Dell is getting frustrated with the lack of genuine rule of law in Communist China. If Dell follows through on the Chairman's apparent thinking, it would be the latest and most dramatic example of a growing investment trend <em>away</em> from Communist China in favor of democratic India.<br /><br />Lest anyone think these are isolated incidents, a new poll from the American Chamber of Commerce revealed that a <em>majority</em> of foreign IT firms are unhappy with the Communist regime, and 37% of them blamed the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP</span> for damaging their sales. Overall 38% of all foreign firms polled "say they feel increasingly unwelcome to participate and compete in the Chinese market" (<a href="http://www.newser.com/article/d9ejegeg0/more-foreign-firms-feel-unwelcome-in-china.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Newser</span></a>).<br /><br />Not that the Communists themselves are noticing. Mere days after playing the anti-American card against Google (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8578968.stm">BBC</a>), they resorted to another heavy-handed tactic that makes so many investors squeamish - they tried to burst a housing bubble by <em>banning all land sales</em> (<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/china-just-halted-the-sale-of-all-land-2010-3"><em>Business Insider</em></a>).<br /><br />Clearly, the Chinese Communist Party do not consider "a climate conducive to enterprise" as a top priority. Then again, <em>they never have</em>. What is different today is that many outside investors are noticing, and making decisions accordingly. Those decisions could not only put a crimp in the Communists' corrupt gravy train, but also provide an economic boost to the one rival that worries them as much as America does - India.<br /><br />The cadres have literally unleashed upon themselves the hallowed (and hackneyed) Chinese curse: they have put themselves in "interesting times."D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-88230784404832126712010-03-18T09:21:00.002-04:002010-03-18T09:48:19.719-04:00Iraq and ChinaThe people of Iraq went to the polls last week, and we are just now beginning to get a picture of whom they elected. The election tells us many things, not just about Iraq, or even the Middle East, but about democracies in general, and whether governing with the consent of the governed is a concept that can take hold in China (hint: it can).<br /><br />For decades, the Chinese Communist Party has insisted that "Western-style democracy" could not take root in its country. China was just too different, too special, and essentially too unique for such a thing to work. Never mind that the group of islands just across the Taiwan Strait - islands that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CCP</span> members insist are as Chinese as they are - have managed to build and maintain a functioning democracy for fourteen years, with not one, but <em>two</em> transitions of power from one party to another. Never mind that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Hong</span> Kong actually <em>had</em> a democratically elected City Council in place when it passed into <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CCP</span> control, and that it was the <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">CCP</span></em>, not the people of the city, who limited and restricted democracy there. Never mind that with every day these contradictions continued, the notion that "mainland China" was no different from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Hong</span> Kong or Taiwan sounded stranger and stranger, compromising the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP's</span> own nationalist agenda. All that mattered was that mainland China was unsuitable for "Western" politics.<br /><br />Of course, even the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CCP</span> noticed that the above seemed a little weird, so they changed the subject by focusing on other places outside of Western Europe where the people were not allowed to choose their own leaders and holding them up as paragons: the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">mullahcracy</span> of Iran, the military junta in Burma, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">al</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Qaeda</span> friendly regime in Sudan, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Ba'athists</span> in Syria, at times even the Taliban itself, and - of course - Saddam Hussein. Every tyranny was another example of the folly of "Western-style democracy" outside of the West.<br /><br />This is where Iraq's second election comes in.<br /><br />For years, Iraq's painful experiment with popularly elected government seemed to confirm the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CCP's</span> self-serving notions. As prized as the ballot was to Iraqi voters, the politicians seemed to use that power largely to aggrandize themselves, enrich their connected friends, settle old ethnic and religious scores, and generally tear the country apart. Adding to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP's</span> macabre glee was the fact that their client regime in Iran was well-positioned to pick up the pieces.<br /><br />Then something happened, starting about three years ago: Iraq's political process began responding to the people's needs and wants - exactly what critics from the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CCP</span> on down insisted it could <em>not </em>do<em>.</em><br /><em></em><br />It started with the formation of a functioning political opposition (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">al</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Iraqiya</span>, or the Iraqi National Movement) under ex-Prime Minister <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Iyad</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Allawi</span>. The rise of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Allawi</span> as <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">de</span> facto </em>opposition leader created a dynamic where voters knew they could hold their government accountable without resorting to violence or terror. Within two years, the government was not only responding with better services, but Prime Minister <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Nouri</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Maliki</span> himself split off from the religious coalition that helped install him and created his own secular cross-faith coalition.<br /><br />This month, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Maliki</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Allawi</span> are far and away the leading vote-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">getters</span> in Iraq. Which one will lead the country is still unknown, but clearly the Iraqi government has become and will continue to be more accountable and responsive to the people.<br /><br />What caused it? The rise of an opposition.<br /><br /><em>That's</em> what the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">CCP</span> fears; <em>that's </em>what makes "Western-style democracy" a real threat to them; the presence of a competitor for votes that can't be arrested, beaten, or pumped full of pharmaceuticals. In the long-run, it means the end of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">CCP</span> rule. Even in the short-run, it would force the Communists to attempt honest and responsible government - an anathema to a regime where the Party Card is a coveted licence to steal.<br /><br />So Iraq is a reminder of how important democracy is, and how dangerous it can be for tyrants. However, we cannot simply declare victory and rest on our laurels. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">CCP</span> <em>knows </em>how dangerous democracy can be, which is why they have spent so much time trying to restrict it at home and limit its influence abroad. Tyrants around the world can count on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">CCP</span> to help them because the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">CCP</span> understands that each tyranny that survives give <em>them</em> more time to rule over the Chinese people.<br /><br />Thus, <em>every </em>democracy is a threat to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">CCP</span>, and in response, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">CCP</span> has made itself a threat to every democracy, from the oldest (the U.S. and U.K.) to the youngest (Iraq, among others).D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-11724586089324939392010-03-04T08:30:00.003-05:002010-03-04T08:53:49.355-05:00On the State of PlayThe Zeitgeist had two more examples of where we are <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">vis</span> a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">vis</span></em> Communist China: the threat is understood by most to be real, but perhaps stronger than it truly is. Unfortunately, those who know enough to understand how weak the Chinese Communist regime is still use that fact to ignore - to out peril - the Party's motives.<br /><br />Our first example is unusual - broadcast television. CBS' <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">NCIS</span>: Los Angeles</em> is a new favorite in the household, with plots usually surrounding your typical crime drama with a military veneer. On occasion, the show ventures into modern geopolitics - almost always regarding the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Wahhabist</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Ba'athist</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Khomeinist</span> War (better known as the War on Terror).<br /><br />This week, however, the emphasis was on "almost," as viewers were treated to one of the most anti-Communist TV hours since the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">PNTR</span> debate of a decade ago. An investigation of a naval officer's suicide uncovers an espionage ring of whole families who agree to raise children as intelligence agents in exchange for life in America - and permission to have more than one child (the officer himself was the would-be spy; he took his own life rather than betray the United States).<br /><br />Now, whether Communist Chinese <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">intel</span> is smart enough (perhaps) and patient enough (absolutely) to hatch a plot like that isn't the point. Here's what is: the major themes of the anti-Communist movement - the danger of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP</span> espionage, the plight of regime victims bullied into becoming regime agents, the horrifying "one child" fiasco - were aired across the country on a major network for all to see. If even <em>Hollywood</em> is prepared to accept the Communist Chinese threat, Washington can't be that far behind.<br /><br />Unfortunately, so long as Washington continues to attract the Tom <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Friedmans</span> of the world, it will be a maddening place in the interim. This is was the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022602601.html"><em>Washington Post</em></a><em> </em>piece by Steve <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Mufson</span> and John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Pomfret</span> is so helpful - to a point. The former <em>Post</em> correspondents in Communist China detail the holes in the "Chinese century" theory. Among the juicier nuggets . . .<br /><blockquote><p>Projections of China's economic growth seem to shortchange the country's looming demographic crisis: It is going to be the first nation in the world to grow old before it gets rich. By the middle of this century the percentage of its population above age 60 will be higher than in the United States, and more than 100 million Chinese will be older than 80. China also faces serious water shortages that could hurt enterprises from wheat farms to power plants to microchip manufacturers.</p><p>And about all those engineers? In 2006, the New York Times reported that China graduates 600,000 a year compared with 70,000 in the United States. The Times report was quoted on the House floor. Just one problem: China's statisticians count car mechanics and refrigerator repairmen as "engineers." </p></blockquote><br />In other words, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP</span> isn't nearly as strong as so many fear.