I’m still posting updates on events over at The Peking Duck and there is quite the conversation going on as well. Many sites, including The Opposite End of China and You Tube are down. Obviously journalists and foreigners in general are being denied access to affected areas. Members of the Tibetan community here in Beijing have also talked about problems in Xining, Qinghai and are expressing strong concern for family members back in Lhasa.
All I’ll say here is that I have a fear that things are going to get worse before they get better.
43 responses so far ↓
1 Leo // Mar 16, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It is strange. Xining is mostly a Han/Hui city. There are almost no visible Tibetan population there, even around the area.
2 wu ming // Mar 17, 2008 at 12:23 am
the protests at labrang are noteworthy, as it’s pretty damn far from lhasa.
have you heard anything on what initially sparked this thing? the underlying tensions are pretty obvious, but i’m curious as to whether there was some incident or price hike on fuel or something that got the ball rolling.
3 Froog // Mar 17, 2008 at 1:10 am
Unless I’m the victim of a random glitch (or individually targeted censorship??), it would appear that Yahoo Mail went down at around midnight. Annoying.
I have a backup GMail account, but I figure that will be suffering the same blocking.
However bad things are out there, this kind of behaviour only encourages the Western media to surmise that it is even worse.
I don’t think the Chinese would be that bothered by uncensored coverage of the events, since they tend to be pretty heavily indoctrinated with the party line and will likely dismiss this as the DL’s “evil-doing”. We Westerners are finding out what’s going on anyway, by one means or another; we’re just getting pissed off at the petty interference with our Internet.
Once again, terrible, terrible PR by the Chinese.
Yes, there is A SERIOUS SITUATION here, and the Chinese government has provoked it through decades of repressive polices in Tibet, and few overseas observers are going to have much sympathy with them, but….. it could still be a chance for them to show themselves in a good light. If they handled this unrest with minimum force and maximum transparency, well, they might start to convince the rest of the world that they are finally becoming a grown-up country…. rather than the backward feudal dictatorship they so repeatedly make themselves look like with this sort of heavy-handed news management.
I mean, really, what are they going to do if there are riots in Beijing during the Olympics? Declare martial law, have house-to-house searches and mass arrests of ‘troublemakers’, shoot people down in the streets.
I think it’s extremely unlikely there could be anything on this scale in Beijing, but it is a hypothetical possibility, and the government ought to be demonstrating now that it is capable of responding to such challenges in a rational, restrained manner.
This “the ringleaders must surrender by tomorrow or else” stuff sounds more like the petulant schoolyard bully of old. I dread to think what’s going to happen when that deadline passes.
4 Jack Sideburns // Mar 17, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Peking Duck seems to have been shot down (sic).
5 Stuart // Mar 17, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I echo Froog’s comments above. My own site is down at the moment for reasons passing understanding.
6 Xian Ting Xin Zuo // Mar 18, 2008 at 7:13 am
Western and US media should use precaution when they laud the violent “peaceful protest” by the Tibetans who killed and murdered innocent Han Chinese and muslim Chinese living in Tibet and when Tibetans claim to be at a disadvantageous sociopolitical position, because it reminds me of the Los Angeles riots between African Americans and cops when blacks made similar claims.
Tibet under the Dalai Lama’s rule five decades ago was by no means a romatic place full of Buddhist glory and benevolence, as least no better than the first few decades of the Communist rule, because the Dalai Lama surely used a lot of peasant slaves to work on his farm and in his home.
What the Chinese are wary of is the West’s “ulterior motive” of trying to split China, the way they did with Kosovo and Yugoslavia, which they trace back to the 19th century when the British Empire tried to invade and control Tibet. At least, Tibet sought after the Qing Dynasty’s approval of its spiritual and political leader before their enthronment.
Chinese, including both government and people, see Western support of the Dalai Lama as yet another Western attempt to split and weaken China the way they did the former Sovit Union.
7 Xian Ting Xin Zuo // Mar 18, 2008 at 7:18 am
Also, many of my Indian and Pakistani friends told me that before the British interefered, the two nations lived as one country and in peace. Now I thought of today’s Iraq war situation where everyone is killing everyone, Iraqis or non-Iraqis. I certainly don’t want that to happen in China.
8 ScottLoar // Mar 18, 2008 at 9:22 am
“Also, many of my Indian and Pakistani friends told me that before the British interefered, the two nations lived as one country and in peace.”
Xian Ting Xin Zuo, this is absolute nonsense, and had you any readings in Southasian history you would know so. Hindu and Muslim sectarian violence was rife throughout the subcontinent both after the Mogul conquest and during the British Raj, a situation neither the Moguls (who ruled only part of India) or the British could control or contain. In fact, it was the Hindu majority and Muslims who gleefully slaughtered each other and anyone else in the way immediately before and during partition in 1948, putting into widespread practice the habit of centuries of hate and so destroying two of the greatest British legacies to the subcontinent, the Indian civil service and the Indian army.
I suggest you stop looking for outside causes of indigenous problems, and lacking critical understanding at least attend to common sense.
9 Froog // Mar 18, 2008 at 11:24 am
It’s amazing how cliched and uninformed the comments of these Chinese trolls are! Do you think this guy actually works for the government, or is it just more evidence of how depressingly thorough the propaganda in the education system is here?
I haven’t seen anyone in the Western media - certainly not on this blog so far - praising the riots, or advocating independence for Tibet.
I’m not aware that there was much, if anything, done by the West, either in public media commentary or via covert diplomacy, to promote the break-up of the Soviet Union at the start of the 1990s - though many of us might have felt that it was a good thing when it happened. That split occurred because the Soviet Union was just too large, unwieldy, and disparate in its composition to remain viable as a single political entity. Is Russia actually weaker as a result? Probably not.
Will the same thing happen to China? Yes, I think it’s probably almost inevitable one day - for all the same reasons. Would China be “weaker” if it shed some of its outlying provinces? Probably not. It would lose some natural resources, but there are other ways to access those resources than “owning” them. A smaller China would be a more coherent and resilient political entity, and would benefit enormously in other ways from shedding the burden of having to try to maintain its power over distant and disaffected regions.
It is unfortunate that so many Chinese reflexively respond to any perceived criticism of their government, or any perceived sympathy with opponents of their government, or any opinion at all that does not accord with the party line, as an attack on China itself. Most of the comments from foreigners about the Tibetan troubles have been quite sympathetic to the position the Chinese government finds itself in here. As was I, in my earlier comment here. I do not think that Tibetan independence is a realistic or desirable goal at the moment. And I do not approve of rioting as a means to express political grievances. However, I do lament that China is being made to look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world - not by the Tibetan protesters or the foreign media, but by the Chinese government and security forces. The inept and heavy-handed response to the disturbances and the fatuous attempt at a news blackout is showing the Chinese government at its worst.
These are the issues we’re discussing on blogs like this - not whether Tibet was a better place in the 1940s, or how we can “weaken China”.
