Potemkin villages in China
Bookworm on Aug 22 2008 at 4:24 pm | Filed under: China
Catherine the Great’s beloved Grigori Potemkin used to be her advance man as she toured Russia. He become famous in history for building entirely false villages in the recently conquered Crimea to elevate the status of her new conquest:
Potemkin villages were purportedly fake settlements erected at the direction of Russian minister Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin to fool Empress Catherine II during her visit to Crimea in 1787. According to this story, Potemkin, who led the Crimean military campaign, had hollow facades of villages constructed along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River in order to impress the monarch and her travel party with the value of her new conquests, thus enhancing his standing in the empress’s eyes.
(Read more here to learn how these villages might not have been as duplicitous as they sound.)
The Chinese have gone Potemkin one better. Rather than building something out of nothing, they’ve used elaborate false fronts to hide the squalor in which so many of their citizens live. The QandO Blog has more, along with a little dig at Obama’s naive belief that Beijing has created a fully functional infrastructure, just for the Olympics.
Hat tip: suek
Email This Post To A Friend
59 Responses to “Potemkin villages in China”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Obama has been comparing Chinese infrastructure favorably to ours. I guess he missed the Potemkin villages, lousy conditions for migrant laborers, children taken from home at age three to begin gymnastic training, factories closed to try to clean the air for the athletes, and unrestricted internet access. Let’s put that man in charge of China policy. He’s so intelligent.
China has announced plans to spend about $160 billion on its railroads over the next few years. I doubt that they are doing this because they think this vital infrastructure element is already as well-developed as it needs to be.
So China built walls to hide the eye-sores, and planted trees and grass within a 50 mile radius of Beijing airport, and spent $200M to prevent rain during the Olympics. Big deal. Any well-educated person knows that the vast majority of Chinese are still poor.
But here’s the deal: no country has ever grown faster than 15% for 30 years in the history of mankind. Not England at the birth of the industrial revolution, not the US in the 19th century, not Japan or the Asian tigers in the 70′s or 80′s. What the Chinese are doing is the most important economic phenomenon in world history. Period.
Before China critics rattle on about communism or government expropriation, they ought to ask US corporate CEOs in which country it is easier to do business. Many I’ve dealt with laud China’s efficiency while decrying US regulation, litigiousness and the like. And before they lament China’s abuses of labor or pollution, they ought to read, as I have, the early 20th century American muckrakers (e.g., Upton Sinclair) and the horror stories of US industry during its similar period of economic development.
Soon serious minds will have to ask what the implications of this success are for the American model of political-economy and the willingness of the rest of the world to buy into our ideology and model. Meanwhile, practical minds will have to figure out where the US is going to come up with the $1.6 trillion required just to bring our infrastructure back to satisfactory condition (c.f. American Society of Civil Engineers 2005 report), much less grow it to respond to ongoing population growth, when those lying, communist Chinese have a creditor’s veto on our domestic budgetary allocations.
The Chinese infrastructure is not analogous to the huge, often cruel, boom in America 100 years ago. It’s rotten to the core, both in terms of the way it exploits its citizens with little hope of advantage to them and in terms of its actual effectiveness.
I have the deepest admiration for the Chinese people. We need to stop making excuses for a system that subjugates them to the whim of an extraordinarily cruel and repressive government — although, thankfully, less cruel than the Mao years, which encompassed the utter insanity of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. (What was that? 70 million dead?)
Bookworm, have you actually spent any meaningful time in China or do you merely rely upon the nonsensical, ideologically biased commentary of Fox News, right-wing radio talk shows, conservative newsmagazines and reactionary blogs? (I’m thinking of your Mark Twain quote concerning newspapers at the moment…) How, exactly, is the massive Chinese infrastructure build “rotten to the core” and more exploitative than the economic boom in the US that occurred in the 19th and early 20th century under the dominion of our own robber barons? Why do you think that the Chinese people are not benefiting from this boom, even as their personal incomes and private wealth balloon? Why are you so sure that the Chinese government is “extraordinarily cruel and repressive”?
The corporate trusts in our history were every bit as demanding or even cruel as the government and private enterprises that are driving China’s growth—just read Upton Sinclair for a refresher. For example, the number of deaths occurring in the erection of the Brooklyn Bridge were much higher than the number associated with the ahead-of-schedule construction of the world’s second longest suspension bridge, the Xihoumen Bridge.
And you are completely off-base that the Chinese do not stand to benefit from this development. China is lifting one-fifth of the world out of poverty, the greatest example of economic progress in human history—our own development included. Unsurprisingly, to a person, the Chinese I have spoken with (in Mandarin) on my visits to China have boasted about the country’s infrastructural achievements precisely because they do benefit from them (and because they dwarf anything we’ve achieved in the US).
Take the Three Gorges Dam, which not only provides clean electricity to millions and makes possible such household conveniences as AC and refrigeration, but has made waterways navigable by panamax ships, thereby creating an economic boom in Chongqing, a city bigger than NYC that no American has heard of, and which is raising living standards in the much poorer inland regions of China.
Your evidence of the ineffectiveness of Chinese development is a link to “American Thinker,” which cites coal shortages that are indeed a problem. But this hardly demonstrates ineffective development, any more than the major natural gas disruption in Australia earlier this year or the massive electricity grid failure in the US a few years back call into question the latter two country’s levels of economic development. Moreover, the salient fact which your right-wing magazine fails to note is that China is adding a new coal-fired plant every 1.5 weeks. This is unprecedented and highly impressive. China builds the equivalent of Philadelphia each year in terms of infrastructure, and our much-smaller New Orleans still languishes after exactly three years. I wonder which country’s citizens see ineffectual development.
The other fact you omit is that much of the development in China is being facilitated with private investment coming from Taiwan, Hong Kong and even the West. There is private property and laws protecting it in China, which reactionary commentators repeatedly ignore in their critiques of the emerging giant.
