Same language or not? It's politics, stupid

One thing always amazes me is that there are so many different languages in the world. It could be the Babel tower which separates people from each other. But they are the results of our ancestors' creativity, and it makes the world so much more diverse that we will never get bored.

But language is also politics. I talked about the language situation in one of my previous posts, and today I want to talk about several examples in which two or more languages are virtually the same one, but they are named differently for a certain political or historical reason.

1. Hindi and Urdu:
Hindi and Urdu, together having about 500 million speakers, are spoken in a pair of political arch-rivals. True, there are considerable differences in vocabulary, especially in the formal language. Urdu draws much vocabulary from the fellow Muslim Persian and Arabic, while Hindi from the ancient Sanskrit. Plus, the written scripts are so different that many people wouldn't realize they are virtually the same language. In fact, they derive from the same dialect close to Delhi. Hindustani is a more academic and neutral way to address the two languages/two versions of the same language.

2. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin:
Under Comrade Tito, Serbo-Croatian was spoken by the majority of Yugoslav people, with the rest spoke closely related Slovenian and Macedonian. But today, nobody would claim that he/she speaks Serbo-Croatian. For them, it is either Serbian for Serbs, Croatians for Croats, Bosnian for Bosniaks, even Montenegrin for the newly-independent nation. There are indeed differences nowadays, since different countries are standardizing their language differently, and they have been based on different dialects. But their difference is still trivial. It is, of course, good for a guy to claim that he speaks five languages, including Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian. In response, I may claim I speak American English, British English and Chinglish. They are still the same language today. But they may become different enough to be separated linguistically after the bitter political division.

3. Romanian and Moldovan:
Moldova, a former republic of Soviet Union, maintains that its official language is called Moldovan, which is a continuation of the Soviet policy. This is aimed to damp down any talk of unification with Romania. Most part of Moldova was Romanian-speaking, and it was part of Romania until the Second World War. In the eastern part of the country, there are significant Russian and Ukrainian populations, who have established a break-away but unrecognized republic. But all of those cannot change the fact that Moldovan is identical to Romanian. The only difference is Moldovan is written in the Cyrillic alphabet.

4. Indonesian and Malay
When the "Thousand-Island Nation" gained its independence from the Netherlands, the government found that people speak so many different languages, and those languages can be very different on different islands. As part of the attempt to unite the newly-independent country, they "borrowed" the language from the neighboring Malaysia. The new Indonesian is not based on any language in Indonesia, but a dialect of Malay language. When Malaysia accused Indonesia stole their cultural heritage in a tourist commercial last year, what they really meant was that the whole language which unites Indonesia was stolen from Malaysia. For Malaysians, ss that actually something to be proud of?

5. Finnish and Karelian
Karelian is spoken in the Russian Republic of Karelian, but many people simply regard it as dialect of Finnish language. Karelians share their history with the neighboring Finnish, and a significant part of the republic was ceded by Finland after the Soviet invasion. Republic of Karelian was once at the equal level with other 15 republics, which showed Stalin's intention to annex Finland completely. Fortunately for Finland, he failed.

6. Persian and Dari
Dari, which refers to the historical court language of ancient Persian Empire, is spoken in Afghanistan. The name was encouraged by the Afghan government to distinguish with the language in the neighboring Iran. There are indeed some difference in phonology and vocabulary, but they are the same language. Mr. Ahmedinejad, any response?

7. Lao and Isan
Isan is the name given by the Thais to the combination of Lao dialect in their country. It is suffering from the official discouragement of the Thai government, which doesn't allow it in the public occasions. It doesn't even have its alphabet.

Please tell me if there are more examples.

Revolutionaries never retire!

Fidel Castro is back. Although without the usual endless diatribes, his short speech in the parliament showed his determination to continue leading his people. Weak as he is, no sign of retirement can be smelt in the air. As Fidel once said, "revolutionaries never retire."

Indeed, they don't. Mao, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung. All of them died at the height of their power. Similarly, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Chiang Kai-Shek and other non-communist dictators didn't give up their power voluntarily until they were beaten by enemies or their healths.

Some people asserted that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have been one of the greatest leaders in the history of Germany. Why don't they simply give up their power early to secure a good legacy? Because they believe they can do better to realize their ideals? Hitler might have thought so, but history proved it wrong.