10 kevinc // Mar 18, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“If they handled this unrest with minimum force and maximum transparency, well, they might start to convince the rest of the world that they are finally becoming a grown-up country….”
I personally believe that one of the components of the current problem is that the CCP got away with Tiananmen. Sure, a few brief sanctions, with a few more resilient military sanctions… and then what? Dwindling commemorations around the world every year is about all that they have to worry about, as they keep survivors and victims’ families in China under tight lock and key.
Since the massacre, however, China has developed into an economic darling of the world and been awarded the Olympics, without ever once changing its stance on Tiananmen or even coming close to thinking about apologizing. A government that can get away with something like that is not going to handle future uprisings maturely, unfortunately.
11 wu ming // Mar 18, 2008 at 12:51 pm
the LA riots is ironically a pretty good analogy IMO. take a historically oppressed ethnic minority, combine endemic un- and underemployment with regular police brutality and the introduction of another ethnic group running shops in said depressed economy, and all it takes is one spark to set the gas can afire.
and in both cases, acting surprised when the powderkeg lights off is disingenuous at best.
and lest this sound like another american lecturing chinese bloggers, i suspect we’re overdue for an eruption of our own, what with the economy melting down. why there wasn’t something similar after katrina is a mystery to me.
12 Xian Ting Xin Zuo // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Froog,
It’s amazing how brainwashed you westerners are by the propaganda machines of your western goverments and media when it comes to such sensitive and controversial issues — although I myself am NOT free from my own personal biases and prejudices. While I admire how citizens in the west keep their governments in check in many, if not all, domestic issues, your knowledge and understanding about international political affairs like the Sovit Union and Iraq and India/Pakistan/Kosovo are exactly what you were taught to believe by your governments and media.
While I was simply pointing out the dangers in people’s thinking in my posts, I respectfully urge you to learn about what non-Westerns think, before labeling them governmental agents or propoganda victims.
All in all, there’s still a long way to go before we reach a true understanding between the west and the east, Islam and Christianity, capitalism and communism, etc.
13 Xian Ting Xin Zuo // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm
To add on, I personally do not fully approve Beijing’s policies on Tibet. Being atheist one-party ruler per se, the Communist Party must learn its way to deal with dissents, religions, and democracy. If China had been a more open and democratic society, the Dalai Lama might have not escaped to India and all these postings wouldn’t have been necessary.
With my first post, I was simply attempting to point out what ordinary Chinese were thinking, which, if Western countries so care, need to be addressed by the West.
Enough said. Peace.
14 Xian Ting Xin Zuo // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:52 pm
All this reminded me of what a good American friend told me he believed what the Bush administration said about Sadam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, even when the then Iraqi army was being defeated with no defending power by the US troops as he and I were speaking and watching CNN news.
You would think Sadam Hussein would haven already used and launched all of his weapons of mass destruction at the US troops by then.
All of those American citizens who voted George W. Bush should be labelled as governmental agents brainwashed by Bush, no? So please stop personal attacks on anyone who appears to share similar views to Chinese government. It’s totally rediculous and arbitrary of people using this label so swiftly.
15 Froog // Mar 18, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Dear XTXZ,
I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings with my teasing.
However, in your first two comments, you did nothing to explain why you were stating those views, and did nothing to distance yourself from them. It did sound as if you were advocating those positions yourself.
Also, I deduce that you are Chinese, and you did yourself make the point in that first post that the Chinese people and the Chinese government tend to be of one mind on issues like this.
Your points were all ‘the party line’, standard state propaganda - and mostly ridiculous. What’s more, they were not directly relevant to anything that had been said previously in the post or the comments here. If you just appear out of nowhere and start spouting off like that, a propos of nothing, it’s difficult to take you seriously.
It’s especially difficult to take you seriously when your approach is to criticize everyone else you can think of, without actually addressing the issue at hand (which is how the Chinese government should deal with this crisis): criticize the Americans (they provoke riots too - true enough, but you seemed to be saying this not because it was a useful historical analogy, but merely to suggest that America therefore did not have the moral standing to comment on the present situation); criticize the Dalai Lama (Evil man! The Tibetans are better off without him! Although I’m not aware that he ever provoked any violent demonstrations against his rule, or supressed them with armed troops….); criticize Britain (nasty colonial power - invasions of India and Tibet - bad, bad, bad! True enough, but all a very long time ago, and of absolutely no relevance to the situation today.); and finally, the grand conspiracy theory - it’s all just a Western plot to weaken China!
I don’t think anyone - Western governments, the Dalai Lama, foreign commenters on blogs like this - has condoned the rioting. Very few people have expressed any support for the idea of Tibetan independence. What most Westerners feel is sympathy for the Tibetans, who do have many reasonable grievances against the Chinese government. We also feel dismay and disappointment that the Chinese government has responded by immediately resorting to the use of the military and imposing news blackouts.
There is no “ulterior motive” (any more than there was with the disintegration of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia - those events were precipitated entirely by internal factors, not plotted by the Western governments), there’s no secret policy to undermine China, to split Tibet away from China.
If you feel it is your mission to remind us what the official Chinese government view is on these issues (really not necessary - we do know), and do not take the trouble to explain why you’re doing this, or to point out you do not necessarily share these views yourself, then you shouldn’t be surprised if we joke about whether you’re just a government stooge.
16 ScottLoar // Mar 18, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Xian Ting Xin Zuo;
Hans Blix, head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission before and at the time of the second Iraqi war and surely no friend of the US (he publicly stated that the US government under G. Bush not only did not fabricate WMD but at the time had good cause to suspect so), believed and stated publicly that Iraq most likely had weapons of mass destruction; Iraq had used poisonous gas against 40,000+ of its own citizens as well as in the Iraqi-Iranian war; and Saddam Hussein - like many leaders of authoritarian governments was completely divorced from reality - believed the US would never topple him from government (Saddam Hussein also publicly stated that Iraq retreated from Kuwait “in good order with less than 10% loss of men and material”, a delusion!).
US troops entered Iraq fully prepared for chemical attack and weighted down with masks and chemical warfare suits that raised their operating temperatures to over 105F, and the US military argued for an early attack in the winter months knowing that the desert heat would severely hamper operations even as the Iraqi military would have even more time to strengthen against an attack they knew was coming. The US publicly stated that after Iraq ignored 18 UN resolutions over the course of 11 years there was no alternative but that Saddam Hussein and the B’aathis party would have to exit, and even allowed Saddam, his family and cronies free passage to other countries.
But do you understand anything about this? No, again, you do not.
17 ScottLoar // Mar 18, 2008 at 11:54 pm
The tragedy of the US in Iraq is not the execution of a war which got rid of Saddam Hussein and his horrific clique but that US leaders, most especially Donald Rumsfeld , disbanded the police and army, the only authorities able to maintain order in the society, and provided no meaningful administration. The result is chaos as a people brutalized under a dictatorship for 40 years were suddenly turned loose with no authority to restrain them or provide for their basic needs.