Anyone who has spent time in China knows that the government is no longer cruel and repressive, nor even intrusive into the workings of everyday life, as this behavior would have undermined the rapid economic growth that is now reaching unprecedented levels. Certainly, the Chinese lack our breadth and depth of civil liberties and political freedoms–which, to the dismay of conservatives, the ACLU admirably defends domestically–but they are not clamoring for them either. In the future, I suspect that Chinese with greater wealth will seek more civil liberties or political freedom, but perhaps of the Singaporean kind rather than the American version. In the meantime, the reality is that the Communist Party would win a democratic election by a landslide because of its success in building wealth in its country. Repeated polls show that they are far happier and optimistic about their future than Americans or Europeans. They are not feeling sorry for themselves, even as they continue to elicit your pity.
Finally, I’ve noted elsewhere that we will need $1.6 trillion just to bring our infrastructure up to satisfactory levels of maintenance. Given our debts and deficits, and decision to spend nearly two-thirds of this amount destroying and rebuilding Iraq, we may have trouble finding this cash or convincing our Chinese creditors to loan it to us. While you criticize their development, I worry that our infrastructure will lag China in our lifetimes.
dg…”For example, the number of deaths occurring in the erection of the Brooklyn Bridge were much higher than the number associated with the ahead-of-schedule construction of the world’s second longest suspension bridge, the Xihoumen Bridge”…when the Brooklyn Bridge was built, construction technology was less advanced than it is today. The cause of “the bends” was not understood. One would hope that the greater knowledge & improved technology available today *would* result in safer bridge-building, even at the same level of economic development.
Re the Three Gorges Dam, there is no way that any similar project could be built in the US today, even if there were similar undeveloped water resources. Nor could the hydro developments of the New Deal. The culture of protest (aka the League of the Perpetually Indignant) has reached such strength, and has sufficient tools available in the regulatory and legal structure, that the work would be delayed for decades.
The problem with “infrastructure” in the U.S. is not only a problem of money, it is a problem of the impossibility of executing any large-scale project without endless legal and regulatory maneuvering. Whether you want to build a power plant, electrical transmission lines, a railyard for freight, or a high-speed train corridor for passengers, you are going to face a long uphill slog.
David Foster: The majority of deaths on the Brooklyn Bridge, I believe, were not the result of the bends but good old fashioned falling and crushing related deaths–something man has understood since we were swinging in trees. That the Chinese government employs more modern technology to minimize these kinds of deaths explains the differential deaths but also constitutes incremental expenditures on projects, and demonstrates that they regard human life as more important than the conservatives in this country give them credit for. Perhaps their development is less cruel than ours was a century ago, Bookworm’s comments notwithstanding.
Your argument about excessive regulation in the US is a valid point. But it doesn’t explain why our roads and bridges are crumbling (remember St. Paul, MN?). Our problem is still primarily one of money and prudent government upkeep. Again, I see in China a government supposedly with absolute power acting with better judgment and less corruption than our own, or Russia’s or India’s or Saudi Arabia’s or Brazil’s. Yet Americans continue to criticize, seeing the mote in our Chinese brothers’ eyes while ignoring the beam in our own. This is the talk of ideologues rather than veritable China experts or persons with reasonable experience with the place.
Regardless of people’s desire for a Strong Man to make their ills non-existent, the reality is that efficiently does not come from policy, it comes from ethics.
But here’s the deal: no country has ever grown faster than 15% for 30 years in the history of mankind.
That’s because no country has ever had the benefit of American power to stabilize economy, national boundaries, and international law. The US had no America to leech off of when the US was developing.
This little shennanigan and ideological dogma dg has that consists of Oz like deprecation of America combined with dg like appreciation of the benefits, rather than the cause, of prosperity, is a bit old.
And before they lament China’s abuses of labor or pollution, they ought to read, as I have, the early 20th century American muckrakers (e.g., Upton Sinclair) and the horror stories of US industry during its similar period of economic development.
Only a Leftist finds glory and succor in reading about past historical ills to justify their support of current historical ills. Only a Leftist, I say, and a fake liberal.
dg has not lived in Upton Sinclair’s times and lived in China’s economic “boom”. Dg, by his own logic, cannot claim to know the differences and similarities between the two. Or else, dg would have to allow Bookworm the benefit of acknowledgment as well to stay true with intellectual honesty
That is impossible ideologically speaking.
Ymarsakar: re 8, you’ll have to explain how ethics rather than policy ensures efficiency. Economists study market efficiency carefully and the discussion often turns on policy but almost never on ethics. Usually, the ethics comes into the discussion when determining a trade-off between equity and efficiency. I don’t know what you mean by your comment.
Ymarsakar: re 9, the US developed under economic leadership of England, while Japan and the Asian Tigers did so under the same economic stability afforded by the US. That China is growing faster for longer relates to the relatively lower base from which they are starting and the larger population base, among other factors. I contrast them with other large countries that have enjoyed the benefits of US and European markets and find everyone else severely lagging China (e.g., India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria…).
And I find neither glory nor succor (which means “relief,” from what? I wonder) in citing past historical ills. I am merely rebutting a contention that China’s development is more cruel. You are correct that I am not over 100 years old and thus did not experience it first hand, but my great grandfather, from whom I heard stories as a boy, did suffer terribly in the mines of North Dakota and the railroads of the plain states; and I have seen China’s development first hand. I have identified sources for both historical instances that I trust, and Upton Sinclair is one of them. There is no logical inconsistency or dishonesty here.
Economists study market efficiency carefully and the discussion often turns on policy but almost never on ethics.
Free will is the fundamental requirement for ethics and it is that free will which makes any market run, even state controlled markets.