The desire for power is certainly a main reason. When Alvaro Uribe reluctantly accept the decision of the Supreme Court that he wouldn't be allowed to seek a third term, Colombians felt relieved. They certainly admired Sr. Uribe, who has brought huge positive change to his nation in his two terms. But endless amendments of constitution will remind us of their increasingly dictatorial neighbor, Venezuela. Losing him is a loss, but the political structure is strengthened. Uribe will also be remembered as a great leader in the history. There is rumor that Uribe would like to run for the mayor of Bogota. The lust of power is unstoppable. But fortunately, Uribe has chosen to come to Georgetown. I hope he can stay longer to let his successor rule without his shadow.

Russians are not that lucky. Mr. Putin found a better way to stick to power. In countries without a strong rule of law, positions in the government doesn't necessarily represent power. Deng Xiaoping ruled China as a Vice Premier, and after his semi-retirement, as the Chairman of Military Commission. But his influence was paramount, and different factions in the government needed to seek his approval to gain an upper hand. In Russia, Putin re-interpret the power distribution between the President and the Prime Minister. People are speculating whether he will return to the office after 2012, but it seems that being Prime Minister can prolong his influence forever.

But Uribe and Putin are not dictators. They were elected, and they are genuinely popular. What about the dictators without democratic mandate? Being in power can certainly give them more time to collect wealth as what many African leaders did. But when you are rich enough, why not leave the office and take their time to enjoy those wealth?

I think fear is the best reason to explain. Without the rule of law, there is no protection of former leaders. They can have immunity for life (Mr. Nazarbayev did that), but that can be revoked. They cannot even trust their proteges, because there isn't a lack of examples of betrayal. For leaders of rogue states like Bashir from Sudan, there's one more reason to stay put. As Professor Vreeland said, the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court only strengthened their determination to stay in power for fear of being extradited by their successors. Gripping the power in their hands is the only way to prevent retribution. Passing power to their children can ensure that their tombs and legacies will be properly guarded.

But there are examples that show us transfer of power is possible without a liberal democratic system. Since 1980s, Chinese leadership has adopted the rule of retirement. For different levels of officials, there is a mandatory retirement age, up to 68 years old for politburo members. The welfare is luxurious, with private cars and private secretaries funded by taxpayers. Although the previous leaders keep their influence to some extent, meddling is rare. Political struggle exists, but no shots have been directed to retired top leaders. Apparently, China is not a good example of rule of law, but the ruling party can be run with proper self-regulation to ensure the continual survival of the party. This is certainly an interesting case to study. For Fidel, Chinese leaders are no longer revolutionaries. I think they wouldn't mind as long as there are golf courts for them to enjoy their lives.

Mr. Kim goes to China

It's time to end the hiatus. The school is scarily close, and I already can smell the challenges we are going to face in the next 4 months. But I will try to blog as often as possible.

According to some mysterious news sources, Kim Jung-Il is in China right now, in spite of his ill health. More interestingly, former President Jimmy Carter is paying a visit to North Korea to secure the release of a U.S. citizen.

When Bill Clinton visited North Korea earlier this year, Kim was glad to meet him and take a nice picture with his guests. Also a former president, is Carter not cool enough for him? Maybe he is too sick that he needs an excuse to not meet him. But wouldn't sickness be a better excuse than taking a trip to China, which clearly signals a snub.

Maybe Mr. Kim wants to snub his guests because he may have demanded the visit of a current official. Mr. Carter has been to many rogue states, Cuba as the most famous example. Obama administration maintains that dispatching a current official will send a wrong signal. Therefore, North Korea didn't get something big in exchange for the release of the American citizen. Why not sending Carter's counterpart, a former leader, to show him around? Unfortunately, in a dynastic dictatorship, they don't give up power until the divine being asks them to.

What can Mr. Kim do in China? He was in China in May. Repeated visit in a short period of time can tell us something, can't it?

Maybe some of you don't know that. The relations between China and North Korea is not as simple as what media described as "close allies". China paid a huge price to create a buffer zone from the West, but the increasing belligerent clearly annoy the Chinese leaders, who prefer a peace environment to continue the economic advancement in China. For North Korea, they have always been wary of China. Kim's father has never trusted China. Neither has he. They regard China as a bigger enemy than the United States, because China has exerted pressure on them to reform as what China has done. They regard this a threat to Kim's Dynasty. Therefore, North Korea has tried to abandon the Six-Party talks, which means they want to talk directly to the United States, giving China no role in its affairs.

But no matter how "naughty" North Korea is, China has to treat it properly, by providing it aid, and keeping Kim's schedule in China a secret. As Kissinger once said, they are SOB's, but they're our own SOB's.

Anyway, I hope Mr. Kim will enjoy his time in China. I also hope his son will not be afraid of taking flights, so that the railroad won't be blocked by his trains.

Who said China wasn't in South Africa?