18 froog // Mar 19, 2008 at 8:41 am
It seems I have joined the ranks of the BANNED. I can’t view my own blogs any more, not even via Anonymouse.
And my Internet connection was severed completely at around midnight last night. Luckily they’ve done it on the basis of my IP address rather than my Internet account, so I’m still able to get online with a second computer. I wonder how long it will be before they sew up that loophole?
I am hopping mad about it.
And I really don’t deserve this. My blogs are mostly humorous literary noodlings, with very little reference to politics or current affairs. Insofar as I do express any ‘political’ views, I am in general quite “pro”-China (although admittedly quite “anti”-Chinese government on many points).
More evidence here, I think, of this government’s cockeyed priorities. “We’re losing the battle against counter-revolution and splittism - but hey, let’s take some time out to stop all these bored English teachers making jokes.” Way to go, boys.
I begin to wonder rather more seriously if our mysterious Chinese commenter is not indeed a PSB flunky. J, you don’t suppose, do you, that Granite Studio is being left unblocked purely to act as a flypaper - to expose all the armchair subversives like me? No, probably not. I’m just getting a little paranoid (but hey, you know, they ARE out to get me!). Mind you, I would recommend to other commenters to omit their Website addresses/Blogger IDs for the time being.
19 Jeremiah // Mar 19, 2008 at 9:21 am
Froog,
I think I benefit from my relative unpopularity…allows me to fly under the radar. I also suspect that a system-level block has been put on all blogspot sites. Just a guess.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been able to access everything via hotspot.
20 froog // Mar 19, 2008 at 12:14 pm
No, I wish it was that simple.
Most Blogspot blogs are still viewable via our old reliable Firefox dodge. Mine are even getting re-set via Anonymouse!
I’ll have to give Hotspot another try, but I found it very slow last time….. and this computer I’m on is almost unusably SLOW already.
And I’m pretty sure they’re monitoring my e-mail too - I’ve been Bcc’ing myself on everything since my problems at the weekend, and everything directed outside the country seems to be taking a couple of hours or so to go through.
Why me?
21 x@y // Mar 19, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Hi J, Glad you are still open for business. Most of the web stuff I look at is as it happens although Saturday was a bit weird. Keep up the good work.
I hope all is well with you and yours?
22 Jeremiah // Mar 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Just getting over a touch of the flu. Too much activity this weekend. All better now. Back posting soon.
23 Cao Meng De // Mar 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm
@ScottLoar
Okay I agree with you that Xian Ting Xin Zu might be tad naive in believing his Pakistani and Indian friends (who no doubt was trying to indoctrinate Xian with their anti-British agenda) that Muslim and Hindu led a happy co-existence in Pre-British days. In fact , Hindu-Muslim relation pretty quickly went down to shitters after overthrow of Shah Jahan. I wouldn’t say that Mughal didn’t have anything to do with it though. That Aurangzeb dude is pretty nasty to non-Muslims.
But to say that Indian civil service is among greatest British legacy, you must mean greatest impact that British left on the subcontinent that still affect India today is the culture of bureaucracy and red tape that they stuck the Indians with.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe that British left many wonderful things in India, such as the railroad and ….uh…erh… I am sure someone more well-verse in British colonial history than I could provide more examples. Oh, yes, and command of English so that one day Indians will take over the back office work needed by English speaking world of North America and other former colonies.
Go British!
I love Monty Pythons.
24 ScottLoar // Mar 19, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Cao Meng De;
No thank you, I don’t need you to misinterpret my meaning.
To assume the administrative structure of the British Raj is the same as today’s Indian civil service is simply, grossly wrong, and neither can any sensible person convincingly argue the British Raj taught the Congress Party how to tangle red tape. Historical evidence shows the British administration was an improvement on the petty lords ruling most of India besides the Moguls (Mughals if you like), and the Mogul administration was not known for honesty, efficiency or equanimity. But say, why am I doing your homework?
The Indian army and India civil service - both creations of the Brtish Raj and shared by Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, etc. alike were cleaved by partition to never recover. A similar example exists in Malaysia which civil service, again a creation of the British so fondly vilified in Chinese history (yeah, I’m American and we’re now the prime bogey man)l, employed Malay, Chinese and Indian, Muslim and Hindu, Christian and Buddhist alike under the British but since independence and now in the hands of Malays the government has employed bumiputra to the near exclusion of all others. I don’t know how well that system works now although I wouldn’t blame their present state of efficacy on the Brits, but you seemingly would.
Look to Singapore for the contrary: an honest, well-run, efficient civil service preserving that British legacy and continued under the last, true Britishman in Singapore Mr. Harry Lee Kuan Yew, or do you suppose he looked to the Chinese civil service as a model?
I myself never appreciated Monty Python’s Flying Circus.
P.S. I also doubt Xian Ting Xin Zu has “many” Pakistani and Indian friends; I think his account apocryphal.
25 ScottLoar // Mar 19, 2008 at 5:38 pm
很難想象得到有中國大陸人在此竟然提到 Shah Jahan﹔佩服你的研究工作。
26 Cao Meng De // Mar 19, 2008 at 7:17 pm
@Froog
Let’s have a realistic discussion about China’s option in Tibet. Look you can sermonize to your heart’s content all you want about immorality of colonialism, rights of self- determination, superiority of democracy over tyranny yada, yada.
At the end of the day, it all come down to interests. China will quit Tibet if it’s in her best interest to do so. The question is, what’s in it for China?
I have listed out the pros and cons of possessing Tibet for China at Michael Manning’s blog. I will rehashed it for you.
Pros:
A) Tibet is one big ass of a natural buffer. I will bet you 500 RMB that Indian tanks are not gonna roll over Himalayas anytime soon. India’s currently longest ranged missle Agni
will have to be placed in Assam on the Tibetan border to have any hope of landing anywhere with more economical significance than a patch of grass and yak dungs. Sure Lhasa and Shigatze might be in the range of Indian missiles, but I doubt anyone is seriously losing sleep over that possibility.
B) There might be undiscovered natural resources underneath Tibet’s soil. Commodity boom has led to discovery of significant copper and coal deposit in Mongolia in recent year. Could happen in Tibet’s vast wilderness yet.
C)Tibetan plateau is the ultimate source of water for Asian continent. Great river systems, Yellow River, Yangtze, Mekong, Salween, Indus, Brahmaputra all have headwater in Tibetan plateau. In a way, Tibet is the third pole on earth. Water shortage will be a serious problem in coming decades for fast developing economies of China, India and Southeast Asia.
Con:
A)Tibet is currently a blackhole of economic drain on Chinese Treasure. China foots the bill for Tibet’s government budget while collecting no taxes from Tibet. According to Peter Hessler, “in 1996 China spent some $600 million in Tibet….for that same year the United States gave a total of $800 million dollars in aid to all of Africa”. I don’t even know if Hessler took into account of expense of maintaining 200,000 men army presence.