<br /><br />Unfortunately, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Pomfret</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Mufson</span> make an increasingly common mistake:<br /><blockquote>Some decades ago, Americans were obsessed with another emerging Asian giant: Japan . . . But then something happened. Japan's economy lost its game. The 1990s became a "lost decade," so much so that during the toughest days of the recent financial crisis, Japan was invoked as a cautionary tale, lest we not do enough to jump-start our economy. </blockquote><br />Indeed, I remember when fear of a rising Japan seemed to consume America. There's only one problem: <em>Japan was an American ally</em>, a fact that always made the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Nippo</span>-phobia (assuming that's a word) overblown and ridiculous.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">CCP</span>, by contrast, <em>is an American enemy</em>. This motive, lost on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Mufson</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Pomfret</span> but not on the Writers' Guild, makes all the difference.<br /><br />In the 1970s, European Communism was an economic basket case, too. The Soviet Union had a leader growing more and more detached from reality as his people suffered deeply. Yet the Soviets, like the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span> today, saw these weaknesses as reason to <em>expand</em> their power around the globe (in order to counteract the weakness), and because they came up against an unsure and self-doubting America, the decade that was supposed to spell out their doom turned into their best shot at global domination.<br /><br />The Chinese Communist Party is in similar desperate straits, and may be facing a similarly distracted and despairing America. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">CCP's</span> weakness should reassure us about our <em>position</em>, but not reassure us on the Party's <em>motive</em>.<br /><br />That last part is still something Washington hasn't quite figured out. That Hollywood - of all places - has is a good sign, but also a reminder of how far we still have to go until China is once again free and America is at last secure.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-11583335085977098412010-02-18T09:43:00.003-05:002010-02-18T10:29:26.708-05:00The astonishingly resilient anti-Communist majority<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/18/tibet.poll/index.html">CNN</a> took advantage of today's meeting between President Obama and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Dalai</span> Lama to conduct a poll on American attitudes toward the Chinese Communist Party. The results were a pleasant surprise, to say the least.<br /><br />First, it should come as no surprise that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Dalai</span> Lama is very well-liked in the United States. The rest of the poll regarding Tibet seems contradictory at first.<br /><blockquote><p>Nearly three-quarters of all Americans think Tibet should be an independent country, according to a new national poll.</p><p>However, the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday also indicates that most Americans think it is more important to maintain good relations with China than to take a stand on Tibet.</p></blockquote><br />Again, that may sound contradictory, but we have to remember that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Dalai</span> Lama himself repeatedly insists that he is <em>not</em> demanding independence, and he himself has been trying to build bridges to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Zhongnanhai</span>. The independence question aside, the American people are largely following the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Dalai</span> Lama's lead.<br /><br />Meanwhile, as one would expect, human rights remains at the forefront of American thinking:<br /><blockquote>The poll also indicates that 53 percent say it's more important for the United States to take a strong stand on human rights in China than to maintain good relations with Beijing, with 44 percent saying good relations are more important.</blockquote><br />Where things get interesting is the "Taiwan question":<br /><blockquote>By a 6-point margin, the survey also shows that more Americans say taking a strong stand on Taiwan by force is more important than maintaining good relations with Beijing.</blockquote><br />Read that again, slowly, and you'll see how dramatic a statement that is. <br /><br />We're talking about Taiwan (a.k.a. the Republic of China), a subject so delicate even the anti-Communist community has to treat it with kid gloves. Making matters even more difficult, the solution most anti-Communists would prefer (an anti-Communist movement willing to help the mainland overthrow the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP</span> and then reunify with a democratic China) has vanished over the last few years do to event that have led to a Communist-friendly vs. anti-Communist/pro-independence polarization, with the latter also suffering from a serious corruption hangover that allowed the former to sweep the electoral field in 2007 and 2008.<br /><br />On top of that, the poll asked about "taking a strong stand on Taiwan by force." In other words, the American people - in the midst of a two-pronged war against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">al</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Qaeda</span> and the Great Recession - were asked about effectively going to war to protect the island democracy, with all of its troubles, against a would-be (and soon, will-be) superpower.<br /><br />Despite all of this, the American people responded, "Sign me up."<br /><br />This is the latest - and probably, the most dramatic - example of the American people's resilient anti-Communism. For much of the 1990's, a majority of Americans called the "China" a threat (they meant the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP</span>, trust me), but in part, that could have been Republican reaction to the Clinton Administration's "engagement" with the regime.<br /><br />Now, in 2010, Republicans <em>and </em>Democrats have seen one of their own espouse "engagement" in the White House in an attempt to get <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Beijing's</span> cooperation on their respective foreign policy objectives. Despite this, the anti-Communism did not wane. If anything, it became more resolute (I know of no poll that said Americans in the 1990s were willing to use military force to defend the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">ROC</span>).<br /><br />In the 1930's, the Democrats embraced anti-fascism: they completely dominated American politics until 1953. In the late 1970's, the Republicans firmly stood against European Communism. From 1980 to 2008, they were the driving force in American politics.<br /><br />This poll confirms what I have said it before, and I am compelled to say it again: the party that embraces the anti-Communist majority will be the majority party in American politics for at least the next generation. If history is any indication, it will also lead the American and Chinese peoples to victory over the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CCP</span>.<br /><br />What we still do not know - and had best figure out soon - is this: which party is it going to be? One could make the argument for either the Democrats or the Republicans. In fact, liberals and conservatives are <em>more </em>likely to be anti-Communists than moderates, further complicating not only partisan predictions but, more importantly, making it harder to build a political coalition.<br /><br />However, this poll clearly shows that the coalition can be built, and events around the world show it <em>must</em> be built. The questions remain: when and who?D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-27602519309964029132010-01-28T07:28:00.002-05:002010-01-28T08:08:43.990-05:00A bitterly disappointing nightLast night, the leader of the free world and one of the most dynamic members of America's loyal opposition took to the airwaves to present their cases to the people. For anti-Communists, it was a terrible night.<br /><br />Whether one was inclined to trust President Obama over Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell - or for independents, both and/or neither - the night was punctuated by the near-total silence on the dangerous rise of the Chinese Communist Party on the global stage. Admittedly, politicians don't like to give foreign policy does much attention during a recession - especially the Great Recession, as this one is now known. However, those who have risen above politics to embrace the mantle of true leadership have insisted on keeping their eyes, and ours, on the world around us to thwart the dangers with which we must deal.<br /><br />Franklin Roosevelt mobilized America to resist the Nazi Empire despite the Great Depression. Ronald Reagan continued to lead the fight against European Communism despite the only recession since World War II to challenge this one in length and severity. Sadly, neither Obama (for whom, I will confess, I did not vote) nor McDonnell (for whom I did) seemed eager to follow in the footsteps of these two late leaders.<br /><br />To the extent the president mentioned Communist China at all, it was as an economic competitor similar to India - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">latently</span> invoking a China-India linkage that <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2005/12/communist-china-and-india-they-are-not.html">has been repeatedly debunked</a> by reality. More ominously, the threat from Communist China itself was completely absent from the speech. There was no mention of the regime's ties to our enemies in the War on Terror (or as it is now known, "Overseas Contingency Operations"), nor any mention of the continuing military threat to the island democracy known as the Republic of China (despite recent reports that he has approved a new arms package for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">ROC</span>, as reported by <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/25/politics/main6140513.shtml">CBS News</a>). Even the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CCP's</span> continuing currency manipulation - which has done more to damage American manufacturing than anyone is willing to admit - received <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">deafening</span> silence from the president.<br /><br />When the president mentioned foreign policy at all, he simply recycled the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Pollyannaish</span> words of his predecessor on North Korea and the Iranian mullahs. Does he really believe the Stalinist Korean regime "faces increased isolation and stronger sanctions . . . vigorously enforced"? Has he really convinced himself that the Iranian regime "is more isolated"? The only way the president can say these words with a straight face is if he believes what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Zhongnanhai</span> tells him about these two regimes. However, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Zhongnanhai</span> has <em>always</em> told presidents that they're willing to work with Washington on these issues; they just have their own definition of "work with Washington."<br /><br />It is painfully ironic to see a president so determined to lay blame at the feet of his predecessor simply following the Bush line in the <em>one</em> area where a departure from the past would do the most good.<br /><br />In response to the president, the Republicans brought forth Bob McDonnell, recently elected Governor of Virginia. As a Virginian myself, I saw McDonnell's campaign up close, and as I mentioned earlier, I liked enough of what I saw to vote for him. However, foreign policy was not and is not his area of expertise, and as such, he gave scant mention to it. Unlike the president, he never even mentioned North Korea or Iran, let alone the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">CCP</span>.<br /><br />Now, one might think I'm being a little harsh on the president and the governor, given the current times. However, geopolitics don't simply stop for the free world to recover its economic balance. In fact, our enemies - from the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP</span> on down - have used recessions, depressions, or panics to take advantage of the free world and out-muscle it wherever possible. The 21st Century is no exception.