The most ethical policies will also always be the most efficient policies. That is the relationship between efficiency and ethics. However, if you say that efficiency causes ethics, then you start justify certain methods based upon its long term or short term efficiency, as you see it, and then calling it. Ethics is not about catering to human self-delusions on that score, thus it will always be ethics and its systems of thought and behavior which allows human beings to choose the most efficient path in life.
which means “relief,” from what? I wonder
Many people, not necessarily you, find relief from tolerating America’s injustices by making us appear inferior and everybody else superior. It’s a guilt thing.
I am merely rebutting a contention that China’s development is more cruel.
Of course it is more cruel. America had the US Constitution, the Civil War, and bicameral systems of government designed to limit power and abuses. It is always more cruel to commit injustices that will never end compared to injustices that are already being corrected by the system of American law.
Forever and eternal slavery is always more cruel than a form of slavery that allows manumission.
China’s less ethical systems of law, attitudes, morality, and policies also mean that they are, de facto if not de jure, more inefficient in applying those policies.
There is no logical inconsistency or dishonesty here.
So it is fine for you to question Book’s relative knowledge of China, but it is okay for you to dig up things you’ve heard from other sources, like family, and all of a sudden, her sources are worse than yours?
And you don’t think that’s intellectual dishonesty and logical inconsistency?
Ymarsakar, I’m kind of lost in your ethics, policy, efficiency argument. You’ll have to define your terms more clearly. You define efficiency as flowing from ethics or even equating the two, which are not clearly defined. I thought the argument was that China might be efficient but it doesn’t count because they are unethical about their development. What is ethical that leads to efficiency?
To those that died working on the Brooklyn Bridge or on the Three Gorges Dam, it matters little, it matters little whether the project was driven by a robber baron or a non-democratic government, in my view. For the Chinese, they do not view their government as slavery and are generally happier than, say, the Indians, who have a constitutional democracy and civil liberties like us but who are still dying of poverty and disease.
Finally, Bookworm can cite anything she wants, as long as it is empirically correct. The problem is that she has cited only one very brief news blurb about a coal shortage and extrapolates to all sorts of government abuse without evidence. I would like to hear what the evidence is–and you should as well–before drawing those conclusions. The complaint I raise is because so much press coverage on China is wrong and lacking basis in fact, and clearly so to those who have actually visited the place on a frequent basis. You are calling me dishonest even though I am giving you personal accounts because I disagree with someone who has yet to demonstrate any base line knowledge at all…
To those that died working on the Brooklyn Bridge or on the Three Gorges Dam, it matters little, it matters little whether the project was driven by a robber baron or a non-democratic government, in my view.
Your view is extremely short termed and myopic. It matters a whole lot to immigrants coming to this country whether their children lives a better life than they have.
It is the fact that people make decisions such as this based upon what they see as their interest, that free will and rights provide. Any system that oppresses free will and the rights of the individual with the rights of the state and the will of an elite few, will be a system that is inefficient in utilizing their manpower and creative geniuses. They may produce great growth, but only because of how backwards they still are and how many people they have under their thumb.
I thought the argument was that China might be efficient but it doesn’t count because they are unethical about their development.
That’s not my argument, obviously. And efficiency is not about hiking the Chinese currency to the US dollar so that China gets to have 1 trillion PPP. China may have influence and can produce, on the net, more and more, but their efficiency, their individual capital income and living standards, are wholly wasteful.
They go out and take children just to make them into world class gymnasts by forcibly making the kids stretch their bodies to the limit and past it. This practice may allow them to produce as many or as good as gymnasts as the US produces, but it is incredibly inefficient. Much the same way a centrally controlled market is more inefficient than a free market. Efficiency in these terms is maximizing people’s potentials depending on what they can do best, not what the state thinks they can do best. The exercise of free will in a large population will always produce more chaotic variables that a solely centralized system cannot compare in terms of efficiency and maximum potential.
Finally, Bookworm can cite anything she wants, as long as it is empirically correct. The problem is that she has cited only one very brief news blurb about a coal shortage and extrapolates to all sorts of government abuse without evidence. I would like to hear what the evidence is–and you should as well
I know Book and Laer’s views on China and have read their posts detailing or commenting on previous Chinese aspects before. You might say that I know the context from which their views are derived. I, thus, do not need to hear a recap of their reasons, although you might need it.
For the Chinese, they do not view their government as slavery and are generally happier than, say, the Indians, who have a constitutional democracy and civil liberties like us but who are still dying of poverty and disease.
Happiness is a relative factor. When your ancestors were living hand to mouth in hunter gatherer days, the prosperity of the welfare class of America would seem like paradise to you. That doesn’t mean much, though.
Funny you say the Indians are dying of poverty and disease, for it was the Chinese need to safe government face and sacrifice the peons that led to breaks in SARS containment as well as various other nasties going on.
An example of ethics compared to unethical behavior is when the Chinese have a choice between telling the truth and worrying someone or telling them a white lie and ensuring that they don’t have to worry and can thus enjoy misery.
An American attitude would rather face the truth and deal with the bad news, rather than live in a quiet world of denial hoping that somebody else will fix the problem. No business associate will tell the board everything is okay, simply to relieve the board’s anxieties. No business person will tell his business partner that there are no problems, when the business is close to bankruptcy, simply to make his business partner “feel better”. But they do have such customs in China.
This denial of the truth, this denial of reality, is unethical, even though it is moral in Chinese culture. It is like inshallah in Arabian culture. Moral but unethical. Immoral by our standards, moral by theirs. In fact, godly by theirs.
Whenever people try to override reality and make believe it doesn’t exist, that is an inconsistency and ethics cannot function with inconsistencies.
The reason why free markets, free will, and civil liberties are ethical is because it obeys reality. The reality of how people behave, the reality of how people make choices, and the reality of how to maximize the potential worth of these individual choices now collated into a whole.
