[Wash Times] Beijing devoted to weakening 'enemy' U.S., defector says

If you want understand why the US villanizes the Government Of Red China don't look at their external policies look at their internal policies. The Govenment of Red China, attacked and colonized the people within their own borders. There has never been a subjugation of people anywhere on the planet, anywhere in history on the scale of the Cultural Revolution.

There is no more brutal example of why we oppose tyranny and despotism than that. And with all it's dressed up capitalism the fact remains that the people of China still can not exercise their politcal will, they still serve the government rather than have the government serve them and have no recourse when the government makes choices against their interest.

That's what scares us.

 

Great post. China isn't necessarily our enemy, but we should be realistic and wary.

 

But they did establish colonies. The Peranakan of Malaysia and Indonesia are descendents of Chinese colonists left by Admiral Cheng Ho. My point was that its wrong to say that the Chinese didn't colonize like the Europeans when they did. Also while you were right that Cheng Ho's missions were more for trade than conquest that still doesn't mean that historically China hasn't engaged in conquests and subjugation of other countries.

 

You do understand that very little of our aid can be considered purely altruistic.

 

Yes but we treat with despots all the time and consider some like Musharraf and the House of Saud our closest allies. The biggest recipient of our foreign aid continues to occupy and colonize foreign territory.

I agree the PRC is undemocratic and repressive but I think the idea that we oppose "Red" China out of some higher motivation of freedom and democracy is fairly weak and smacks of old Cold War and Yellow Menace rhetoric. While the PRC might be seeking to overtake us economically I have a hard time buying that they seek to destroy the US and our way of life. For one they have no way of doing it (unless they call in our debts but that would hurt them too).

Also if we are so scared of them and find them so despotic why trade so much with them? The PRC and the US are wary of each other because both recognize that the PRC is on its way to being a superpower. Countries like people always feel threatened when they are on top and there is an up and vice versa.

 

yes, I am familiar with the 1962 war and have read many items about it. If you were at all familiar with it, you would know that the Chinese attacked India and advanced well beyond any claimed border area in Assam and Ladakh and stopped when they stalemated and their supply chain ran low. Why you think territorial wars of expansion are excusable is beyond me, but that by itself is enough to invalidate the statement that "China has not ever launched any agression against another country" under any reasonable concept of the term aggression.

By "invasion", you meant to change it to a definition more compliant with your state of historical knowledge, which alas, is inaccurate. China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and occupied it for roughly a month, that is indisputed.

Not that it matters, since even the most die hard cadre at the time would not tell you that China's trumped up excuse of protecting Cambodia was sincere (if it was why didn't they invade Cambodia - regardless, it failed miserably), but why you trust the 1979 CCP's propaganda is beyond me. EVERY invasion/attack in history is usually supported by some manufactured reason. Germany had territorial claims to Poland (and the fabricated attack on a German radio station). Japan used dubious historical evidence to justify the invasion of Manchuria. Why you seem to think this renders these actions as benign is beyond me.

Why didn't they occupy it for longer? Now this is of course speculation, but I'd have to think that since it was a major fiasco for the PLA which suffered massive casualties and that the Vietnamese (unsurprisingly) wouldn't give in inch either at home or in Cambodia probably dissuaded them from doing so.

Regardless, the Chinese Invasion of Vietnam again renders the statement that China has never launched any act of aggression or invasion against a foreign nation to be 100% false.

As far as colonization, it is hard to travel through western China and not see what is in practice, if not name, colonization occurring. I'm not sure what else one would call it when you re-settle millions of Chinese to ethnically non-chinese areas to places historically and intermittently at the periphery of the Chinese empire. I'm not saying that the result of this is always bad, but I'm calling it the way it is.

 

As usual, someone latches onto a small part of my argument and smashes it to pieces. Bravo, you win. Next time I'll correct your spelling or some other grammatical error you post.

Still, my point that US is far more aggressive than China and far more probable to attack China than vice versa stands. And that, my friend, is my point.

 

If any American had a serious moral obligation with China's human rights issue, they should vote by not going to Walmart and other discount stores and buying the cheap crap there. They could also stop buying items made by children in third world countries while they're at it.

It was so much easier to hate the Commies when they had 20,000 nukes aimed at us and their best import was Yakov Smirnov. Chinese products in America are so ubiquitous, it doesn't even matter if the labor wages are by the dime.

The US has intervened in regional politics that threaten to disrupt their hegemony. The CIA did the Latin American leaders a favor when they caught Che Guerra, and somehow his ideal for a pan-Latin American nation movement died with him. Pinochet was the Communist alternative in Peru. Cuba is America's greatest eyesore but the leader Fidel replaced was an ineffectual American puppet....much like the current standing in Nicuragua. Then there's the Panama controversy and the pathetic state of Colombia with their ineffective border enforcement. There's public resentment and fear of big brother America in those Latin countries because of our influence on them. It's why Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez hasn't been isolated by the Latin American community as the US wanted.

I wouldn't say that America wanted to weaken these countries, as our motives are purely economical instead of land driven. Our leaders wanted and sometimes forced upon favorable regimes that wouldn't question our requests as long as we didn't question their tyranny. Similarly, the Middle East mess isn't our fault, but we got what we wanted out of it. Sometimes for the worse, like Iran.

China will make inroads with their sphere of influence as we're working ours in Asia. It's a machiavellian game both sides are playing. China hasn't been in an official war since the Korean War. It would be inaccurate to compare them with the Soviet Union as they haven't displayed any territorial ambition outside of their continent or their historical boundaries.

What's worthwhile about looking into US foreign history is to question US reaction towards a growing rival that could dwarf us in population and economy while matching us technologically and militarily. It's our prerogative whether we use our military and technological advantage while we still can. China could be our great ally since Stalin of WW2, but it's really a matter of whether the US will get first dips in other countries resources and if China will stay idle while it happens.