<br /><br />Nor is the largely domestic careers of the two politicians any excuse. In the 20<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">th</span> Century, America won two World Wars and one Cold War. In all three cases, the dynamic leadership required for victory came from <em>governors</em> (Woodrow Wilson - New Jersey, FDR - New York, and Reagan - California).<br /><br />What we saw last night was not merely reflective of two men; it was a symptom of the continuing elite notion that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP</span> is a "rival" at worst, a "potential partner" at best. That the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CCP</span> is in fact an enemy is hardly considered. <em>That</em> is the root of the free world's problem, and if last night is any indication, it will remain a problem for a long time.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-56317211304839535032010-01-21T08:24:00.003-05:002010-01-21T08:55:25.433-05:00Tom Friedman and the elite point of view, revisitedTom Friedman had <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17friedman.html?em">another column</a> out this week on Communist China - although it was somewhat disguised as a rant against the "War on Terror." Friedman makes it clear he would simply prefer the war go away; I prefer the term <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Wahabbist</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Ba'athist</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Khomeinist</span> War, but that's not entirely relevant here. More to the point, Friedman's column reveals two things: first, the viewpoint of the Washington "elite" - which usually is very close to his own thinking - and second, the complete ignorance he, and they, have of the world around them.<br /><br />We'll begin with an issue I normally don't discuss - the chimera of "energy independence." Friedman insists that "nothing would make us more secure" than becoming "independent of imported oil." This is a near-universal error among the chattering classes - and, sadly, much of the American people. It is, however, based on two seriously mistaken assumptions. The first is that most of America's oil imports come from the Middle East, and therefore enabling our enemies (the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Wahabbists</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Ba'athists</span>, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Khomeinists</span>, hence the term I use for this war). In fact, the our largest source of foreign oil has been - for six years and counting - <em>Canada</em>. Moreover, if present trends continue, by mid-decade the Great White North will export more oil to us than <em>all of the Middle Eastern nations put together</em>.<br /><br />Secondly, and far more troubling, is Friedman's ignorance (shared by far too many people) of just where <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">al</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Qaeda</span> has received support over the years. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party has been an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">armer</span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">funder</span> of the <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2006/01/iran-must-be-liberated.html">Iranian <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">mullahcracy</span></a>, <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2005/12/we-just-had-confirmation-that.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">al</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Qaeda</span></a>, <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2005/09/on-war-on-terror-part-iii-communist_11.html">Saddam</a> <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2006/12/news-of-day-december-13.html">Hussein</a>, <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2007/06/china-arms-surge-supports-terrorists-in.html">the Taliban</a>, and <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2005/10/on-north-korea-communist-chinas-colony.html">Stalinist North Korea</a>. Yet for some reason, Friedman ignores this, and he's not alone. Hardly <em>anyone</em> in the corridors of power in the free world have paid proper attention to the role the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CCP</span> has played in this war - namely, as a benefactor of our enemies. Then again, if more of them accepted the fact that it is a war, they might pay more attention.<br /><br />The important point is this: <em>the United States of America could stop importing oil tomorrow, and it wouldn't even slow our enemies down</em>. It could, however, knock the Canadian economy back into recession. Good thinking there, Tom!<br /><br />Having gotten so much about the geopolitical realities of the world wrong, Friedman's other mistakes really shouldn't surprise. Still, amidst the wreckage, there is one jaw-dropper:<br /><blockquote><p>Has anyone noticed the most important peace breakthrough on the planet in the last two years? It’s right here: the new calm in the Strait of Taiwan. For decades, this was considered the most dangerous place on earth, with Taiwan and China pointing missiles at each other on hair triggers. Well, over the past two years, China and Taiwan have reached a quiet rapprochement — on their own. No special envoys or shuttling secretaries of state. Yes, our Navy was a critical stabilizer. But they worked it out. They realized their own interdependence. The result: a new web of economic ties, direct flights and student exchanges. </p><p>A key reason is that Taiwan has no oil, no natural resources. It’s a barren rock with 23 million people who, through hard work, have amassed the fourth-largest foreign currency reserves in the world. They got rich digging inside themselves, unlocking their entrepreneurs, not digging for oil. They took responsibility. They got rich by asking: “How do I improve myself?” Not by declaring: “It’s all somebody else’s fault. Give me a handout.” </p></blockquote><br />So many errors, so little time.<br /><br />First of all, despite the sweet talk of Ma <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Ying</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">jeou</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Hu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Jintao</span>, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">CCP</span> is still aiming hundreds of missiles at Taiwan. The island democracy is just as threatened today as it was before Ma was elected two years ago. In fact, the Taiwanese people themselves seem to understand that better than their President - confronted with Ma's rose-colored-glasses policy, they have actually done the unthinkable and resurrected the much-maligned Democratic Progressive Party as a functioning opposition.<br /><br />More to the point, <strong><em>the Taiwanese people have, in fact, depended upon the United States for decades</em></strong>. Two generations ago, President Eisenhower threatened nuclear war with Mao Zedong to protect Taiwan. A quarter-century later, the Taiwan Relations Act compelled America to ensure Taiwan had the ability and strength to defend itself.<br /><br />I don't want to be too hard on Tom. He seems to be coming to the realization (however slowly), that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span> is a genuine threat. He's not there yet, but I can see him making the journey. Unfortunately, his ignorance of the globe's past and present is hindering his ability to make the trip. More ominously, most of the free world's decision makers have the same blind spots that he does. That is a problem the electorates (i.e., you and me) need to fix - and quickly.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-38431070166352863932010-01-13T12:34:00.004-05:002010-01-13T13:15:19.228-05:00On the Google IncidentThe hacking of Google, and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">firm's</span> decision <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html">to re-evaluate its entire operation in Communist China</a> (h/t to <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmZmZjZiM2FlZTUwYTQwMjFhYWM1NmNkNDQzN2JjNGM="><em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">NRO</span></em> - The Corner</a>) , may lead to dramatic changes on several levels, including bringing the day of liberation closer than before Google made its announcement. That may sound dramatic, but I believe it to be true. To understand why, let's take this step by step.<br /><br />We'll start with the purpose of the attack on Google: "accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists." The first lesson we - and everyone else - can learn is this: <strong><em>any foreign business in Communist China will become part of the regime's surveillance system - whether they want to be or not</em></strong>. <a href="http://eastofethan.com/">Ethan <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Gutmann</span></a> has done a terrific job detailing how low the American business community had fallen <em>in Losing the New China</em>. In those cases, however, the firms were more than willing to help the cadres find and seize anti-Communists. In <em>this</em> case, Google clearly assumed (like most investors and businesses) that they would be "non-political." They found out the hard way that there is no such thing as non-political in Communist China. Current and future investors will take note, and hopefully make some very different decisions based upon this.<br /><br />There is one line of thought that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Google's</span> decision is driven more by dollars and cents than common sense or moral outrage (see Sarah Lacy at <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google%E2%80%99s-china-stance-more-about-business-than-thwarting-evil/">Tech Crunch</a>). In its own way, however, even this is good news, in part because the thrust of Lacy's column (revealed in this question: "Does anyone really think Google would be doing this if it had top market share in the country?") completely misses the point. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">CCP</span> will ensure Google will <em>never </em>win "top market share." Foreign business aren't supposed to succeed; they're supposed to throw good money after bad into Communist China while the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP</span> finds their intellectual property and robs them blind (again, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Gutmann</span> is a fantastic source). That hasn't stopped so many from dreaming of profits and "one billion customers." Google is no different.<br /><br />What <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Google's</span> action tells us is something about the <em>American </em>information technology sector: <strong><em>aiding repression is still considered bad business.</em></strong> We weren't sure if the old hyper-libertarian impulse that had been with the IT sector since its birth was still around. Now we know it is. This means it will be <em>much </em>harder for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP</span> to convince <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Google's</span> rivals or its successors to take its place as a dissident tracker (no one can claim they didn't see it coming anymore).<br /><br />Given the fallout that is coming from this, why would the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP</span> risk losing so many investors - present and future - with this move? Well, here's the final (and most important lesson) here: <strong><em>The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CCP</span> cares about its preservation and its power first, last, and always. </em></strong>Economics, diplomacy, and everything else are just means to the above end. No one can claim otherwise. No one can be fooled by the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP</span> propaganda that they peddle about its "peaceful rise" and its supposed concern about economic growth above all else.<br /><br />In short - to borrow and twist the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">famous</span> line from <em>The Usual Suspects </em>- the devil can no longer convince the world that he doesn't exist.<br /><br />This is something that will be remembered with every <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">CCP</span> acquisition abroad, every <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span> foray into international politics. The elites of free world may finally began to view the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">CCP</span> with the suspicion it deserves (the peoples of the free world have that suspicion already). However, this could be <em>most</em> damaging in the area it first started - outside investments in Communist China.