Totalitarian systems believe that they can get things done from the top, just by giving orders and making people obey according to some unified policy script. Classical liberal democracies and republics believe that you get the most efficiency by allowing individuals to make decisions, for no central organization can know as much about the individual’s situation as the individual himself.
You yourself, dg, have this belief that centralized systems like China are better than systems like India and America. This belief needs to be challenged and opposed, for it isn’t true.
You yourself, dg, have this belief that centralized systems like China are better than systems like India and America.
It is either that or you are a subscriber to moral and cultural equivalence. Take your pick.
it matters little whether the project was driven by a robber baron or a non-democratic government, in my view
Wow. Where to begin? There are so many things you have said about China that are wrong, I have trouble believing that you’ve read much on the place. There is no slavery in China. It is not a totalitarian state and hasn’t been since Mao died. If currencies were not linked the Renminbi would worth much more in US dollars; it hasn’t been “hiked up” to give the Chinese more purchasing power. The PRC does not abduct children from their parents and force them into athletic academies, but offers poor rural families a meal ticket which they assent to.
Ymarsakar doesn’t like China, but also doesn’t really know the place. But I don’t really care what your opinion is if it’s not based on the reality on the ground in that country. I have lived there and visit frequently enough to know that your assessment does not accord with my experience. So I reject it. It is not out of ignorance or deception, but because you are telling me the equivalent of the world being flat. I reject it out of hand.
One thing is certain, though, China for whatever reason has accomplished what was thought impossible by sustaining its rate of growth for 30 years, and nearly every economist worth his salt (e.g., Malkiel) agrees that it appears that there is little to stop that global-leading growth from continuing for a very long time. The implications of this are that many other countries will question what Ymarsakar takes on faith, that ours is the unquestioned best system, and that existence of a rival system is something to ponder, to understand and to reach a rapprochement with. This understanding will not happen if China and its system is mis-characterized as “slavery” or “totalitarian” or “rotten” or “unethical.” Instead of reading the propaganda of a misinformed US media, you should take a trip there to gain a broader view. There is another view of China to take in and ponder. Just a thought.
By the way, I am an American. I live in the U.S. I love this country and think it is the very best system in the world. But it is far from perfect, and there is much we can and should learn from China. I am secure enough in myself and my country to be able to see its strengths and weaknesses clearly. I hope that you are as well.
We’re clearly reading different papers, dg. I consider it a problematic state when prisoners are used as slave labor and forced to donate organs, when people are punished for having children, when Bibles are stopped at the border, when the government restricts internet access, and when, as last week, two elderly ladies were sentenced to a year’s “reeducation” for daring to protest at the Olympics. And those are just the things I can remember off the top of my head.
I was born in CHina. It is not a question of like or dislike. It is question of ethics and a question of truth.
All the things I spoke of concerning SARs and the results of state control, and how the state inculcates a society that produces child abuse, what is also known as FGM and honor killings in Arabia and Persia, are not just things you can deny just with denial, dg.
You need something more. An argument perhaps? Some facts. If you believe China is mis-characterized, then is it not your duty to characterize it correctly. But all you have done is tell me and Book that we are wrong, but you give no reasons why.
Look, I’m not saying the China is a flourishing democracy yet. But the country is not a totalitarian state either, and it’s moving in the right direction. Every generation of leadership has loosened the grip a little more, as the economy has demanded additional freedom to grow. When I lived there and my American friends who still live there do not feel they need to be fearful as in a police state. And it’s not like China does not have good reasons for some of the restrictions. Fining people for having children in a country that still cannot feed its entire population is probably a good policy, just like restricting some civil liberties in this country after 9/11 was accepted for the good of the national interest. There are churches and Bibles in China, although the government is wary of dangerous ideas that lead to widespread protests (e.g., Falungong). And protests are occurring all over China, with varying degrees of government action to put them down. The Olympics was viewed as a special event for which the government would not tolerate embarrassing dissent–kind of like the way the Bush administration used the FBI to remove people from political rallies. While the government restricts internet access, there is not a kid under 25 that doesn’t know how to tunnel through to the real internet. I have heard that the forced organ donations have stopped but the “slave” labor likely continues, but it looks like the chain gangs that built many of the roads in this country.
My problem with the papers that you are reading is that they fail to take into account just how far this country has come in such a short amount of time. You need to visit China every 2-3 years to keep up, not just with the sky line but with the level of personal freedom and variety of social activity now occuring in the country. They were wearing mostly Mao suits 20 years ago, but now they wear Armani. Over the next 20 years, this country will move to the Singapore model, which still won’t let the Economist print negative stories about the government nor let you import chewing gum or Jehovah Witness material. But no one is really afraid to live in Singapore and the US does not call it a police state. Meanwhile, Russia and India which took our advice and followed our democratization with capitalist development model are languishing: if not for oil and commodities, Russia would be starving and is run in any case by a resurrected KGB and billionaire thugs; meanwhile, India is 20 years behind China and still starving. I really believe that China’s model will be vindicated, criticism from your preferred newspapers notwithstanding.
Ymarsakar, when were you born in China and when did you leave. The country likely has changed much since then. Regarding the mischaracterization, I thought I did that in my post to you and to Bookworm. Not sure which allegations (e.g., “slavery”, “totalitarian system”, forced child abductions, forced currency revaluation, forced organ donations, etc.) that I missed.
I guess the bigger point, is that China is going to get really, really powerful with or without us. So we’d better learn how to coexist with it and tie it into the global system of institutions (e.g., WTO, UN, etc.) so that we can exert soft power and influence. What is amazing to me is that despite the rampant anti-Chinese rhetoric in certain media outlets, in Congress and elsewhere, the Chinese–who are incredibly patriotic and proud of their accomplishment–continue to respect the US and Americans. I loved being in China because they wanted to learn from Americans. This attitude can be tapped to draw them more tightly into the institutions that will bind their interests with ours. If China reaches the conclusion that we really do wish them ill, want to break up their country (the old Communist Party canard), then we will have a scary time dealing with them. That is why I have tried to understand the country and its people, taking time to learn the language and culture, and continue to read the leading scholarly work on this great power.