There is no hope for China ever to recover these “investments” unless large deposit of metal or oil can be discovered AND easily recoverable from Tibet. Big “ifs”.
B)Resentment from local groups (especially the monks) that are not benefiting from Chinese rule.
C)Damage to China’s international reputation
It might seem Tibet is more trouble than its worth. It will also be quite easy for China to quit Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). We just ship out the soldiers and Han cadres by the newly completed railroad. Will be done in a few month. Most economic Han migrant who came to Tibetan urban centers seeking economic opportunity will leave once the economic activities dries up, as they will will with withdrawal of Chinese government directed investment. Dalai Lama and Tibetan government could return and resume their operation.
Chinese government could always use combination of carrots (continuation of aid) and stick (threat of re-invasion) to make sure Tibet is not being used by US or India as anti-China staging ground(no US military base allowed inside Tibet). So far so good. That will be the easy part. We still got buffer zone in Tibetan area of Qinghai and Sichuan.
Ah, here we are gonna have a problem. Dalai Lama and his government in exile has “repeatedly spoken of ’six million Tibetans’ and put forward the demand for the re-constitution of a ‘Greater Tibet’ known as ‘Cholka-Sum’ and comprising the areas of ‘U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo’.” (see an Indian magazine piece published in 2000 which deconstruct much of the Tibetan “myth”)
You see Chinese word for Tibet is “Xi Zang” which is a phonetic transcription of the Tibetan word “U-Tsang”. Ü-Tsangwhich together with Western Kham comprise of the region under Dalai government’s direct control before “liberation” by PLA. This region later became Tibet Autonomous Region after Dalai has fled to India and CCP started land reform.
Dalai government used to have wider authority over Amdo and eastern Kham as well. But unfornate for 13th Dalai Lama, a bright fellow name Younghusband decide to extend the benefits of British empire by invading and occupying Tibet in 1904. Qing government responded by reasserting Chinese control by sending in Zhao Er Fang to establish direct control.This Zhao Er Fang fellow is quite efficient in his job. From wikipedia entry under Kham:
“He was sent in 1905 (though other sources say this occurred in 1908)[2][3] on a punitive expedition and began destroying many monasteries in Kham and Amdo and implementing a process of sinification of the region:[4]
He abolished the powers of the Tibetan local leaders and appointed Chinese magistrates in their places. He introduced new laws that limited the number of lamas and deprived monasteries of their temporal power and inaugurated schemes for having the land cultivated by Chinese immigrants.
Zhao’s methods in eastern Tibet uncannily prefigured the Communist policies nearly half a century later. They were aimed at the extermination of the Tibetan clergy, the assimilation of territory and repopulation of the Tibetan plateaus with poor peasants from Sichuan.
”
Unfortunately for Zhao, Chinese revolution broke out in 1911. His solders decide to become revolutionaries and beheaded him.
So Dalai government got to keep the rump part of U-Tsang and western Kham. Eastern Kham remain under direct Chinese control was absorbed into Sichuan province. Amdo become part of Qinghai and Gansu.
That’s why Xiahe’s Labrang monastery ended up in Gansu. Now Amdo and eastern Kham, being traditionally the frontier between Han China and Tibetan always had a mixed population of Han, Hui muslim, some dash of other turko-mongol groups as well as Tibetans. Events after 1910 made sure that these area remain a hedgepodge of ethnicities. Han and Hui ethnicities living there are not recent immigrants.
Let’s even suppose that China entertain the thoughts of giving Tibetan parts of Qinghai, Sichuan and Gansu to Dalai which his group had no control for nearly hundred years, it will be logistically nightmare to separate which parts goes to Tibet which part remain in China. Think of Bosnia pre-ethnic cleansing days.
And China should go through all these trouble to yield an ethnically pure Tibetan state?
You think monks at Labrang Monastery would want to live outside of Dalai controlled Tiber?
Better to examine the Con part of holding on to Tibet again.
A)Economic burden: it’s expensive to foot the bill of Tibetan government budget plus the infrastructure development that will be never repaid economically AND the cost of military presence.
Hessler put the bill at $600 million in 1996. Let’s assume inflation and additional military spending to round the figure off at $1 billion a year.
Well compare that to the money that China have wasted investing in American financial industry (Blackstone, we paid $1 billion to aquire stake in Bear Stern last year etc, Don’t even get me started on our increasingly worthless piles of American dollars and treasury bonds), this is chump change.
China could simply afford to throw away $1 billion at Tibet every year.
B.Resentment of Tibetans undermined by Chinese control (read monks)
Bite me!
C.China’s international reputation. Please, even without Tibet, West will find fault with China. Before Lhasa riot, we are being blame for everything from encourage Darfur genocide to suppression of monks in Burma.
Look at experience of Russia. Even after Russia discarded the Soviet system, Western media paints a very negative picture about Putin’s government. Why? Because Putin is no western lapdog and Russia continue to have divergent interest from the West.
West will continue find fault with China because CHINA is not YET a liberal democracy. While China is done with the business of exporting revolution years ago when Mao died, certain people in West (neocons?) hasn’t give up the dream of spreading liberal democracies everywhere.
I actually don’t oppose liberal democracy in China as an end goal. But I digress.
An individual shouldn’t live out his/her life according to wishes of others. Neither should China.
After all bricks and stone…but words pah.
Sorry pal, there simply not enough incentive for China to change its present policy considering the alternatives.
Tibet is like a persistent itch in China’s nether region. Not really a life-threatening condition, but to cure it requires surgery on the balls. At the end of the day, it’s just not worth the hassle of the cure. We will settle for occasional scratch at the crotch even if most people around us find the sight rather offensive.
27 Cao Meng De // Mar 19, 2008 at 7:54 pm
@ScottLoar
My apologies for picturing you with Austin Power style teeth. You must be a true Tory with American passport. Howdy, Partner!
You said
“similar example exists in Malaysia which civil service, again a creation of the British so fondly vilified in Chinese history”
I must’ve fallen asleep again during that portion of Chinese history class. Which part of Chinese history fondled British civil service again?
I do object the way you burst my bubble! I always thought Mr. Harry Lee Kuan Yew looked toward China for inspiration to manage his little tidy police state .
28 ScottLoar // Mar 19, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Cao Meng De;
No, yet another wrong supposition, I’m not a Tory. Clear?
You’ve misunderstood the grammar, it is the British who are so fondly vilified in Chinese history and not their civil service… but you or some very close to you should know about the Brit who capably and earnestly managed Chinese Customs for decades, an appointment made at outside insistence to ensure funds were not siphoned off by corrupt Qing officials.
Lee Kuan Yew has been sarcastically called the last Englishman and it is China who looks to Singapore for ways to manage the state… but you or some very close to you should know that.