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">CCP</span> needs outside investors for a slew of reasons: the money, of course, the <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">de</span> facto</em> endorsement that comes with an investment, and the new friends that can be used as apologists. As I have noted repeatedly, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span> <em>needs</em> affirmation from outside to justify its regime to the suffering people <em>inside</em>. Without the former, the latter becomes that much harder (one of the lessons learned from European Communism in the 1980s), and getting more of the former took a major hit with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Google's</span> announcement yesterday.<br /><br />Yes, the regime will survive if Google finally does withdraw, but it will be weakened, and with Iran in turmoil, anti-Communists gaining momentum in Taiwan, and India growing more leery of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Zhongnanhai</span>, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">CCP</span> cannot afford any more weakness.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-27831326782047608392010-01-07T08:00:00.003-05:002010-01-07T08:48:17.958-05:00Looking back, looking aheadOn this side of the Pacific (the east side), January is the beginning of the new year; on its western shores, it is close to the end of the old one. This gives us the perfect opportunity to look back and look ahead at the same time.<br /><br />From one perspective, the anti-Communist had a very bad 2009 (for those readers suffering from pun withdrawal, one could say democracy supporters were quite gored in the Year of the Ox). A new Democratic president - Barack Obama - turned his back on nearly everything his predecessor did, <em>except</em> for "engagement" with the Chinese Communist Party. Meanwhile, the potential for the new Republican opposition in America to rediscover its anti-Communist past disappeared when Obama appointed Utah Governor Mike <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Huntsman</span> to the post of Ambassador to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CCP</span>. For the rest of the year, the Communist regime was largely ignored in Washington - not necessarily a bad thing, but it could have been much better. House Speaker Nancy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Pelosi</span> particularly disappointed with her near silence on the issue when there was never a better time for her to influence the debate in the capital.<br /><br />Moving past the politicians and into the punditry, things actually got worse. What began as a discussion about global warming devolved into leading columnists pining for tyranny. Tom Friedman gushed over the "reasonably enlightened" <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">CCP</span> in a piece <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2009/09/fall-of-tom-friedman.html">that should have embarrassed him</a>. Canadian writer Diane Francis did Friedman one better by actually endorsing a global version of the hideous "one child" policy that made <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Zhongnanhai</span> infamous around the world.<br /><br />As all of this was going on, the regime seemed on the march across the globe. Beijing alone had the thrill of publishing good economic statistics (whether they were actually <em>true</em> statistics is for another column). More leaders of the free world - including Canada - seemed willing to do its bidding. Its chief Middle Eastern ally (the Iranian <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">mullahcracy</span>) moved closer to becoming a nuclear power. Its one-time Taliban allies were turning the tide in Afghanistan.<br /><br />All in all, it's been a very good year for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CCP</span> - on the surface. Scratch said surface, however, and it's a very different story.<br /><br />While the American elite fell all over itself in praise of the regime, the American <em>people</em> maintained, and even increased, their wariness of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Zhongnanhai</span>. By the end of the year, even some of the "chattering classes" began to realize that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CCP's</span> "peaceful rise" was <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2009/11/dangerous-paradigm-shift.html">anything but</a>.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the motivation for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Tehran's</span> hellbent quest for "the bomb" suddenly became known to the world: the Iranian people. Their continued defiance of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">mullahcracy</span> inspired the world, but it also sent a powerful message on the limits of dictatorship. About a decade ago, (First) Cold War historian John Lewis <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Gaddis</span> reminded us that oppressed people do have the power to force their oppressors to spend financial and political capital keeping the regime in place - and Tehran had to spend massive amounts of it. We saw the effects in Lebanon, where the pro-democracy March 14 movement scored an upset victory in national elections, and to a lesser extent in Iraq, where previous Iranian meddling seemed to ebb as the regime was forced to turn inward.<br /><br />Given that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP's</span> anti-American objectives and policies have largely been outsourced to Tehran - in part because the mullahs are so willing to credit for them and get the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CCP</span> off the hook - weakness in Iran means weakness in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Zhongnanhai</span>. Moreover, the regime can't look at the convulsions in Iran without worrying about the Chinese people rising up to take their country back.<br /><br />Finally, even in Taiwan, things went south for the regime. While the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span>-friendly Kuomintang governed without any threat for much of the year, the voters in the island democracy brought the anti-Communist Democratic Progressives back to life in local elections last month. This time last year, President Ma <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Ying</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">jeou</span> was a popular leader of a people seemingly willing to reach out to the Communists over the future of the Republic of China. Today, Ma is the leader of the Republic of China; the rest no longer holds.<br /><br />So what can we expect in 2010? It's hard to say, but I think we'll know where to look: Iran. The resistance of the Iranian people will continue to spook Beijing and Tehran, while forcing both to ignore opportunities elsewhere. Meanwhile, the mullahs quest for nuclear weapons (which in no small part is fueled by a need to have the free world knuckle under and accept their repression of their fellow Iranians) will lead to more problematic headlines for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">CCP</span>.<br /><br />Of course, if the Iranian people <em>succeed </em>in ending the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">mullahcracy</span>, that could send <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">shockwaves</span> through tyrannies around the world - <em>especially</em> the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">CCP</span>.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-25172417942057422752009-12-10T08:55:00.004-05:002009-12-10T09:57:48.561-05:00Another warning to the CCP . . . from TehranThe Chinese Communist Party prides itself on protecting fellow dictators around the world - and none more so than the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">mullahcracy</span> in Iran. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Khomeinist</span> regime in Tehran has been the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CCP's</span> oldest and closest friend in the Middle East - albeit because most "Middle Eastern" maps do not include Pakistan. Moreover, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Tehran's</span> virulent anti-Americanism makes it a perfect tool for <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">combating</span> the United States and the rest of the free world with little chance of geopolitical consequences. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Zhongnanhai</span> would prefer not to be blamed for fueling the Iranian regime's ambitions, and the mullahs are desperate to take all the credit for their actions. It's a perfect arrangement - so long as the mullahs had a firm grip on Iran.<br /><br />Events of this past week, however, revealed that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">mullahcracy's</span> grip on the Iranian people remains as shaky as it was this past summer.<br /><br />December 7 in Iran is National Students Day, a day to honor students who in 1953 protested a pro-American coup. For twenty years, the regime is happy to have large crowds marching in the streets, but anti-regime students essentially took over the day's events in 1999; the regime has tamped down December 7 ever since (<em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-iran-protests8-2009dec08,0,7136715.story">Los Angeles Times</a></em>).<br /><br />It didn't work this year. Despite over a hundred <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">pre</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">NSD</span> arrests and the usual clamor about "foreign influence" (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579711,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/crime">Fox News</a>), campuses all over Iran witnessed large anti-regime protests. Even worse for the mullahs, for the first time, ethnic minorities (Kurds and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Azeris</span>) got in on the act (<em>LAT</em>).<br /><br />Now, the regime did survive, and will for some time yet, but the mullahs will continue to waste energy terrifying their people into silence and imprisoning - or worse - those who refused to be cowed. This comes despite anemic support for the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">protesters</span> coming from the free world.<br /><br />That won't be lost on the folks in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Zhongnanhai</span>. They, too, have a potentially lethal combination of determined dissidents and ethnic issues - the latter exacerbated by the fact that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP</span> conquered the nations in question (Tibet and East Turkestan). They, too, have done everything they can to take advantage of the free world's willingness to look the other way on human rights and other matters. Moreover, unlike the Iranian regime, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CCP</span> long ago lost its ideological justification for its cruelty.<br /><br />If the <em>Iranian </em>tyrants still have to worry about massive protests erupting at certain dates, to what can the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">CCP</span> look forward? That is the question that keeps the cadres up nights.<br /><br />For nearly two decades, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span> has tried to avoid the fate of the European Communists. They deftly redesigned economic Marxism - effectively transforming the state from factory manager to the equivalent of an omnipresent holding company. They spent years polishing their image among the elites of the world, building alliances with other tyrants, and attempting to co-opt any dissident they could find.<br /><br />Here's the problem: the first item, while quite ingenious, can only take the regime so far, and there's evidence aplenty that it has run its course. The rest is <em>straight out of the European Communists' playbook </em>- and it has led to the same paucity of results.<br /><br />Anyone who remembers the 1970s has seen this movie before. The free world was willing to look the other way <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">vis</span> a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">vis</span> European Communism, too (including both political parties here in America). There were other matters that seemed to trump human rights (in that decade, it was the nuclear arms race and, <em>ahem</em>, global cooling). Tyrants seemed on the march under Soviet protection. The decade ended with Iran itself succumbing to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Khomeinists</span>. Yet European Communism still fell.