DG said:
Are you serious? Just what are those people flocking to the Democrat National Convention planning to do? or the WTO trade talks in Seattle in 1999.
You of course saw this story a couple of days ago:
Yes China has make progress from the days of Mao when 30 million died in the “Great Leap Forward”.
According to Mort Kondrake, hardly a right-wing zealot:
By pegging the Yuan to the dollar, China has guaranteed itself an increasing share of US imports, at the expense of the rest of the third world countries, and continues to accumulate hundreds of billions of US dollars from the our trade deficit.
More from Kondrake:
There are official “Christian churches” in China, but true Christianity is underground, Bibles are confiscated, and envangelism, like in Moslem countries, is strictly forbidden.
We know this because we have Christian friends in China.
16 of the top 20 cities with the worst pollution are in China.
http://www.impactlab.com/2006/06/12/the-worlds-top-20-most-polluted-cities/
Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.11 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.13 male(s)/female
The ratio at birth for the US is 1.05, while the average for the world is 1.01.
I’m not sure whether is ratio is significant for selective abortion. I’ve read that the government has cracked down on this, since a high imbalance of male-female could have catastrophic social consequences.
DG said:
And the trains run on time also. I’m not sure what side of the tracks you’re standing on, but this isn’t so much praise for China’s system as an indictment to the liberal mindset in this country. The US has the second highest corporate income tax in the world. China just cut its corporate tax rate from 33 percent to 25 percent. Our liberal friends (think Obama) want to punish those nasty corporations and fund a new round of government giveaways– that do not include rebuilding the infrastructure (which by the way is what federal fuel taxes were supposed to be for).
Yes it’s easier to do business in a country where 16 of the top 20 polluting cities worldwide are in China.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/community-news/china-pollution-88081801
Yes, the beauty of central planning, is that you don’t have to go through the myriad red tape to build an oil refinery, or drill for oil, or build a coal-fired electrical generating plant.
I’m all for it. Let’s neuter those tree-hugging, hippie loving, yuppies and start building!
DG said:
You are kidding, right?
Yes, there is are official “Christian” churches in China, but the church movement is underground, bibles are routinely confiscated, and you share your faith at great peril. We have friends in the Christian movement in China.
And dissent in China? Does Tiananeman square ring a bell? That was 20 years ago you reply, things have changed. So what would happen in China if there were protests like we’ll see this week in Denver, or like the riots in Seattle during the WTO meetings in 1999? If they did that there they would be headed to a re-education camp.
Look what happens when you apply for a permit to protest:
NY Times
China continued to take over in Tibet. In Tibet today, there are more Chinese than Tibetans, according to news reports and Mort Kondracke who visited there this summer.
China continues to suck oil out of Sudan, even as it largely turns a blind eye to the genocide in Darfur.
China has sided with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to block U.S. plans to sanction Iran in the U.N. over the nuclear weapon program in Iran.
And China continued to browbeat Taiwan, using especially derisive language in its press releases after Taiwan made another attempt to enter the U.N.
DG said:
WHAT? Are you suggesting the China model for the US also?
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3167.shtml
I can see the slogan now– “Join the CIA- Free Tibet”. So that explains why China has quashed dissent in Tibet since 1951, and isn’t going to ease up any time soon.
More on the virtues of China…
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/dirtiest-place-on-planet.html
BrianE, wow. Lots of posts on the ills committed in China. Again, I do not want to defend the country’s behavior but point out that they have made enormous progress in short order. There were no churches in China 30 years ago; now they have government monitored/controlled ones; in another 30 years they will be free enough to practice “true” Christianity, whatever you meant by that. There were far more frequent and stiffer penalties for protest, as your reference to Mao correctly highlights; in 30 years the situation will be better still in all likelihood. Yes China is a heavy polluter, but we still pollute more per capita; and if China follows Japan or Korea’s path (which is likely), then it will be much cleaner in 30 years.
Also, I believe that one has to acknowledge the enormous good that comes from its wealth creation that is lifting a fifth of humanity out of poverty–a human rights benefit that no one acknowledges, all the while attacking the country’s human rights record. India is lauded for its democracy and taken to task far, far less by conservative and even liberal Americans, but the honor killings and corrupt justice system in India is well established, the abortions over gender are occurring there as well, and, most important, they are not lifting the next fifth of humanity out of poverty at any where near the same rate–and, some have argued, the extent to which they are has to do with fears of being left behind China.
I also would like to correct your comment about China somehow taking away wealth from other countries by locking its currency to the US dollar. This is nonsense and any student of economics knows it. A quick lesson: any other country can link their currency to the dollar also, but it doesn’t create China’s export powerhouse. Ask Argentina. China can keep its currency credibly linked because it has enough reserves to keep it there (i.e., it can buy every Renminbi in the market to hold its currency at this level), which is why it was not hurt by the Asia crisis that took out Korea’s economy. Also, China has the infrastructure, well educated and productive workforce, and large labor supply that creates lower wages to sustain that export led economy. Ymarsakar believes that they copied the US, and indirectly, he is correct. China copied Taiwan/Korea, who copied Japan, who copied the US, who copied Germany/England. But China is doing it better than anyone. The economic numbers don’t lie, and while the full story behind that success is too big to capture here, I would certainly say that to suggest that high taxes in the US or a Yuan-dollar link magically and simply explains their success is to trivialize the tremendous job they are doing. It really reveals an inability to give credit where credit is due.
Finally, I was definitely not suggesting that China might be a model for the US. I am not sure where you got that. I was suggesting that China will be a tempting model for other developing countries. It will be a challenge for us to dissuade them given China’s success, especially when we appear so one-sidedly, obsessively antagonistic toward the country.