29 froog // Mar 20, 2008 at 2:19 am
Thanks, Cao, that was a very thorough and stimulating post….. although it seemed to start off a little hostile towards me. Were you accusing me of “sermonizing”? I haven’t said anything on here about the Dalai Lama, and I have clearly stated that I do not think Tibetan separatism is a viable option at the moment.
I agree with much of your analysis of the situation. However, I was not aware that the DL had lobbied for a ‘greater Tibet’. But then, he has renounced the call for independence, and merely calls for a true autonomy for the region within China. If that could be realised, perhaps a re-definition of the borders wouldn’t be so problematic - and it would save China a lot of hassle in dealing with discontent in heavily Tibetan regions of these Western provinces.
The ‘PRO’ arguments you outlined all sound very weak. Who needs a buffer THAT BIG? At the moment, having Tibet be a part of China is simply putting China in range of Indian missiles. It might not count for very much apart from ‘face’, but that’s hugely important in China. Indian missiles being lobbed into uninhabited marshes in Tibet would cause a huge confrontation. It would be ugly. And is there really any danger that India would try to annex Tibet if China withdrew? It seems pretty far-fetched to me.
Mineral resources? Yes, it’s a racing certainty they are there, but…… how long before they can be found and exploited? And, given Tibet’s still poor state of economic and infrastructure development, China would be in the driving seat to control the extraction of such resources whether Tibet were still part of its territory or not.
Water? Well, yes, China has huge water problems…. but, I don’t know what the figures are, but there’s bound to be much less water in the headwater areas than further downstream…. and Tibet needs that water itself…… and it’s really not very feasible to take water all the way from Tibet to lay the dust in arid Beijing.
I don’t advocate Tibetan independence per se (I think it would be terribly hard, possibly disastrous for Tibetans in the short term - if granted suddenly). However, I do think China should be open to considering other options for the future of Tibet - because, medium-to-long-term, letting go of it would almost certainly be in China’s better interest.
But of course, so long as the internal political discourse is still at the level of “Splittism is evil” and “The Dalai Lama is evil”, serious realpolitik is out of the question.
30 Cao Meng De // Mar 20, 2008 at 6:00 am
Froog,
I have been quite emotional over the latest events, so maybe I have been jumpy and little confrontational in discussing Tibet issue with a Westerner. It’s not meant to be personal.
BBC has an article on Greater Tibet.
I am sure Jeremiah could enlighten you on Late Qing history and Qing effort to bring Tibet under direct Chinese control.
What we see in PRC today is an continuation of nation building process that started in Late Qing in trying to change Qing empire into a modern nation state.
Up to late Qing, Qing imperial government had been content to let outlying territories such as Xinjiang,Tibet and Mongolia to be rule by local bigwigs.
European (and later Japanese) encroachment on Qing territory and failure of Manchu banner army to stop Taiping rebellion started a chain of process that led to increasing control of Han Chinese of the Qing state apparatus and growing Chinese nationalism inside China.
British invasion of Tibet under Younghusband let Qing to attempt to assert direct control over Tibet.
So China’s interest in Tibet always has two major part, security concerns (pesky foreigner always try to take our territory!), nationalism (pesky foreigner always try to take our territory!).
I have tried to layout logical case for Chinese interest in Tibet. But Mao didn’t simply decide to sent in PLA to Tibet base on pure calculation of profit. The Chinese claim on Tibet has a huge emotional components that’s tied up with nationalism. Is it rational? Well emotions and nationalism are never rational. But it’s something that Westerner will do well to understand the Chinese perspective.
Then it will be easier to understand why the most common reaction Westerner receive from Chinese on issues of Tibet or Taiwan independence.
One day when China is as strong and secure as United States is today, it will be much easier to entertain the idea that Tibet and Taiwan can be free to pursue their own destinies.
That day, however, is a long way off.
Nothing is really permanent, there could be a time when China is in turmoil and Tibet will have chance to break free.
Looking at history and geopolitical reality, however, it will be tough for Tibet or Xinjiang to forever escape Chinese orbit of influence. Take Xinjiang, for example, throughout history, Chinese would lose control of Xinjiang when there is chaos in Chinese heartlands. However whenever China is strong and unified , it would project power and control into Tarim basin.
Tibet didn’t come into the Chinese orbit of influence until the Manchu’s time because of its remoteness and frankly lack of attraction due to the scarcity of resources there.
Qing empire extend its reach into Tibet because
of security concerns. Manchu were battling Oriat Mongols for supremacy over Central Asia and even possibly China (Gladan of Dzungar ) Mongols were vying to revive legacy of Genghis Khan). When Oriat Mongols went into Tibet, Manchu army followed and stayed on.
One of the PRC’s chief claim to legitimacy has always been that it’s a defender of China vs predatory foreign interests. When Mao has declared that “Chinese people has stood up” on top of Gate of Heavenly Peace, he might as well have said “in your face, foreign scum”. Most people in China will agree the Mao is not a nice person but few would question his nationalistic credentials.
Nationalism aside, Tibet still remain important in China’s strategic calculations. A good analogy would be Mongolia which also was under Manchu control. Prior to that China had always been under constant threat of nomadic raids and invasions. Hence the wall.
Loss of Mongolia to Soviet control exposed China’s entire northern frontier to threat of mass assault from Soviet tanks. Soviet had over 20 army divisions along Chinese border, half of which were stationed in Mongolia. If a war broked out, a thrust of Soviet armored divisions would be in Beijing in a week.
It’s only after reapproachment under Gorbachev that removed this imminent threat. Today, US and Japan has replaced Soviet in providing aids to Mongolia. US even hold joint military exercise with Mongolian military. But the fact that Mongolia is wedge between Russia and China meant there is not a whole lot US could do.
In light of the nascent US-Indian alignment, Tibet situation changed drastically. If Tibet were to become independent today. US and India could establish military base right up to the border of Sichuan where I grow up. Not that I think Indian infrastructure on the other side of Himalayas is up to the task of keep any meaningful supply line open, but hey why take the chance. US airfield in Tibet will enable fighter and bombers Jets to reach all part of China. Paranoid? far fetch? Why take the chance.
Again, there is no incentive great enough for China to give up Tibet right now.
As for financial cost, compare to US’s potentially $4 trillion war in Iraq( which by the way is financed by China’s purchase of US treasury bills), what China spend on Tibet is a rounding error. Whereas US truly can not afford to drag on the war in iraq, China could very comfortably afford to stay in Tibet indefinitely.
All Empires eventually fall because of hubris and imperial overreach. Frankly Chinese empire is gonna have a lot longer shelf life than the American one.
31 x@y // Mar 20, 2008 at 7:45 am
J, I know you think this blog is little but you have more readers than you know. Today I read this as part of a article about Tibet,
…The Chinese government’s response to this was annoyance, leading to a call for closer advance scrutiny of the playlists of foreign performers. One of the first to suffer was Harry Connick, Jr., who put on a show in Beijing just as the protests in Tibet began. According to Beijing-based blogger Jeremiah Jenne, who attended the concert, the audience went away disgruntled by the brevity of the show, the lack of encores, and the fact that the singer barely used his horn section. Afterward, Jenne notes, scattered wire reports and Web posts explained why Connick and his band couldn’t find their groove. Officials showed up right before the show and, working from one of the singer’s old playlists, demanded that he substitute some “safer” numbers for those he had planned to perform. …
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/wasserstrom
I hope you are feeling better.