<br /><br />What we tend to forget, however, is that the 1970s was the one decade during which the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span> paid the <em>least</em> attention to the rest of the world. The chaos of the Cultural Revolution, the post-Mao factional battles within the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">CCP</span>, and the first signs of popular protest against the regime combined to keep the eyes of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">CCP</span> leaders firmly fixed <em>inward</em>.<br /><br />So, while the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">CCP</span> learned the lessons of the <em>1980s </em>(i.e., the state as factory manager doesn't work, and neither does open resistance to an assertive free world), they missed the lessons of the <em>1970s</em> (an unassertive free world never stays that way, the people will never be won over by foreign plaudits, and allied tyrants inevitably cost more to prop up then their worth).<br /><br />In other words, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">CCP</span> is marching into the same trap the snared their European brethren, but they don't see it coming, but they were not paying attention during the decade that most closely resembles this one. In time, when the free world arises from its stupor (as it inevitably does), the trap will be sprung, and the Chinese Communist Party will take its rightful place on the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">ash heap</span> of history.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-18326040976261509902009-11-19T07:56:00.003-05:002009-11-19T08:40:18.114-05:00A dangerous paradigm shiftThis past week, the anti-Communist community came to grips with the painful reality best described by this summary of the Greek tragedy genre: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."<br /><br />After spending nearly ten years trying to warn my fellow Americans about the dangers of the Chinese Communist Party (and compared to some of the giants in the movement, I'm still a rookie), it is becoming clear that the "chattering classes" finally recognize the danger (a majority of Americans have <em>always</em> understood the problem). Unfortunately, the mood in the corridors of power and punditry have shifted not to firm resolve to resist the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CCP</span>, but mordant despair over its eventual conquest of the world.<br /><br />The best (or, perhaps, worst) example of the gloom and doom comes from John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Tkacik</span>, a leading anti-Communist himself and a longtime defender of the island democracy currently on Taiwan (<em><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWQzOGZlMzg5ODhmNjdkYjhmODI1OTAwNTllMWYyNjU=&w=Mg==">National Review Online</a></em>):<br /><blockquote><p>As the smoke clears from President Obama’s 2009 Asia tour, America’s new status as the second-most powerful nation on earth is no longer obscured. It is the measure of a superpower that nobody else tells it what to do, but America is no longer the superpower. It is now China whom no one dares lecture.</p><p>The Obama administration has failed to muster the leverage necessary to gain China’s cooperation on any of its global priorities: nuclear proliferation, climate change, trade, exchange rates, human rights, competition for resources, environmental despoliation, or moderating China’s territorial claims against its neighbors — most of which are America’s friends and allies.</p><p>It simply is not credible in Beijing that Obama’s Washington has the courage to come up with an “or else” if China insists on pursuing its goals via a robust state-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">mercantilist</span> ideology. So Beijing now does what it will, and will lecture the U.S. president if it pleases.</p><p>This was evident in Obama’s handling of the Tibet issue. He dared not meet with his fellow Nobel Laureate, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Dalai</span> Lama, because China was not pleased. In his comments to Chinese leaders, Obama reassured them that the United States recognizes that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China,” without pausing to consider that China claims 32,000 square miles of Indian territory — the state of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Arunachal</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Pradesh</span> — as “part of Tibet.” Clearly, President Obama sees his challenge as managing America’s decline gracefully. </p></blockquote><br />Now, not everyone is as glum as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Tkacik</span>, but most have a similar theme, driven by either criticism of the Obama Administration (which is justified) or concern over <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">CCP</span>-held American debt (which is <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2008/11/powerlessness-of-credit.html">badly overblown</a>). Thus, I am now forced to shift gears myself, and remind everyone that things really aren't <em>that </em>bad.<br /><br />True, the obsequiousness of the president is deeply disturbing, but that's not just for anti-Communists (see Victor Davis Hanson, also in <em><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTE5NzE4MDAxZjU2YjRjZmYwY2NhNWMxODM5NjExNTM="><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">NRO</span></a></em>, for the overall details). America's allies are starting to notice the trend in other areas, too, and are not happy (<a href="http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/home/2009/11/obamas-america-is-the-worst-kind-of-ally.html">America in the World</a>, UK). Moreover, while "engagement" has become a standard lunacy among American presidents over the last two decades, the Obama version is so bad that even "engagement" luminaries such as the <em>Financial Times</em> (also UK) are telling the president that he "need not – and must not – kowtow" (via <a href="http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/home/2009/11/barack-obama-avoids-human-rights-talk-during-china-visit.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">AITW</span></a>).<br /><br />In fact, the <em>FT </em>even goes so far as to detonate the myth of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP's</span> power as American creditor: "Contrary to common perception, China’s huge holdings of US treasuries are not a sign of great strength. They are evidence of how dependent Chinese growth has been on the US consumer." I take a somewhat different angle in <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2008/11/powerlessness-of-credit.html">my view on the subject</a>, but any comments that steer clear of unnecessary pessimism is welcome at this point.<br /><br />In reality, America is weak toward the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CCP</span> because President Obama <em>chooses</em> to be weak. For the democracy on Taiwan - which is facing both <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2005/03/news-of-weekend-march-2627.html">a likely invasion deadline</a> of 2012 and <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2009/09/week-that-was.html">its own lack of resolve</a> - this isn't very consoling. The American people, however, have available a simple solution - replace Obama with an anti-Communist president. Whether any Republicans or other Democrats are willing to embrace the anti-Communist model is another question, but <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Obama's</span> errors here make it much more likely.<br /><br />Indeed, the recent election results in New Jersey hint to a second, and still <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">underemphasized</span>, reason for optimism: India. Even the <em>FT</em> took note of India's role as "a potential regional counterweight to China." Now, I've been talking about the geopolitical importance of India for years, but if what Michael <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Barone</span> (<em><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Are-Asian-voters-swinging-Republican-70290582.html">DC Examiner</a></em>) is any indication, Indian-Americans may be shifting to the Republicans. This will give the GOP more reason to emphasize India's role in the world. Democrats, if they're wise, will likely follow suit (lest anyone forget, the first notion of upending Communist regimes in Eastern Europe came from Republican candidates desperate to peel immigrants from said countries away from the Democrats in the 1950s). As more Americans become aware that there are <em>three </em>superpowers rather than two - and that the "third" is a far better fit with the free world than the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span> - they will realize their strength, and demand leaders act upon said strength.<br /><br />Last but most, we need to remember the adversary: the Chinese Communist Party. Yes, it is bloodthirsty, ruthless, and very effective is presenting the veneer of respectable calm across Chinese and occupied territory. In the final piece of irony, it is John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Derbyshire</span> (author of the pessimism manifesto titled <em>We Are Doomed</em>), who reminds us of our reasons for hope:<br /><blockquote>Let us bear in mind that those (economic) growth rates are based on an economic model that may already have ceased to be tenable (see Gordon Chang in the November 23 issue of <em>National Review</em>); that Chinese weapons, now as in the past, are intended for use <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8308169.stm" target="_blank">against</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQIdaR0J70&feature=video_response" target="_blank">those</a> <a href="http://aroundtheedges.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tiananmen-square-tank1-1808.jpg" target="_blank">inhabitants</a>, or <a href="http://eng.taiwan.net.tw/" target="_blank">recalcitrant ex-inhabitants</a>, of the Celestial Empire who will not bow to the Son of Heaven; that Chinese diplomats excel mainly at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ugly-Chinaman-Crisis-Chinese-Culture/dp/1863731164/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258487967&sr=1-1" target="_blank">making their nation disliked</a>; that resentments of class and wealth inequality can <a href="http://www.fresno.k12.ca.us/divdept/sscience/lloyd/age_of_revolution.htm" target="_blank">sunder a nation</a> as surely as can ethnic troubles; and that the median duration of a Chinese dynasty has been 45 years.</blockquote><br />In other words, between America and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">CCP</span>, America is the weakest - except for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">CCP</span>.<br /><br />So, while we can shake our heads at the Obama Administration's mistakes, and cringe as the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span> takes advantage of them, the fundamentals have not really changed. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">CCP</span> is still a regime hiding its weaknesses from itself and everyone else, while America and the rest of the free world has strengths that remain unacknowledged - or even ignored - but won't disappear.<br /><br />After all, how many of us on December 31, 1979 would even dare dream that European Communism would be crushed just a dozen years later?D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-90473835570557861892009-09-30T21:49:00.002-04:002009-09-30T22:23:22.629-04:00Well, that wasn't supposed to happenNew York City's tallest building - the Empire State Building - is glowing red and yellow to honor the 60<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">th</span> anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party.<br /><br />If you're the cadres, that's <em>supposed</em> to be fantastic news, a sign that they have finally arrived as an institution that can be accepted and celebrated. Now, New Yorkers and Americans can look at the skyscraper and marvel at the oceans of blood spilled in their name.<br /><br />If that sounds a little odd, it's because things haven't quite gone according to plan.