Who said Colombia didn't make it to the World Cup? Shakira and her song is played again and again in every host city. Who said China was absent? True, Chinese football team was too much a joke to make it, but China was present, both during the game and after.

Vuvuzuela caught people's eyes, or ears rather, with its annoying loud noise being played non-stop during every game. It has become a symbol of South African culture, but where were they produced? Of course in China. It was reported that 90% of them were made in China. While the soccer fans around the world were enjoying expelling elephants with their vuvuzuelas, Chinese sweatshop owners were counting their money.

Another report said China exported more than a shocking 100 million condoms to South Africa this year in preparation for the World Cup. Of course, the demand rose when the tourists came to South Africa. As a country famous for its high AIDS rate, South Africa can benefit from the comprehensive trade relationship with China. But the sheer number was still big enough. Chinese products are known to be poor in quality. It is not a small risk to use this Chinese product. I hope the soccer fans had not only enjoyed the time in South Africa, both in the stadium and out, while China had contributed its part.

Anthony, the Octopus: The common misperceptions of languages of China

Paul, the Octopus, as you may know, has become an international celebrity. Although he doesn't have a spine, its bold predictions were certainly not spineless. So as a man with a spine, I would like to share my thoughts with you guys.

Many Chinese think the Western world doesn't understand China enough. There surely are a lot of misperceptions, but the question is, we don't understand ourselves any better.

The language issue is one of them. It has a big impact on the Chinese society. People rarely talk about it nowadays, but it can potentially cause a lot of trouble. The lack of attention is alarming. There is a lack of knowledge about the languages of China in the West, but that is very understandable since nobody can tell them the story. Let us now discuss what's wrong with our perception of Chinese languages.

1. Chinese language is Mandarin.
That is a common belief, and Chinese and Mandarin has become interchangeable in English. But there is a serious problem of that, what is Mandarin? If you bother to check Wikipedia, you would learn that Mandarin is a group of Chinese dialects. There is no doubt it is the most widely spoken one, but it doesn't mean that there are other groups. Actually, there are at least 6 other big groups (many linguists call them language). Cantonese is best known for it is the lingua franca for oversea Chinese. Wu includes Shanghainese. Taiwanese belongs to Hokkien (or Min Nan) which is a subgroup of Min. Hakka is widely spoken in the Chinese communities in South East Asia, and it is the native tongue of my grandpa. There are more.

2. All Chinese speak Mandarin as their first language.
First of all, there are ethnic minorities who speak their own language. But here, for ethnic Han Chinese, it is still not true. True, most Chinese nowadays can understand Mandarin (though it is not totally true for older generations), but their first language is not the same thing. We can say that most Chinese outside Beijing are bilinguals, since we not only speak our own "dialects", we learn the Beijing dialect of Mandarin in class. It is the only version allowed on TV, radio (although it is looser in Guangdong where Cantonese is allowed). Dialects everywhere are suppressed by the government. The government wants to build a national identity for more than 1 billion people. Needless to say, they need to do a lot to achieve that. But still, people speak there own dialects or languages at home and between each other. Although any dialects other than Mandarin has been described as uneducated language (such as improper during business conferences or other formal occasions), people still stick to their local culture. Just go to Shanghai, no matter how many migrants there are, people still speak Shanghainese on the streets. The situation of language in China is not as simple as many people think.
Also, Mandarin is also diverse. The Mandarin in Beijing and the Mandarin in Xiangtan, where Mao was from, is totally different. So is the Mandarin in Sichuan. We can well say that Mao does not speak Mandarin because when he is speaking, I don't understand what he is talking about.

3. The difference among different "dialects" in China is small. People can understand each other.
The difference is huge. People can speak one dialect for one hour and the other guy doesn't understand anything at all. I think this is not the case for Spanish and Italian speakers, but this is what is happening in China. I have mentioned that there are at least 7 different groups inside Chinese languages. Among different groups, they are totally unintelligible. Linguists think that their differences in phonology, syntax and lexicon are big enough to call that they are different languages. Although there is still a heated debate on the definition of language and dialect, if you call Croatian and Serbian two languages, there are hundreds of them in China.
One thing for sure is that there is only one official script in China. There is no written system for the other languages (although there are unofficial written systems for some, using Chinese characters with similar pronunciation). But this doesn't mean they are not independent languages. Written languages are based on oral ones. Each "dialect" can easily have its own written system if the language is recognized and there is an effort. It is amazing that although China mostly remained a unified country in its long history, the diversity in language is still huge.