32 froog // Mar 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Cao, it’s not easy to make expenditure comparisons between the US and China. The US has got itself into huge problems with its spending in Iraq in just a few years, and couldn’t sustain that level of commitment open-endedly. Also, of course, it’s a far, far richer country, with more sophisticated financial institutions: it is able to raise money through taxes and loans far more readily than China can (though it can ill afford to keep on doing so at the current rate). I would guess that China’s spending on Tibet bites it very nearly as hard as Iraq’s burden on America - or could start to, if it feels it has to ramp up its military presence there even more to suppress the current unrest. And then there are the hidden costs of damage to China’s international image - which will be felt immediately in loss of tourist dollars, and over time probably also in loss of trade deals and investment. My gut feeling is that, long-term, holding on to Tibet is probably untenable, and the longer China tries to do so, the more harm it will do to itself. I think the “autonomy within China” formula at least deserves some consideration.
Foreign observers - well, those of us that live here anyway - are, I think, usually quite well aware of the roots of Chinese nationalist sentiments and the sense of insecurity in regard to Tibet and Taiwan. We don’t disregard them, but we do tend to feel that they are largely illogical and unfounded; and we regret that they so limit the scope of discourse on these topics.
China would, I’m sure, maintain some kind of ‘patron’ relationship with any independent Tibet in the future, and would be in a commanding position to uphold its legitimate security interests by vetoing any foreign military presence there. As you say, establishing and maintaining an advanced US airbase there would probably be completely untenable anyway. That really is pretty far-fetched! America has missiles and long-range bombers that can threaten much of China already. And its carrier fleet can bomb the crap out of the whole eastern seaboard, which is where most of the people and most of the industry are. To base the imperative of retaining Tibet on a fear of US encirclement seems fairly ludicrous to me.
As to which ‘empire’ will last longer, it depends how you define them and how you date them. If, as you say, the “greater China” as currently conceived only really came into being in the late Qing Dynasty, then you might say that the American and Chinese ‘empires’ have so far existed for a similar length of time. However, I think comparisons between the two are difficult, misleading. I accept your points about overreach and hubris - but these are very different kinds of ‘empires’ we are talking about here. America’s is essentially an empire of influence - a leadership in international diplomacy born of its economic and military supremacy (I would hope that it will rein in its occasional tendency to overseas military adventurism after the disaster of Iraq, and will confine itself to multi-lateral peace-keeping operations). China’s is a land empire, an extension of its territory through annexation of huge regions contiguous to the original Han heartlands. None of the European land empires proved to be viable in the long-term; and the European countries have benefited from that, in cultural and intellectual diversity and in economic growth. I think it might prove to be the same with China: to me, the country just seems too darn big and too diverse to be viable as a single political entity.
America will almost certainly lose its No. 1 status in the world one day, but I think that day is still a very long way off. And its territory - though also dauntingly large - is remarkably stable, thanks to the maturity of its system of government, the relative harmony between the local and national tiers of adminstration. China doesn’t have those advantages.
So, the big question is whether China can ever replace America as No. 1 - and whether it can do so without accepting some contraction (rather than further extensions!) of its current borders. I say ‘maybe’ to the first and an emphatic ‘no’ to the second - but we’re probably looking at a timeframe of at least 30-50 years to find out.
33 Cao Meng De // Mar 20, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Froog,
You surprise me as be quite reasonable.
Just like to pick bones with couple points you raised.
US is a far, far richer country(living on borrowed foreign money), with more sophisticated financial institutions (that are saddled with bad housing loans and collapsing with giant credit bubble that was build up in the excess of last few years)
Read up or listen to Jim Rogers, famed American investor, and you will realize the true state of American financial health vs China’s fundamentals.
What hidden costs of damage to China’s international image could there be.
The West could demand Olympic boycott or even trade sanctions as happened after 1989.
We lived through it. Economy slows down after 1989 as result of sanctions but took off couple years after.
It’s not like we were desperate for Western capital and technology like we were in the beginning of “opening and reform” period.
Of course you do realize that US has air base in Kyrgyzstan (which is next door to Xinjiang) and used to maintain one in Uzbekistan until it was kicked out.
As for its carrier fleet can bomb the crap out of the whole eastern seaboard, carrier fleets are really a legacy weapon platform from World War II, in other words, relics. It takes only one missile carrying tactical nuclear war head to wipe out the whole carrier group in the Pacific.
As for land empires, Russia is still standing. Of course they did a better job of wiping out the natives and diluting the local population with ethnic Russians. Give PRC more time, same could be accomplished.
To keep Chechnya Russian in the second Chechen war, Russians leveled city of Grozny with artillery barrage. West complained and editorialized then continue to rely on Russia to supply Europe with Gas. You still remember Chechnya right?
Of course, I personally prefer apple pie and American way over Russiky hamfistness.
If PRC really intend to flood Tibet with Han settlers. There is something every simple they could do. Legalize land ownership.
Since techcnically State still own all the land in China. PRC could start auction off “public land” in Tibet a la American West style. Offer generous state loans to any enterprising Han settlers.
Capitalism, private ownership and enlightened self-interest will take care of the rest. And it can be done at lightning speed. To toss in a bonus, we could give allowance to Han settlers in Tibet to carry firearms.
After that, we will grant Casino license to Tibetans.
34 Jeremiah // Mar 20, 2008 at 2:06 pm
A couple of quick points without jumping too far into the fray…thank you to everyone for the lively debate and for keeping the tone civilized and openminded. I’ve seen how some of these discussions have ended up on other boards and it’s utterly depressing, no matter how you might stand on the topic.
x@y,
Yes, the writer of that piece is an early supporter of this blog and one of my co-authors at The China Beat. He sent me a ‘heads up’ email this morning. Crazy.
35 ScottLoar // Mar 20, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Cao Meng De;
Americans are always the severest critics of their own country so I wouldn’t place too much faith in what a US commodities investor says about “the true state of American financial health vs China’s fundamentals”, especially one who has only a superficial understanding of China. Still, platitudes on the economy are especially appealing to those Chinese who think their economy will go on ever upwards and that money can solve their problems. Do you also believe that? You think money can keep your enemies from without, and still the subversives from within?
Those “relics” from WWII can stand off-station and deliver several air wings within minutes. That’s projection of power, and it obviously concerns your government who is building a submarine fleet. But, let’s look at the most probable scenario that sooner or later may visit the increasing numbers of mainland Chinese in places like Africa. What would China do if several thousands, more likely tens of thousands, of its citizens somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa were suddenly caught up in a backlash to their attitudes, customs and practices? Where’s the projection of power? Where’s the relief force? Think about the recent gunfire against the Chinese Embassy in Burma. Now think again. Remember the Solomon Islands?