<br /><br />The Empire State had barely turned on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CCP</span> lights before <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557823,00.html">Fox News</a> was wading through a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">smorgasbord</span> of furious anger from tourists, a historian, and a local Congressman (Anthony <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Weiner</span>). So, instead of "oohs" and "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ahs</span>," the cadres are reading this:<br /><blockquote>"I think it's a bad idea," said Dick <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Paasch</span>, 69, from Billings, Montana. "The Chinese Revolution ... in the years 1958-1960, there were something like 26 million people starved to death. Why would we want to celebrate something like that?"<br /><br />"China gets treatment that other dictatorships can only dream of — a free pass on human rights," said Arthur <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Waldron</span>, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania.<br /><br />"Would we have lit the Empire State Building for the USSR knowing what we<br />do about the Gulag?"<br /><br />New York politicians have paid notice as well, and say they are let down by the light-up. Rep. Anthony <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Weiner</span>, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake to pay tribute to what he<br />called "a nation with a shameful history on human rights."</blockquote>Um, that wasn't supposed to happen.<br /><br />Even worse for the cadres, their 60 years of rule have been permanently linked with another number: its 72 million victims. That <em>certainly</em> wasn't part of the plan, but it has darkened any celebration.<br /><br />In fact, no matter where one looks (the aforementioned Fox News, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5id5SBg830A4ZkTEmmnFIlkHyEHYgD9B1VJ880">Associated Press</a>, <em><a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/china-color-protest/">The New York Times</a></em>, <em><a href="http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk1MTY0NjQ0NjA0NmIxOWM4YTE5OWEwOWRjNzdkOGE=">National Review Online</a></em>, <em><a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/doug-heye/2009/09/30/the-empire-state-buildings-disgusting-kowtow-to-china.html">U.S. News and World Report</a></em>, <a href="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Empire-State-Building-Honors-China-Lights-Up-Critics-62963922.html">NBC</a>, etc.), the "celebration" is given so perfunctory quotes while the anger and outrage gets a majority of the coverage.<br /><br />Of course, the <em>real</em> purpose of the lighting - to ensure the Chinese people are told how much the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">rest</span> of the world loves the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">CCP</span> - was a smashing success. So long as the peasants, migrant workers, prisoners, and appellants don't see the seething of the American people, it's all systems go for the demoralizing propaganda.<br /><br />Keep in mind, stuff like this isn't about Chinese pride; it's about debasement. It's about keeping the Chinese people scared, isolated, and quiet. It's about making sure they have <em>no idea</em> that the people of the democratic world would <em>love</em> to see them rise up and take their country back.<br /><br />Still, that would have been a lot easier had the red-and-yellow vibe lasted longer than a New York minute. Now the cadres will have to keep an even <em>tighter</em> grip on its contacts with the outside world. All nations dealing with it will have to be even <em>more</em> intrusive within its own borders so as not to "offend Chinese dignitaries."<br /><br />All of this brings inevitably closer the day when the democratic world throws up its hands in exasperation - the <em>exact opposite </em>of the long-term objectives stemming from the 60<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">th</span> anniversary.<br /><br />If anything, here in <em>this</em> country, the Empire State fiasco revealed an anti-Communist majority as strong as it ever was - if only one of the political parties would step up to represent them.<br /><br />The American <em>and</em> Chinese peoples are still waiting.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-91880368401752676082009-09-10T02:24:00.002-04:002009-09-10T02:45:51.604-04:00The fall of Tom FriedmanIf you want to see how and why so many otherwise enlightened people have fallen for the snake oil of the Chinese Communist Party, look no further than the <em>New York Times</em>' Tom Friedman.<br /><br />Friedman embarasses himself with an ode to the "enlightened" CCP in his latest column:<br /><blockquote>One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.</blockquote><br />Nothing is more dangerous than claiming to know the future, and Friedman painfully proves it here. This is a regime that is still working its citizens to death - literally - in labor camps, still imprisoning and killing those who refuse to put the Party between themselves and their God, and still actively helping America's enemies abroad. None of it matters to Mr. Friedman, because so long as the regime dyes its bloody hands "green," it can become "a reasonably enlightened group of people."<br /><br />Keep in mind, Mr. Friedman, and so many like him, know <em>nothing </em>of the real CCP. They have spent time in one or more of the Potemkin cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, or Shenzhen), and fool themselves into thinking they've seen China.<br /><br />Only this can explain the nonsense Friedman spews next:<br /><blockquote>It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.</blockquote><br />Of course, this would come as a shock to Canada, which is watching these very same leaders make a massive move on Alberta's oil sands, which according to Friedman <em>et al</em> is not only a no-no because it is oil, but even worse, it's "dirty" oil.<br /><br />What would a regime "committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power" want with Albertan oil? Well, they'd want energy, and unlike Friedman, they understand that it takes more than pies in the sky to get it. Meanwhile, China <em>outside</em> of the Potemkin cities remains an ecological nightmare.<br /><br />So what's driving this strange impulse by Friedman to embrace dictatorship. It is as simple as it is tragic: Friedman is not getting what he wants politically in America. Frustrated with the American people refusing to agree with him, he longs for the will to impose his views on them anyway.<br /><br />It is the typical column of a frustrated "in" pundit - railing at the "out" party (in this case the Republicans) as doomed to irrelevance <em>and</em> powerful enough to stop the Democrats at the same time. The problem is, the GOP can't be <em>both</em>. Unable to control the agenda in the House or even slow it down in the Senate, Republicans can do nothing but dissent - unless the American people stand with them.<br /><br />It is the same in any democracy - even the parliamentary ones where traditionally a majority government reigns supreme. If the opposition has the ear of the people (or vice versa) governing suddenly becomes difficult, if not impossible.<br /><br />The proper, democratic thing to do is try to persuade the people that you are correct and they are not - but that requires effort, effort "in" parties usually don't have after some years in power. That Friedman is already exhausted after mere months of the Obama Administration is tellng about its weakness.<br /><br />That said, different people resort to different methods. President Bush, for all his faults, made a dramatic pitch to the American people on the "surge" in Iraq. The people were surprised, and more than a little apprehensive, but they agreed to give it a chance, with very good results.<br /><br />President Obama may face a similar choice in Afghanistan. That one of the capital's leading columnistst is now longing for the power to imprision dissidents is a sign of trouble.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-62853113358835412032009-09-03T07:34:00.002-04:002009-09-03T08:31:55.463-04:00The week that wasBy any indication, this was a week that began just awfully for anti-Communists. Yet, as it comes to an end, it may be the CCP itself who rues the seven days.<br /><br />The week began (badly) in Japan, where Taro Aso - the latest and possibly most passionate in a line of anti-Communist Japanese premiers that included Junichiro Koizumi and Shinzo Abe - became the first Liberal Democrat in sixteen years (and arguably the first in over fifty) to suffer an outright defeat at the hands of the voters. The newly empowered Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has been spouting about moving away from the United States and closer to the Chinese Communist Party for years. Now, with a hammerlock on Japan's House of Representatives, they can form the government for the first time in history.<br /><br />The next day brought a double-whammy: the family of Chen Shui-bian (former President of Taiwan and former leader of the anti-Communist Democratic Progressive Party) were convicted of perjury in his corruption trial. Chen himself will hear his verdict in about a week (<em><a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/21897/">Epoch Times</a></em>); a conviction is all but certain. Meanwhile, Petrochina put in a nearly $2-billion bid for a major Albertan oil project, possibly turning North America's alternative to Middle Eastern oil into Beijing's overseas resource center.<br /><br />All in all, the week looked horrific - and it was only Monday.<br /><br />In fact, however, that was the whole point: the week still had five days left. Much as you don't declare the football game over at half-time, one cannot declare a week a disaster just two days in. On the contrary, as the week wore on, it started to wear a little better.<br /><br />While the anti-Communist leaders were reeling from the Chen drama in Taiwan, the anti-Communist populace were making their presence known. President Ma Ying-jeou continued to take it on the chin politically on several fronts, while the presence of the Dalai Lama (whom Ma could not dare to ban from the island democracy) brought out the worst in the CCP - and reminded all who live on Taiwan just what reunification under Zhongnanhai would mean (<a href="http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1048065&lang=eng_news&cate_img=logo_taiwan&cate_rss=TAIWAN_eng">Central News Agency</a>). Much like the Republicans here have sprung back to life with the departure of George W. Bush, recent events on Taiwan make clear the anti-Communist DPP could have a revival of its own once the Chens leave the scene (voluntarily or otherwise).<br /><br />The situation in Japan also improved - or to be more precise, it was revealed to be better than originally thought. For all the DPJ talk of moving closer to Beijing, one glaring obstacle stares them dead in the face - the choatic House of Councillors (known as the "upper house"). While the outgoing LDP lost control of that chamber in 2007, the DPJ doesn't control it either. Instead, it will have to rely on smaller parties from left and right - the latter will likely be nonplussed with any serious move in Beijing's direction. Until new Councillor elections next year, <em>any </em>new move in foreign policy could lead to trouble, which is why the triumphant DPJ is suddenly talking down any references to them.<br /><br />Even the situation in Canada improved, and not just because the anti-Communists in the country began rousing themselves to take on their former friends in the governing Conservative Party (<em><a href="http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/PetroChina+should+blocked/1952737/story.html">Calgary Herald</a></em>). The bigger news may have come from the Gulf of Mexico, where a massive oil reservoir was discovered deep underground (<em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203560.html">Washington Post</a></em>). While it will be a while before the field brings oil to the market, there is already talk of its effect on world oil prices. This could dampen the dollars enough for the Tories in Ottowa to clear their heads and give the Petrochina deal the long, painful look it deserves.<br /><br />Meanwhile, word leaked out to the <a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/21943/"><em>Epoch Times</em></a> that the latest attempt by the cadres to pilfer state-owned assets and line their pockets had been met with a labor strike in Hunan Province - a telling reminder that the CCP's ongoing struggle to silence and dominate its own people continues to run into problems.