4. There is no language issue in China.
Language has become an important issue. There are debates in Shanghai about the status of Shanghainese. There is a Defend Shanghainese Campaign. There is also huge opposition from those new migrants. Shanghainese could well be a good example. Most people in Shanghai are descendants of recent immigrants. My grandparents are from 3 different regions and none of them were originally from Shanghai. But people came to Shanghai, a metropolic transformed by the West from a small fishing village. They not only came, they adapted to the local culture. They spoke Shanghainese, and they also changed it, just like immigrants did to English. But the more recent immigrants, who envied the opportunities in Shanghai, turned out to be less willing to learn the local culture. They prefer to study more foreign languages. Worse is that they demand Shanghai people to stop speaking Shanghainese. The government stands on their side, and the officials in Shanghai government, few of whom are from Shanghai because they are not elected, don't stand up for the local population. This is also happening around the country. Many local culture has been lost, but more people are fighting on. This is not about local pride. People should cherish the local culture their ancestors created. I agree that China needs to a language that everybody can communicate with each other in, but it doesn't mean that you have to kill their mother tongues. Han Chinese, as described by the government, is the majority of the population, but Han Chinese is so diverse inside, it can hardly call it an ethnic. There needs to be some changes, otherwise, the language issue will be a potential thong that will cause trouble in addition to the numerous problems existing today.

Russian spies in New York suburb? Nothing is too strange to believe.

Obviously, several Russian spies, who pretend to be normal American families, were arrested recently. This happened right after President Medvedev's visit. The Russian President and President Obama were still in Canada for a G8/G20 summit. The reaction from the Russian government is noticeably silent.

This event is significant not only because this reminds of us the spy war between these two Cold War nemeses. It raises a lot of questions because people are wondering what kind of intelligence they can collect. It seems what they can learn from their presence in the United States is not more than what we can find on the internet. So why on earth did Russia keep those spies? Why was this ring broken at this particular moment when the US-Russia relations has just started a reset? There could be two scenarios.

First, some hawks in the U.S. intelligence community wanted to embarrass the Russian President and strangle the recent chemistry between those two countries. It is known that those alleged Russian families have been under CIA surveillance for quite some time. Why did they arrest them right now, right after the two presidents had their nice hamburgers in Rosslyn? After watching several U.S. TV shows, I have learned that how hawkish the generals in the Joint Chiefs can be, and how they tend to snub the judgment of the politicians (like what General McChrystal did). I can imagine the same situation in the intelligence community. This can explain a lot.

Second, a more daring guess was made by a Russian media. They claimed that those spies were actually abandoned by the Russian government. The Russians gave their information to the U.S. as a gift of the better attitude towards them. For them, they started to realize how useless they were and they had been thinking about getting rid of them. Keeping their mouth shut requires the Russian government, who was hit by the global slowdown, to pay them in U.S. dollars. Probably it's time to end this endless and meaningless operation. Considering the recent behavior of the more pragmatic President Medvedev, this doesn't sound that implausible after all.

Anyway, this story sounds very weird. The truth, I am afraid, won't be revealed to us, the general public, before long.

What can unite a continent? The World Cup.

Finally I am back from China and Colombia. It's time to come back from the long hiatus.

The lackluster World Cup has occupied the headlines these days. 32 countries have the honor to compete in this competition, but people from other countries also focus on the results. Many of them also have their teams to cheer on, not only for their favored stars, but the teams from their own continent.

You can see that the African fans cheering for all the African teams, and even Chinese fans cheering for Japan and South Korea. We all know there is no chemistry among China, Japan and Korea. Nor do Chinese fans care about Australia. Very few African fans would regard Algeria as African. These support is not selfless. This is due to that FIFA distributes the slots of next World Cup to different continent confederations according to their performance.

Let's see what can happen. Africa used to have 5 slots and this time 6 because South Africa is holding. There hasn't been a inter-continent playoff involving Africa because the distinct system in Africa (in which 20 teams in 5 groups play for the first place in each group to qualify) makes it impossible to find a team to take part in the playoff. Considering their below-par showing, they will definitely lose 1 slot and have only 1 slot.

For South America, Brazil will host the game next time. Therefore, only 9 teams will take part in the qualifying rounds and giving them another 4 slots will be the maximum accepted by the other continents. As a result of the changes in Africa and South America, a half slot will be available to the other continents.

For Oceania, they will never get a full slot because this will mean an automatic seat for New Zealand, which was impossible even when Australia was in that confederation. But anything less than a half seat is also not viable. You need to give every team some chance to qualify, however remote it is.