By the way, the US had nothing to do with those incidents so, please, don’t blame us.
36 froog // Mar 20, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Cao,
Enough, enough! We’ve both had far too much time on our hands these past two days!
Just a few quick ripostes to your latest series of points, and then I’m going to ‘retire’.
No-one denies that America’s in some deep shit with its national debt and its reeling financial institutions. But those institutions are more advanced than in China (and so might prove to be better able to recover), and the country is far richer - in terms of GDP. I haven’t had a chance to look at that article you mentioned, but I suspect it is your own comment that China is more secure than the US in the fundamentals of its economy. The number of bad loans here is just staggering, and the state-run banks are all propped up by the government printing more money. That can’t go on forever.
I doubt if there will be a boycott or sanctions this time. I hope not. But China was hurt very badly by this reaction in 1989, and it took a lot more than “a couple of years” to recover. I first visited in ‘94, nearly a year after Deng’s ‘Southern Tour’ had tried to kick-start the reform programme back into life - and the country was on its knees: daily powercuts, public employees 3 months in arrears on their pay, garbage not being collected (a lot of it was being dropped into the sewers, and there were several explosions from the methane buildup), strikes threatened. It was amazing that the country weathered that crisis; but things didn’t really start to pick up in the economy again until the second half of the ’90s.
I would suggest the hunger for foreign investment and technology is, if anything, even greater today, as industry becomes even more technology-driven, the pace of change increases all the time, and China is under more and more pressure to maintain the momentum of its development. I don’t think the backlash this year will be nearly as bad as in ‘89, but there will be some (no boycott, perhaps - but you can kiss a lot of the projected Olympic tourism goodbye. So much for the avaricious dreams of Beijing’s landlords!); and these negative effects could continue for years, if Tibet continues to make these sorts of headlines.
China is supposed to be committed to “no first use” of nuclear weapons, which, I assume, is meant to apply to ‘tactical’ as well as strategic armouries - although I can well imagine that that noble principle might be sacrificed if it was ever faced with a massive carrier attack. I accept that carriers are more and more vulnerable to conventional weapons also; but defensive technologies also advance, and carriers continue to be a very formidable armament. Heck, they were vulnerable to the kamikazes in WWII, but they were still a decisive factor in the Pacific theatre. I can’t imagine it ever happening, but if a lot of American carriers did suddenly line up in hostile stance off the Chinese coast, I hope the Chinese navy would try to take them out with missiles or torpedoes rather than nukes. Massive air assaults are plenty bad enough, but going nuclear is UGLY.
I wouldn’t say Russia is still “standing”. ‘Tottering might be a better word. It has been divested of a huge chunk of its former empire. Its insistence on trying to retain control of Chechnya by armed force has been hugely self-damaging (as I fear China’s holding on to Tibet may prove to be), and is probably doomed to ultimate failure. And I think it is only able to maintain the integrity of the rest of its huge territory by virtue of the fact that most of it is almost entirely unpopulated.
I really hope China doesn’t try to emulate Russia’s Chechnya policy. I hope you’re not in earnest about that. The only appropriate element of this comparison is the ineffectiveness of foreign disapproval - however much other countries might criticize Russia’s treatment of Chechnya or China’s treatment of Tibet, they can’t actually intervene. And, ultimately, their criticism will be muted - if never quite forgotten - because they need to maintain their economic relations with Russia and China. Such economic realities indeed result in these countries ultimately proving weak or hypocritical in their criticisms, but that doesn’t mean that the volume of trade or investment won’t be diminished at least to some extent as a result of this disapproval. It has been and it will be.
And I really, really hope you’re joking in that last analogy. One of the most common - and, I find, most irritating - knee-jerk responses of many Chinese commenters is to throw mud at everyone else rather than addressing China’s policies: hence, America has no moral authority to criticize China because of what it did to the slaves and the Native Americans; Germany has no moral authority because of the Holocaust; Britain and France have no moral authority because of their colonial legacy; etc., etc. Yes, the genocide of the indigenous American tribes was an appalling crime, but it happened nearly 150 years ago; and it is an incident in history that most Americans, and most people around the world, are now thoroughly ashamed of. It is extremely alarming to hear similar policies proposed - even in jest - in the world of today. There are, I fear, some unfortunate similarities here with the policy of Han colonization of Tibet and Xinjiang.
37 Cao Meng De // Mar 20, 2008 at 4:35 pm
@ScottLoar
Suit yourself. My portfolio thank me for heeding Mr Rogers’ wisdom. I just wish I had the guts to follow him into shorting American investment banks and Fannie Mae last fall, would’ve made a killing! Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett are about the only guru I actively follow. IMO, they are the two brightest American alive right now.
Nope, I don’t believe Chinese economy will go up forever, that’s impossible. There will be plenty of hiccups, recessions and maybe couple of wars here and there, but in my lifetime, it will be the largest economy in the world. And frankly I don’t give a damn about what happens after that.
Money will not keep our enemies from without, but thermonuclear weapons surely will.
“Those “relics” from WWII can stand off-station and deliver several air wings within minutes.”
More reason to hurry their “retirement” with a tactical nuclear warhead before they get too close for comfort. What better way to pay tribute to these marvel of human ingenuity than a send off in a huge mushroom cloud.
As for subversives, as soon as we implement democracy and free media, these would be Al Queda members will be too busy spending time on internet blogs and chatting rooms to do real harm. And best part is when everyone is allow to speak freely, these individual subversive voices will be drown out in a sea of white noise. Works well for America, we will make it work for us.
As for Chinese caught up in backlash overseas, we will evacuate them on brand spanking new Chinese build Jet passenger planes. Otherwise COSCO could easily provide some large ships among its giant fleet.
Americans seemed to relish their role as global cop, we Chinese are only happy to oblige. Go ahead, Uncle Sam, keep sea lane open and safe for us. I am sure you could put those shiny carrier fleet to some real use like fighting pirates and stuff. We do appreciate your effort. Really.
P.S. the disclaimer about American non-involvement is really not neccesary. We don’t really blame EVERYTHING on you. But if the credit is deserved, remember we have an open two-way streets.
38 froog // Mar 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Cao, you’re hilarious! Some great stuff there.
Although you appear to be joking through most of this last post of yours, I think your point about introducing greater openness is spot on (I’m not always such a great fan of ‘democracy’, but I do believe that a free media is an essential requisite for a strong and civilized nation): dissent really can be disarmed, much of the time, by being given non-violent outlets….. such as blog forums. I really worry whether the CP leadership will ever be willing to embrace such reforms in China, though.