Two people have cited the two Chinese nationals that were sentenced reportedly to one year of hard labor for wanting to protest. This is offensive to Americans who believe in our right to protest, and I am one of those people. Contrary to BrianE’s implication, I do remember Tiananmen and have a dear friend, Ling Chai, who was one of three to lead the movement. I do not make light of China’s failings, but I try to view the picture there in a balanced way–something that is not occurring in many comments on this blog.
Now, for those that are deeply concerned about those two Chinese sentenced to one year of hard labor in prison, I hope that these same individuals are equally offended by a Bush administration that has held several hundred people–many of whom are likely innocent–in Guantanamo Bay prisons for SEVEN TIMES AS LONG and WITHOUT CHARGE. The argument, of course, has been that they lack protection by the US Constitution (until the Supreme Court shot that down); however, I never saw conservatives criticizing its own government for violating basic human rights and dignity because it is unethical or problematic even as they raise those arguments against China. It seems that it’s ok for the US government to deny those rights to those that aren’t entitled to them legally, but it’s not ok for China to do it. Please explain. And no, I am not arguing that the US human rights record is worse than China, but merely asking that each incidence be equally attacked regardless of where it occurs. Until the rest of the world sees this, they are less likely to follow our example.
>>for those that are deeply concerned about those two Chinese sentenced to one year of hard labor in prison, I hope that these same individuals are equally offended by a Bush administration that has held several hundred people–many of whom are likely innocent–in Guantanamo Bay prisons for SEVEN TIMES AS LONG and WITHOUT CHARGE.>>
Got it. There’s no difference between two old women in their late seventies who followed directions and went to the areas designated for protest in order to protest with a sign, and men captured on a battlefield with weapons intended as weapons.
They must have spectacular women in China.
Two people have cited the two Chinese nationals that were sentenced reportedly to one year of hard labor for wanting to protest. This is offensive to Americans who believe in our right to protest, and I am one of those people- dg
Do you believe, as I do, that the right to dissent is in jeopardy?
Personally, I think protests are a waste of time, but I can also see, thanks to language in the Patrotic Act, how easy it would be to criminalize dissent.
I’ve also noted that many of those listed on unwieldy “No-Fly” lists are there because of anti-war or anti-Bush activity.
I’m not sure if the installataion of “free speech zones” satisfies anyone, (and hopefilly, it doesnt) but I have noted that there are many people who would prefer it if Americans kept quiet and let the government do as it wishes – provided that THEIR party is in power.
But then again, I believe that the true struggle in America is one of “authoritarian vs libertarian” mindsets and that partisans tend to overlook the authoritarian trends of their own political party, while railing against it in the opposition.
>>Do you believe, as I do, that the right to dissent is in jeopardy?>>
In China, yes. In the USA, no. Well, maybe except for in the universities, which is where those “free speech zones” exist.
No one is denying that the Chinese are very intelligent, shrewd, (you fill in the descriptor). The Nixon trip re-defined how we were going to engage adversaries. But I still consider China as an adversary—that doesn’t mean we can’t engage them, work to see them make changes toward a more liberal society (I can’t believe I’m saying that).
Authoritarian governments offer many advantages, as long as the authority resides with me! Our founding fathers struck a reasonable balance between anarchy-totalitarian or libertarian-authoritarian (you pick). I think the imbalance is being struck by the court system. Once people lose faith in the Justice System- the final arbiter, the society collapses. This is why I believe as we move away from a Judeo-Christian society, the government will become by default more authoritarian.
I wasn’t implying that China stole from other countries by pegging their currency to the US’s, just that as our currency fell, Chinese goods became cheaper compared to countries they compete with, so they gained market share. The fact that our trade deficit with them is so massive should be a concern to us. We have benefited by cheap goods– too cheap in my estimation.
The caste system, I think, is the major stumbling block to India lifting its poorest out of the worst poverty, not democracy.
Russia– I guess 70 years of mafia (communist) rule was too much to overcome. Democracy requires an informed and engaged citizenry– something we seem to be forgetting.
My objection to your characterization of China’s success implies that if our physical needs are met, that our ‘spiritual’ needs are irrelevant. I use spiritual generally to mean those innate longings to exercise our free will.
I think your analogy to our treatment of enemy combatants and chinese dissidents is mistaken.
Here’s some information about the folks at Guantanamo:
Seven percent of the detainees transferred from US custody returned to terrorist activities, including engaging US forces on the battlefield.
Detainee Skill Sets
SELECTED STATEMENTS FROM DETAINEES
This is a good conservative argument for our use of enemy combatant status:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/wm1556.cfm
This article is a even handed look at both sides of the argument:
GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES: NATIONAL SECURITY OR CIVIL LIBERTY
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/vonness.pdf
And for those sympathetic to the detainees I offer this, your chance to adopt an insurgent:
http://myinsurgent.com/
I’ll leave it to the lawyers to argue the fine points of the law.
In China, yes. In the USA, no. Well, maybe except for in the universities, which is where those “free speech zones” exist.- Suek
Are you aware that many universities are discontinuing their use of Orwellian “free speech zones?” But that, whenever George Bush travels anywhere, the Secret Service sets up free speech zones, so that he doesnt have to actually SEE anyone who disagrees with his policies?
Both parties have been setting up free speech zones at their conventions for quite some time, but Mr. Bush has taken the practice to a whole new level.
For more:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33381.html
And while I would not expect you to take wikipedia’s woprd for it, if you aren’t happy with these articles, there is a vast list of them at the bottom of this entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones
This has more to do with the tactics of these anarchists, not that Bush is afraid of confronting dissent. But these folks shouldn’t be allowed to disrupt a speech.