 

America just feels insecure that another power might challenges its position in the world. as some pointed out before, America wants a unipolar world, and the rise of China does not bode well. however, those articles are extremely prejudicial, it greatly overestimated China's strength. I think America would rather see China the way it sees Japan, as an economical power and ally, rather than just economical partners but with different values and views. Other than that, China wont attack anyone that does not belong to China so, nothing to worry about.

 

In China the same governmental structure that displaced a whole generation and starved tens of millions of people is still in power and the people have no recourse against the perpatrators. True they no longer are ruled by Mao or The Gang Of Four but they showed at Tieneman Square they still have the power and the will to snuff out any spark of personal freedom.

In 1949 the Chinese despots used the idea of communism to control the passion of the masses, since 1999 they have used materialism. It easy to say that the US is no more moral than the Chinese...in the the United States and that's the difference. We can rail against our government all day long, and a lot of us do. We can post blogs, put up posters, harass people at the airport, get government grants for outrageous even seditious art, run for office and call the other guy a crook and never get a look from the authorities (unless our name is Mohammed). This has not been entirely true as late as the Civil rights movement of the 60's and the anti-war movement of the 70's and these rights are being impinged upon by the current administration in response to the war on terror but even at that we are still very free.

And I'm not saying that Americans are afraid of being conqured by the Chinese, we are afraid of the difficulty of maintianing our indulgent lifestyle in the face of unfair competition. Unfair in the sense that China has no labor unions or Enviromntal Protection Agency or OSHA or laws dealing with child labor or minimum wage, no pension programs to fund and no open market for the valuation of their currency. These type of things are absolutely nescessary to humanize capitalism. In a totalitarian capitalistic (fascist?)state the government can abuse the individual to give the appearance of advancement but real advancement in civilization gives the power to the individual. Germany in 1938 look to the outside observer as a miricle of modernization but we know how that turned out.

 

You are right that there is no laws in China to protect labours' rights, or it's not really enforced, and local governments are closing an eye on child labours. But you know what, all the state owned industries have a pension program. Lots of foreign invested companies abuse the labour laws much worse. But it is improving now. In the beginning phase of capitalism is brutal, we can see that in Western history. Yes, the labour wage difference is night and day, and it is unfair. The only problem is, US companies benefited from that unfair competition first. US Senators don't feel outraged that Walmarts produced all their goods with that unprotected and unfair and ridiculous low wage. US Senators don't feel outraged that US consumers enjoyed the low price of goods imported from China. But US Senators feel outraged that Chinese companies, gained profit from the rest of that cake, which made by unfair wage, trying to buy companies in US. Yes, you have absolute right to protect yourself, or try to block the deals all you want, but the reason is NOT unfair competition with cheap labour or communist party ruling.

Once again, I have never met one single Chinese who wanted Americans live Chinese way, but rather Chinese live American way, including those rights and freedoms to call government out. But you can't expect that to happen overnight. And you can't expect any one-sided deal, and you can't expect only benefit or advantage from free market and globalization.

 

The 'unfair' advantage you tout is being used by AMERICAN companies. How's that for irony. The trade deficit is being spurred on by AMERICAN companies who move their companies to China. These AMERICAN companies are just acting with the values of AMERICAN capitalism. Communism and laws have nothing to do with it. Even if China erected laws and barriers, the AMERICAN companies would just move to another country. So to place the blame on China is hypocritical to say the least.

 

I am dubious.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

I can give you an example. US company A invests in China, and builds factory there, using Chinese labour and resource, of course pay US dollars. As we already agreed, with "unfairly" low wages. The technology and design were from US, therefore, that company A only allow those products to be shipped back to Us and sold there. Those goods are counted as part of the Chinese export, and it's on the plus side of huge trade deficit. Nobody ever gives an exact number how much percentage of those Chinese export are really US goods made in China and profited by US.

Certainly, China exports lots of cheap products like textile etc to US. But the Chinese government's arguement is pretty clear. It's free market, right? I want to buy your stuff, but you don't allow us to do so. You only want to sell us potatoos, but ours is cheaper than yours. You want us to buy your textile, which is 10 times more expensive than our own, what do you expect? If you sell us F-15s, we will buy as much as we can, if you sell us high tech machinary, we will buy as much as you allow. Not only you don't sell us those stuff, you don't allow others to sell us those stuff, and you critisize us for not buying enough from you. Your government fund your steel industries and your farmers, and want us to buy those products, which are still more expensive than ours, why would us do that? If I want to sell AK47s to you, would you buy them? US is strong in technology, and China has cheap labour, I thought that's the base for business exchange, which is determined by demand and supply.

Again, Chinese's recent years of development was based on huge population - cheap labour and foreign investments. If you want them to pay the same as US pay their workers, guess every factory will go bankrupt, I don't exactly see that as fair.

 

The "colonization" by China in early 15th century in Southeast Asian island countries was not a result of conquests by Admiral Cheng's voyages. According to Wikipedia, the city states of the Malay Peninsula often paid tribute to kingdom China. In return, a princess of China was presented as a gift to the Sultan of Malacca at that time. The royalty and servants who accompanied the princess eventually grew into a class of straits-born Chinese known as the Peranakan.

Historical conquests and subjugation of other countries by China actually occurred mostly when the Han nationals (the majority) themselves were conquered and ruled by the minorities (tribes) in the northern China - most notably Genghis Khan's Empire. But that's another story.

 

Good to see you defending colonialism. That's great. I guess it's because its a potential US enemy, not a US ally that's doing it.

 

Never said it was. What do you expect us to do, give aid to Al- Qaeda? Of course we can only give aid to our friends and those who want to help us in return.