<br /><br />Of course, we have no idea how any of these items will resolve themselves, but we can be more optimistic about them than we could have been earlier in the week. While no one is really sure who coined the phrase "a week is a lifetime in politics" (the late UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson came close with the British subdued/deadpan version "a week is a long time in politics"), they were certainly validated this week.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-72017096817378465602009-08-26T22:10:00.005-04:002009-08-26T22:54:41.295-04:00The CCP's organ trafficking admission - a sign of things to come?The Chinese Communist Party admitted to breaking its own law against organ trafficking, and admitted to it in a big way (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8222732.stm">BBC</a>):<br /><blockquote>About 1.5 million people in China need transplants, but only about 10,000 operations are performed annually, according to the health ministry . . . the government passed a law in 2007 banning trafficking as well as the donation of organs to unrelated recipients. But in practice, illegal transplants - some from living donors - are still frequently reported by the media and the Ministry of Health . . . In a rare admission of the extent to which this takes place, <em>China Daily</em> - citing unnamed experts - said on Wednesday that more than 65% of organ donations come from death row prisoners.</blockquote>In other words, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CCP</span> just admitted that over 6,000 organ "donations" came from the condemned, 2007 law be damned.<br /><br />Of interest to many readers of this column, the cadres of course did not make any admission about organ harvesting from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Falun</span> Gong practitioners. Then again, they don't really admit to killing them either, so this is no surprise.<br /><br />What is important (and as with most important things regarding the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CCP</span>, it has been largely ignored) is this: the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">CCP</span> admitted, once again, that it can't or won't enforce its own laws among its own members. After all, who else could be selling the organs taken from prisoners but the very Communist regime that supposedly made such organ selling illegal?<br /><br />While most of the rest of us may not have noticed that whopping admission, the cadres certainly did: they were so nervous about it the rushed out anti-Uighur propaganda without notifying their "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Xinjiang</span>" counterparts. Even worse, the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8219900.stm">BBC</a> got to the cadres in occupied East Turkestan before <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Zhongnanhai</span> did.<br /><br />That this would so badly scare the regime will surprise most people. After all, they have the friendliest Administration in Washington since Nixon. The elites in the free world are still seeing the mounds of American debt held by Beijing in economic terms (where it appears powerful) rather than in geopolitical terms (where it's <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2008/11/powerlessness-of-credit.html">practically worthless</a>). Perceptions like that mean something, and for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CCP</span>, it means a lot.<br /><br />Still, reality trumps perception in the end - no matter how late that end comes. The one thing the cadres fear the most is the Chinese people rising up to take their country back. Amidst massive unemployment (as the <em><a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/21579/">Epoch Times</a> </em>noted earlier this week), the cadres were clearly worried that another example of their refusal to follow the rules could cause problems.<br /><br />At the same time, with the next <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">CCP</span> Congress only three years away, and most cadres looking to take advantage of the transition from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Hu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Jintao</span>, information like this could easily be used by one faction against another. So, off it goes into <em>China Daily</em>, leaving the party apparatus scrambling to distract the people's attention.<br /><br />Lest anyone forget, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Hu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Jintao</span> is the first leader in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP</span> history whose exit is considered common knowledge (Mao died in power, while Deng Xiaoping and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Jiang</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Zemin</span> hung on as Central Military Commission Chairman for years after handing over the ostensibly omnipotent role as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span> General Secretary). As any other "lame duck" can attest, the people supposedly following <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Hu's</span> orders are starting to look beyond him. Even in most democratic countries, factions within the incumbent party will start leaking against each other in an effort to gain the upper hand for their champion come convention or primary time - except that the leader is still considered legitimate and everyone accepts that the voters will decide the successor.<br /><br />Neither of the above applies to the Chinese Communist Party. Thus, every factional battle has the potential for disaster - and the cadres have three more years of this coming, unless <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Hu</span> has enough power left to tell everyone to calm down for the good of the Party.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">That</span> may be more wistful than it initially appears, for the factions within the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CCP</span> are marching straight into the classic "prisoner's dilemma" - concern for weakening the tyranny is trumped by the fear of the other faction (or factions) doing it anyway and getting the upper hand in the process.<br /><br />European Communists, whose leaders almost always died in power, never had these problems unless the Soviet leader himself was gravely ill - and even then there was a faction interested in keeping that news under wraps to preserve their position. Ironically, in an attempt to ensure a smoother transition from one leader to the next, the Chinese Communists stumbled into this new problem without any guide to solve it.<br /><br />By 2012, the factional warfare could end up with enough exposures to lead to a full-blown revolution. It may seem improbable, but it can't be seen as impossible. Hard as it is to believe, the Chinese Communist Party's attempt to modernize itself could very well be what seals its doom.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-54451962006747986172009-08-13T10:43:00.003-04:002009-08-13T11:33:41.454-04:00Why China Won't Rule the WorldThere has been quite a buzz lately over Martin Jacques' <em>When China Rules the World</em>. I will confess, I have not had the chance to read the book, so this should <strong><em>not</em></strong> be taken as a review of it; that would not be fair to him - let alone all of you. Still, I have had the chance to look over Jacques' comments in an interview with <em><a href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/13/macleans-interview-martin-jacques/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Macleans</span></a></em>, and I can already tell his thesis has problems - problems that make the entire notion of China - or, to be more precise, the Chinese Communist Party - running the planet to be utterly laughable.<br /><br />The first problem with Jacques' theory is that he apparently takes the cadres' economic growth statistics at face value. Anyone who has been tracking the regime for a while should know by now the danger in that. National statistics in Communist China are just amalgamations of provincial statistics, which are themselves summations of county, city, village, and town numbers. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, but with cadres at <em>every</em> level trying to justify their existence, the "fudge factor" can be significant. A few years ago, Communist economic chicanery was estimated to add almost 1.5% of false growth to their GDP statistics. Stretch that out to the supposed date the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CCP</span> passes the U.S. in economic size (sometime in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">midcentury</span>), and one sees a lot of padding.<br /><br />Criticism number two is centered around the notion (at the end of the interview) that the Chinese are a patient people. This has long been marked as a virtue that <em>someday</em> would lead China to pass the shortsighted Western powers. There's only one problem: the <em>Chinese Communist Party </em>has no such patience. While Western observers fret over <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Beijing's</span> plans for the next century, the leaders in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Zhongnanhai</span> are too busy plotting against each other's plans over the next <em>decade</em>, at most. One could even argue that most high-ranking cadres can't even think past <em>three years </em>(i.e., the 2012 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP</span> Congress, which could very well include a major shakeup), let alone three decades.<br /><br />One would expect Jacques, "an academic and journalist working throughout East Asia" would have taken the factionalism of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CCP</span> into account - until they notice his glaring error with one of the most hackneyed examples of the "patience" theory (<em><a href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/13/macleans-interview-martin-jacques/3/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Macleans</span></a></em> again).<br /><blockquote>You remember what Deng Xiaoping was supposed to have said when Henry Kissinger asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good thing: “It’s too early to say.” That to me is a very good insight into the Chinese mentality.</blockquote><br />In fact, it was <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Zhou</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Enlai</span>, <em>not</em> Deng, who dropped that famous line about the French Revolution - Deng was not even rehabilitated by the regime until <em>after</em> Kissinger and Nixon's trip to Beijing. While this doesn't necessarily impeach Jacques' views about the Chinese culture, it certainly calls into question his knowledge of the Chinese Communist Party.<br /><br />All that aside, what really sinks Jacques' vision of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP</span>-dominated world is his regional bias, i.e., toward East Asia. Normally, this is hard to spot, as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Eurocentricism</span> remains the dominant bias nearly everyone tries to combat. However, in his discussion about the fate of the globe, Jacques focuses entirely on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CCP's</span> relationship with its <em>eastern </em>neighbors (Japan, Vietnam, etc.), while its <em>western</em> neighbors are barely an afterthought. Thus, Jacques falls into the common yet catastrophic China-and-India trap (one more time with <em><a href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/13/macleans-interview-martin-jacques/2/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Macleans</span></a></em>).<br /><blockquote>We’re moving into a world where former colonized countries like China and India will become the big players. This is going to shake up the global value system. So I’m not arguing personally against democracy, but I’m trying to imagine what the world’s going to be like when countries have different imperatives, different histories, and therefore different priorities.