He’d be fine if they were only visible, but they are obnoxiously vocal.
This has more to do with the tactics of these anarchists, not that Bush is afraid of confronting dissent. But these folks shouldn’t be allowed to disrupt a speech.- Brian
Bush is shielded from protesters en route to anywhere, too, Brian. The rationale for that is pretty entertaining:
From American Conservative:
“The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, “These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way.” Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.
Marr’s comments are a mockery of this country’s rich heritage of vigorous protests. Somehow, all of a sudden, after George W. Bush became president people became so stupid that federal agents had to cage them to prevent them from walking out in front of speeding vehicles.”
He’d [Bush] be fine if they were only visible, but they are obnoxiously vocal.- Brian
It seems that he doens’t want them to be visible, either.
From Reason:
“When the far Left The “Progressive” and far Right “The American Conservativ”e both decry the creation of free speech zones into which protesters are corralled whenever the President comes to a town, one should pay attention. These Orwellian “free speech zones” are typically far away from the venue where the visiting President is appearing, so that he can enjoy a Potemkin village experience in which he sees only an adoring populace through his limousine windows. Protesters can peaceably assemble, just out of the President’s sight and earshot. “
Ozzie, Thanks for the additional information. This was exactly the direction that I was trying to go, but you’ve sourced/cited the material better than I ever could. My concern is that people aren’t actually defending the “human rights” they purport to and see violated in China but rather take the attitude that “whatever China does is wrong (because they are our rival), while whatever we do is right,” which is kind of what the Palestinians often do with regard to Israel, and what we football fans (I’m a die hard Steelers nut) do when interpreting referee calls (i.e., I don’t care what the truth is, just tell me what benefits my team…). The Chinese dissenters are getting longer sentences than American ones, but the attempt by both governments to control dissent is there and frightening…and that is the real issue that concerned citizens of this country and inhabitants of the world should concern ourselves with. So I appreciate your sentiments on the issue.
BrianE, I think that if you look at what has happened since Vietnam is a complete turnaround in how media and dissent are manipulated and controlled in the US in order to avoid what conservatives saw as democratic protest leading to military failure. Moreover, Cheney has expressly stated that the tragedy of the Nixon era was not that a sitting President committed or oversaw the committing of crimes and then obstructed justice to hide it, but rather, that popular media outlets and civilian protests caused Nixon to step down. This viewpoint informs a desire to insulate the President from culpability and to hide the government’s operations from people who might protest. What Ozzie is identifying is a pattern that very much fits with this expressed apprehension toward dissent and protest in the US. While my example at Gitmo touched on protection against unlawful imprisonment, Ozzie’s examples although less dramatic are exactly analogous to the prevention-of-protest that is occurring in China. To call out China’s anti-democratic proclivities while ignoring Bush and Cheney’s is a failure to be objective.
>>It seems that he doens’t want them to be visible, either.>>
So which re-education camps are they being assigned to?
BrianE, I have trouble understanding the data on the Gitmo prisoners. You cite 7% recidivism rate, but state no base. I doubt more than a handful of prisoners have been released so how statistically significant is that data anyway. You have a lot of quotes, but these may not be reflective of the majority of prisoners. More importantly, if even 5% or 10% of the prisoners are completely innocent, then this is still a violation of human rights that is to be criticized vigorously. By the way, there are no “fine points of law” here. You have people in jail for seven years, with not even the right of a phone call to family, some of them (according to people interviewed withint our CIA) for simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the Chinese government required that those two prisoners had to have done something “offensive” to it in order to have earned prison time.
Suek, I am glad that you are so confident that ALL of the Gitmo prisoners were locked up with probable cause and real evidence that they were potential terrorists, battlefield combatants, and the like. I would ask that you share the evidence with the rest of us, since, to my knowledge, it has not been released. In the absence of evidence, this “faith-based” analysis that contrasts the horrible Chinese behavior with the spotless American record provides a perfect example of the “whatever China does is wrong, while whatever we do is right” kind of thinking that I find so pernicious. I try and limit my urge to think this way to the NFL. Go Steelers!
>>It seems that he doens’t want them to be visible, either.>> me, regarding Mr. Bush’s use of free speech zones
So which re-education camps are they being assigned to?- suek
I’ve already detailed the provisions that have long been in place to round up Americans and place them in camps, if need be. You indicated that you think that the military would never go along, and I showed you how and why Homeland Security believe that Posse Comitatus is merely a myth.
Kent State didnt just happen out of the blue, either. And god forbid we ever reinstate the draft.
The left worries that a crack-down will occur under a right-wing totalitarian government, afriad that they will be targetted. The right worries that this will occur under a left wing socialist government, and that they wil be targetted.
What everyone seems to be missing, is that authoritarian “Let’s Just Scrap the U.S Constitution” plans are actually in place — and have been under Republicans and Democrats alike.
Moreover, Cheney has expressly stated that the tragedy of the Nixon era was not that a sitting President committed or oversaw the committing of crimes and then obstructed justice to hide it, but rather, that popular media outlets and civilian protests caused Nixon to step down. This viewpoint informs a desire to insulate the President from culpability and to hide the government’s operations from people who might protest — dg
Absoultely. He lost when he fought against the Freedom of Information Act, in 1974, but won significant victories in reinstating the Imperial Presidency this time around. What people who make excuses for Dick Cheeny dont realize, however, is that a President Obama will enjoy the same veil of secrecy and same expanded powers.
Another amazing develpment in the past few years: People are actually arguing that we should have continued to fight the Vietnam War. Did they ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?
And I absolutely agree re: the idea of politics as “team sport.” The overriding questions of right or wrong, true or false, fair or unfair, are not important. Winning is all.
Sorry, my quotes about the detainees comes from here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/detainees.html
The is the Dept. of Defense website pertaining to Guantanamo Bay.
One of the articles is “Ex-Guantanamo Detainees who have returned to the fight”.