Also, unless you are a very young person, I rather doubt you will live to see China become the world’s largest economy. All the projections I’ve seen suggest that that would take at least 30 years, even with China maintaining annual double-digit growth - which is surely impossible. More realistic estimates suggest it will take at least twice that long - even with China maintaining very high growth and suffering no major setbacks (again, I fear, very unlikely), and with America hitting a plateau of low or no-growth. And then, of course, there’s the not-so-unlikely possibility that China’s growth could be outstripped by India’s.
I think we’re probably looking at 50-80 years minimum before China is going to be “fully modernized” - and even then it might not have the world’s biggest economy. And not many of us will live to see it. I certainly won’t. Given the dire state of the environment in China these days, I think very few of us will be living beyond 70.
And now I really am going to shut up and disappear for a while.
It looks like Scott is still willing to play with you. But you boys place nice now, you hear?
39 ScottLoar // Mar 20, 2008 at 5:41 pm
My last words to those at Cao Meng De:
You know and see yourselves very well, and what you see is sometimes frightening.
Many of us foreigners among you can see too, we understand and see very clearly.
40 Cao Meng De // Mar 20, 2008 at 5:59 pm
@Monsieur Froog
I will accept your unilateral declaration of ceasefire. Here is my parting shots.
You seem a well read, highly intelligent fellow who I gather probably has many more years of experience than me (yes, you dated yourself with the 94 visit thing). But dude, where are you getting your financial info, man?
IMO, there are only two Western papers worth their ink, Wall Street Journals and to lesser degree Financial Times. The rest of them are just criminal enterprise against community of trees.
Your faith in America is admirable, and I must say not entirely misplaced. American will be richer and better off than they are today, in the long run. However relative power of US in the world is declining and will continue to do so vs China. A tectonic plate shift in geopolitical alignment is taking place, with a massive transfer of wealth and its attendant power from the West to the East.
Peter Schiff makes this analogy to the world trading system:
6 people are stranded on an island. Group consist of one American and 5 Asians. They immediately divided up the tasks.
The American is assigned the job of eating while Asians are set to fish, tend the fire and gather coconuts.
During each meal, the American will leave just enough crumbs that Asians won’t starve to death
An economist will look at the picture and declare that the American is vital to the island economy. He is providing jobs for the rest of the island.
The truth is that Asians would have been better off kicking the American off the island and enjoy the fruits of their own labor. Then they might even get to enjoy life more like spending time sun tanning.
Our huge trade surplus with US means we Chinese are sending goods to US while receiving bunch of IOUs (american dollars) in return.
These IOUs are increasingly worthless cuz Helicopter Ben is making more and more of them meanwhile Chinese is prevented from cashing them in like the purchase of Unocal.
I am sorry to burst your bubbles, Froog. But at this stage, West is much less important to China’s development strategy than before. Please don’t take it too hard, it has nothing to do with your ego and it’s not personal, it just is. Our task is to figure out how to consume the goods that we produce ourself. 40% saving rate of Chinese household over last 30 years means we have more than enough domestic capital.
What we need is a more efficient capital market to allocate that capital. God knows local government officials are not to be trusted. I know Western financial institions are more complex , and I am also glad CITIC’s would be $1 billion investment in Bear Stern last year was blocked by our regulators.
As for “no first use” policy, if China wake up to lot of American carriers did suddenly line up in hostile stance off the Chinese coast, we would be stupid not to use “tactical” nuclear weapon.
This is like a schoolyard match up where the much bigger bully calls out a smaller guy for a fight. Smaller dude whips out a baseball bat and whacks the bully in the head and proceed to beat him silly. The former bully crys foul and complains that the little guy fights unfair, it’s just suppose to be a fist fight. Right.
It’s called asymmetrical warfare, buddy. To meet American carrier force head on in a conventional match up right now would be foolhardy. We Chinese are mostly not Shias, our goal is not to martyr ourself, we martyr our enemies.
I see you are still sensitive about your history, so I will leave that alone.
41 froog // Mar 21, 2008 at 1:33 am
Hi Cao,
So, I lied. I’m back already. I just got back from a bar and I don’t feel ready to sleep yet.
I have no ‘bubbles’ of hope or delusion to burst. I wasn’t saying what I want to happen in terms of the relative US/China economic status; only what I think will happen, based on everything I’ve heard and read in the last few years (which comes not only from the financial press but off-the-record briefings from leading economists, etc.).
China’s major goal, in order to develop a more balanced economy and enable more sustainable growth, is certainly to increase domestic consumption; but that can only be achieved with several more years of high GDP growth, and for that you need continuing high levels of foreign investment. After all, 10% annual growth this year requires a hell of a lot more fresh capital input than 10% growth in 1990 did.
The desert island analogy is fun, but not really on point at the moment, I think. The Asian castaways are becoming stronger and more independent, and might have a growing tendency to band together because of their common Asian heritage - but the American isn’t just a freeloader; at present, they still need him as much as or more than he needs them. It may be changing, but the big Yank ain’t superfluous yet.
I really don’t like talking about war scenarios too much. Too scary, too depressing. My point was that I could well understand why a country might want to use tactical nukes if facing a sudden massive conventional threat, but….. well, you’d probably get completely annihilated by the strategic nuclear response. My favourite line about nukes comes from the Danny De Vito film ‘Other People’s Money’ where he plays a ruthless M&A buccaneer. His view: “Lawyers are like nuclear weapons. I have to have them because the other guy has them - but as soon as anybody uses them, everything gets fucked up.”
It does concern me that so many people I meet in China do still seem to find these war scenarios a pressing concern, that they feel genuinely under threat from Russia, the US, India, even Japan. Wars between major powers today (even if you could disengage the nuclear option) are unwinnable, unthinkable. And none of China’s neighbours or economic rivals really bears it any ill will. The increasing integration of the globalized economy - and the globalized diplomatic community - creates an increasingly fraternal relationship between nations. We all depend on each other. A strong, prosperous, and stable China is good news for every other country in the world; the opposite is very bad news. So, when foreigners get concerned about China fucking something up (Tibet, the environment, whatever), our advice and criticism is not intended to humiliate or undermine the country; we really want to help; because what’s good for China is good for us too. It’s sad that so many Chinese, both the Party leadership and the ordinary populace, are still disbelieving of this simple truth.
42 Cao Meng De // Mar 22, 2008 at 7:52 am
@ScottLoar
I finally installed Chinese reading software on my new laptop today. Thanks for your compliment on my research. As Sun Tze say
“know your enemies and know yourself, you will emerge victories 100 times out 100 battles”
Not I am saying India or US are enemies, of course.
I rather have life of Shah Jahan, surrounded by a huge harem of Indian and Persian beauties.
43 ScottLoar // Mar 22, 2008 at 9:47 am
Cao Meng De;
Rather than posting glib comments posing as reasoned answers you should look to the honesty and accuracy of the Chinese poster Saddenchinese:
http://www.danwei.org/net_nanny_follies/youtube_blocked_in_china_1.php#comments
[Ed Note: Scroll down to the last few comments on the thread.]
Leave a Comment