</blockquote><br />I am continually and perpetually amazed at how many people treat Communist China and democratic India as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">indentical</span> twins. <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2005/12/communist-china-and-india-they-are-not.html">Nothing could be further from the truth</a>. While India could probably care less about what Europe wants (and that's not necessarily a bad thing, by the way), its entire foreign policy has evolved into a deep mistrust and concern for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CCP</span>. Beijing and New Delhi <em>still</em> don't have an agreed-upon border, and the Indian people know full well that Pakistan - which lacks either the will, the ability, or both to prevent terrorists from crossing into India and killing hundreds to thousands of people - is protected by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Zhongnanhai</span>.<br /><br />The idea the India would be willing to play second fiddle to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">CCP</span> would be hilarious if it weren't so insulting. That India furthermore would not use its democratic history as part of its rivalry with Beijing is to further insult the intelligence of the Indian people and its elected leaders.<br /><br />Again, I don't want this to appear to be a criticism of Jacques' book itself (although I don't have high expectations for it), but it is clear that the author has a worldview that is lacking not only in vital information about Asia, but even about China itself. More to the point, these areas of ignorance are the only things that have allowed Jacques to even entertain the notion that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">CCP</span> could ever "rule the world."D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-4737284119699936832009-08-06T07:40:00.005-04:002009-08-06T08:19:57.107-04:00The CCP and the Axis of EvilYesterday morning, Americans woke up to see former President Bill Clinton return from Stalinist North Korea with two former hostages - Current TV News reporters arrested in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CCP's</span> Korean colony - in tow (<em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080504021.html">Washington Post</a></em>). Pictures of happy reunions were beamed across the grateful nation as talking heads abounded at Clinton's ability to bring the reporters back and speculated as to just what role the Obama Administration played in all of this.<br /><br />Half a world away, in Tehran, Mahmoud <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Ahmadinejad</span> (or, as he is known in this corner, Mad Mouthpiece Mahmoud) was officially inaugurated to a second term as President - despite thousands of protesters in the streets and a slew of boycotting legislators still angry over the obvious fraud behind his "re-election" two months ago (<em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/08/05/ST2009080504277.html">Washington Post</a></em>).<br /><br />Most would presume that these events have nothing to do with each other. I'm not so sure.<br /><br />First of all, we need to remember that Kim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Jong</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">il</span> is a lot like Teamsters pension-fund head "Andy Stone" from <em>Casino </em>- "by all appearances . . . a powerful man . . . but Andy Stone also took orders." Kim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Jong</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">il</span> may be many things (including on death's door), but he remains the Chinese Communist Party's Korean viceroy - even more so now that he is desperate to ensure his son as his successor. Thus, if the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CCP</span> wanted those two journalists back in America and out of the headlines, it would have gotten exactly what it wanted.<br /><br />The question becomes, then, why now? What made early August different from July? Or, for that matter, April? That's where the Iranian inauguration farce comes in.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">CCP</span> has a habit of using the Korean colony to change the subject from any unfortunate matter it would rather avoid. The most dramatic example of this came just over two months ago when Kim and his cronies <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-guess-iran-just-wasnt-ready.html">conducted a nuclear test</a> less than two weeks before the twentieth anniversary of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Tiananmen</span> massacre. So, it was fairly obvious the moment these reporters were captured that this could be of use to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">CCP</span>.<br /><br /><em>How </em>they could be useful wasn't clear until <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2009/06/iran-what-unfinished-revolution-means.html">the Iranian uprising</a>, which was as much of a surprise to Beijing as it was to the Tehran regime itself. Under normal circumstances, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CCP</span> would pay no attention to a tyranny cracking down on its own frustrated people - besides making sure everyone knew it stood with the tyranny.<br /><br />Things became a bit more sensitive when the Iranian people - noticing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Beijing's</span> long alliance with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">mullahcracy</span> - included "Death to China" among their street slogans. Suddenly, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CCP</span> was <em>itself </em>the target of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">protesters</span>, and <em>any </em>trouble coming out of Iran could redound to the free world (whose anti-Communists continue to make the regime very nervous) and China itself (ditto - and then some).<br /><br />Thus, August 5, the date Iran requires its president to be inaugurated for a new term, became a very important date the cadres in Beijing - important enough to ensure the rest of the world paid no attention to the ongoing battle between the Persian people and the Tehran tyranny. Can we really be surprised that North Korea suddenly jumped on Bill Clinton's trip as an excuse to release the captured journalists just as Iran was approaching another flash point?<br /><br />As it is, hardly anyone paid attention to Tehran, even when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs slipped and called the Mad Mouthpiece Iran's "elected" leader (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/05/white-house-spokesman-changes-tune-ahmadinejad-elected-leader-iran/">Fox News</a>). All eyes were on North Korea, Bill Clinton, and the two released reporters. Speculation swirled around Kim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Jong</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">il's</span> motives, pundits praised Bill Clinton to the skies (although some are now wondering what was offered in return), breathless reports about the "deep involvement" of the Obama Administration (now that things went well) were whispered and then broadcast.<br /><br />In short, the plight of the hostages dominated the news day - and the ongoing reverberations of the Iranian uprising did not. The Chinese Communist Party not only saw more press for its Korean colony, but also <em>no </em>press for its Iranian ally. Whatever kind of day it was for Clinton, the reporters, the president, and the media, it was certainly an excellent day for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">CCP</span>.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9947578.post-40467105928233543142009-07-30T10:06:00.004-04:002009-07-30T10:52:44.361-04:00CCP Uses Washington as a ScapegoatThe latest round of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Sino</span>-American talks came to an end with yet another expression of "concern at the record American budget deficit"(<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aCVUEOMqSEBQ"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Bloomberg</span></a>). In fact, the most consistent line Washington has heard from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Zhongnanhai</span> is criticism of the Administration's spending and borrowing. Most Americans are themselves too worried about the president mortgaging the future to raise much of a stink about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Beijing's</span> nagging. Still, the Chinese Communist Party is not going after our record deficits to get us to see the light, but rather to pull the wool over the eyes of their own people.<br /><br />That the Communist regime now holds more American debt than anyone or anything on earth has given them a perception of economic power. Granted, <a href="http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2008/11/powerlessness-of-credit.html">there isn't much reality</a> behind that perception, but that will take some time to sink in over here. What is important here is what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Beijing's</span> carping reveals: deep concern about <em>their own</em> economy, and an inability to fix it.<br /><br />The latest economic figures out of Beijing trumpeted 7.9% GDP growth in the second quarter. However, given the cadres' penchant for phony statistics, the actual growth number could be as low as 6% - well below population growth. In other words, the average victim of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CCP</span> is continues to grow <em>poorer</em>. This despite a half-trillion-dollar "stimulus."<br /><br />Meanwhile, the already <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">creeky</span> banking sector continued to dig itself a deeper hole, with wave after wave of reckless loans that have brought back the dreaded B-word ("bubble"). The regime has promised to use "market tools" (<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=anpaoUUecwhc"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Bloomberg</span></a>) to slow down the lending spree - without explaining to anyone just what it means by that.<br /><br />So, with the economy <em>not</em> recovering to the extent required, corruption still out of control, and several banks sure to end up drowning in bad loans in the near future, the regime needs someone to blame - and up steps the Obama Administration. To be clear, I am in no way endorsing the reckless spending of the president. The consequences of trillion-dollar-deficits (the entire federal budget was less than a trillion dollars just twenty-five years ago) are obvious: high inflation, a devalued dollar, and a crippling effect on business investment. That's what makes it so easy for the cadres to hide behind America's mistakes.<br /><br />If things continue to get worse in Communist China, look for the cadres to make more threats about dumping American bonds, while blaming the falling value of said bonds for the regime's own failures. Unfortunately, too many critics of the Administration will seize upon the cadres' smoke screen as yet another consequence of the president's refusal to slow down the spending train. This is especially true regarding the Communist banks, who will scream bloody murder about the loss of value in American assets while hoping no one notices the domestic-default tsunami.<br /><br />In fact, this entire ruse is yet one more reason Washington should get its fiscal house in order. Without this crutch, Beijing will have no explanation for the continuing economic downturn, and more of their victims will rise up to take their country back. Instead, the regime could very well succeed (and certainly will attempt) to lay blame for all of their economic <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">difficulties</span> at the feet of the president. Foreign investors (who should know better, but that's for another day) will hear stories about <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">worthwhile</span> projects withering on the vine due to weakened Communist banks and those spendthrift Americans, and odds are they'll believe them. The cadres may very dupe the foreigners out of millions to billions of new dollars to make up for the mythical investment gap, giving the regime yet another vein of money siphon off for party members.<br /><br />Contrary to what the Chinese Communist Party would like the world to believe, they are in a very weak position. Their economic policies are causing more problems while leaving unsolved the ones that led to the policies in the first place. However, so long as the United States continues to spend money like it grows on trees, the cadres will have the cover story they desperately need to survive. Once again, like nearly every other tyrant on the planet, they will find their survival in whipping up anti-American hatred and blaming us for things we did not do.D.J. McGuirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12301307129113882228noreply@blogger.com0