There are 265 detainees in Guantanamo. Geneva convention allows us to hold them until hostilities are over, but this is complicated by the nature of modern combat. These people aren’t part of a uniformed military, answerable to a hostile country, in fact, many of the detainees countries of origin don’t want them– or in some cases, the detainees don’t want to be returned to their native country.
Where do you get the 5-10% innocent figure? You can read about the review process on that website. The remaining detainees I don’t think will fit into that category. Whether we will try all of them is problematic, since we may not be willing to let the defense see some classified information that may affect our ability to prosecute the war going forward.
I wasn’t referring to Nixon and the watergate tapes, but Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, which led to our relations with them today.
[snip]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB106/index.htm
I watched the House Judiciary Committee hearings, by the way, and as far as I’m concerned John Dean was and is a scumbag. Nixon may have survived had he not been so loyal to his aides (does under the bus ring a bell) and had he destroyed the tapes.
BrianE, thanks for the link. The link is to the review procedure that the Supreme Court forced the Bush administration to set up. It requires that unclassified information regarding reasons for holding a prisoner be given to the prisoner so he can contest the holding, but says nothing about classified info. It is also not an adversarial proceding, which I believe means that they do not get a lawyer. Also, these prisoners were held for 5-6 years before any procedure was put in place.
On the link I also see 12 names of people who returned to terrorism, so that implies 171 prisoners or 39% were released. Why so many? Were they charged? I worry that the US rounded up a bunch of innocent people, claimed that they were ALL terrorists and then quietly let go a bunch that were not when they could no longer easily hold them without cause. I hope that this is not the case, but don’t know. Unlike others, I don’t take it on faith that our government acted properly. Hopefully, you’ll hold it to the same standard as China…
>>I’ve already detailed the provisions that have long been in place to round up Americans and place them in camps, if need be. >>
True. If need be.
But the Chinese already have them in place – now – and use them for women who are nearly 80 years old.
If you don’t see a difference, then no further discussion is of value.
Why do you feel threatened by what “might” be, but not by what “is”?
We should have continued to support the South Vietnamese. When Congress cut off funding, they put a noose around many South Vietnamese necks.
But the Chinese already have them in place – now – and use them for women who are nearly 80 years old.
If you don’t see a difference, then no further discussion is of value.
Why do you feel threatened by what “might” be, but not by what “is”?- suek
I’m most threatened by the future my children face, which is based on a whole set of “what might bes.”
But since you asked, I’ll tell you what scares me about China.
From my understanding the U.S is spending billions and billions on the war in Iraq – and currently borrowing $22 for every $100 we spend.
China is carrying a large chunk of that debt.
I don’t like being indebted to other nations.
>>I don’t like being indebted to other nations.>>
I agree with you on that.
You raise two separate issues: spending and the financing of that spending. Both need consideration. I’m not sure I know enough to discuss either of them…I know that the deficit seems huge, but as a percentage of GNP is not as high as it has been in the past, and has been decreasing. I also know that the reason countries buy our bonds is due to the fact that they are considered reliable and secure. I’d be happier if we bought our own bonds and notes, but let’s face it – if our government went broke, what can they do? March in and take our gold? we’re not on the gold standard. Still, I’d rather see us on a balanced budget, with the SS funds out of reach of the Congress.
The balance of trade is another issue…apparently intellectual material isn’t included in the balance of trade. Only hard goods. That means that software isn’t included, and that’s a big bunch. At least, that’s what I understand. And even if it were all included, that’s private industry, not government debt. I need to take another class or two in Econ. Why is there always more to learn!
You raise two separate issues: spending and the financing of that spending. Both need consideration. I’m not sure I know enough to discuss either of them…suek
This isnt my strongsuit, either. I keep hearing about how China is floating our debt, however and it has me concerned.
At times, I think that only those who dont have a clue about money are the ones sounding the alarm, and other times (like when I turn on David Letterman and see Donald Trump yacking about how America is falling behind countries like China, as we spend billions of dollars on a war of choice) I think we’re in deep trouble.
A documentary about this very issue debuts this month:
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3873177881/
Why do you call it a “war of choice”?
Because we have chosen the time and the place, or because you think that it just simply wouldn’t have happened at some time in the future had we not grasped the nettle when we did?
Heh…
For you, Ozzie, just because you’re concerned about how much we’re spending!
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/pure-economics.html
Why do you call it a “war of choice”? — suek
Because Iraq wasn’t a threat to the U.S.
For you, Ozzie, just because you’re concerned about how much we’re spending!suek
This is what concerns me:
The Chinese are subsidizing the American way of life. Are we playing them for suckers—or are they playing us?
. . . In effect, every person in the (rich) United States has over the past 10 years or so borrowed about $4,000 from someone in the (poor) People’s Republic of China. Like so many imbalances in economics, this one can’t go on indefinitely, and therefore won’t. But the way it ends—suddenly versus gradually, for predictable reasons versus during a panic—will make an enormous difference to the U.S. and Chinese economies over the next few years, to say nothing of bystanders in Europe and elsewhere.
Any economist will say that Americans have been living better than they should—which is by definition the case when a nation’s total consumption is greater than its total production, as America’s now is. Economists will also point out that, despite the glitter of China’s big cities and the rise of its billionaire class, China’s people have been living far worse than they could. That’s what it means when a nation consumes only half of what it produces, as China does. . .
For America, it has meant cheaper iPods, lower interest rates, reduced mortgage payments, a lighter tax burden. But because of political tensions in both countries, and because of the huge and growing size of the imbalance, the arrangement now shows signs of cracking apart. . . .
Americans sometimes debate (though not often) whether in principle it is good to rely so heavily on money controlled by a foreign government. The debate has never been more relevant, because America has never before been so deeply in debt to one country
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/fallows-chinese-dollars