Europe can also lose half a seat if the FIFA finds it necessary. This all means that Asia and CONCACAF (Confederation of North-Central Americas and Caribbean Associations of Football) will compete for the increase of slots. South Korea and Japan are doing well this time and a draw will be suffice for both of them to get to the knockout stage, although it is still too early to say. Mexico is also doing well and the United States looks having a good chance to qualify by beating Algeria. The other teams from these two continents are struggling, although Australia still has a slim chance.

This means that the result of those teams, which will tell us which continent will outperform the other, will be vital. Enough for fans in those two continents to cheer, right? Not necessarily. Your country at least, shoud have a chance to benefit from the increase. For me, I optimistically consider China as a potential benefector. Therefore, I am crossing my fingers for Japan and South Korea. Good luck!

Ready for vote, bloke?

Tomorrow, the voters in the United Kingdom will head towards the polling station to decide what the next government will be like. Thanks to the single constituency first-past-the-post electoral system, and the surge of the third party, the outcome is anybody's guess.

Considering its declining economic prowess and political influence, the election in the United Kingdom doesn't deserve such attention from the rest of the world. But as the oldest parliamentarian democracy, United Kingdom has amazingly maintained its two-party system for so long. A change seems very likely to come, and it will possibly reshuffle the system once and for all. This will show that whether two-party system is possible in a parliamentary system, which is a very interesting question to think about.

But it is interesting to see that how obsessed the Iranian media are with Britain. Many Iranians still think it is Britain who is ruling the world, and the United States is simply manipulated by their former master. There is a book about how the British prime ministers influenced and manipulated the American foreign policy, but I don't think there are many people who would agree with this.

It seems the Gordon Brown hasn't been greatly affected by his "bigoted woman" comment, which, by the way, is in surprisingly proper but impolite language. This potential disastrous gaffe was followed by his timely apology. Spending one day with a voter he has offended probably is not enough, but it seems that most voters who lean towards Labor, according to the polls, have forgiven him. After all, that woman, who questions Brown why he doesn't stop immigration from Eastern Europe, is quite bigoted.

I was wrong in the last post to say that the internet is playing a huge role in this campaign. It doesn't seem so. Not many candidates have twitter accounts, and those who do only have an average of several hundred followers. The technology is still influencing this election, only in that TV is the new technology for the Brits. In this age, after the success of Tony Blair a decade ago, even for the most reserved British people, young and charmingly handsome politicians with good public speaking skills in front of the camera are the trend of the future leaders.

"Bigoted" woman begot it

For those who care about the UK election, it seems more and more interesting. As one of the first democracies in the world, and the example of political system for many countries, the UK election in this year is quite different, not only because of a possibility of hung parliament, but thanks to the tremendous influence of technology.

Because political aids are restricted limited on TV, online social media and networking websites are playing an unprecedented role, and Gordon Brown, who is ten years senior to the other two major candidates, looks much more clumsily under the never-ending limelight. His comment on a lady (calling her a bigoted woman, BBC) was caught by a microphone on his shirt, and the result is understandably disastrous. This will make the already-gloomy labor prospect even worse. On the contrary, the young, energetic, and multilingual (German, French, Spanish, Dutch plus English) Nick Clegg has taken advantage of the first ever television debate dramatically boosted the chance of his party, and the impact will be sustaining because of the electoral reform which will definitely benefit his party.

Technology does make a difference in politics, doesn't it? For leaders around the world, it's not too late to realize that. For those who can't even check emails (including Mr. John McCain), it's never too late to learn.

Disaster and unity

There have been many destructive earthquakes this year. It seems the movie "2012" is going to realize, which is clearly not a good news for people who don't have a billion euros. Also, considering the fact that those arks are being built in Tibet, I hope they are not affected by this earthquake.

National disasters are also tragic. People lose their lives. Survivors lose their home. But it is also a time to unite people. Just like Poland after the air crash, that country was united for a while. In China, there has also been sign of improvement.

For Han Chinese, most of them saw it on the TV that how bad the living conditions the Tibetans have, and how wrong the propaganda has been. This can change their previous perception that Tibetans are simply not thankful for the Chinese who help them raise their life quality.

For Tibetans, the rapid and timely rescue efforts really saved a lot of lives and many are, indeed, thankful to the government, even in front of the international media, without any sign of being forced to do so. For people around the world, they also see for the first time that there is cooperation and gratitude between Han Chinese and Tibetans sometimes.

True, this doesn't tell us a lot. This is just what government has to do. But I hope the bad things can help people to bridge their difference and live together peacefully. That depends on what people do after the disasters. If they do it like what Poles do to put the President's grave in the controversial cathedral, the natural disasters will turn into human disasters and people will turn from sadness to anger. If they do it like what Indonesians did in Aceh, they can help us find a solution which is beneficial for everybody.

How to prevent coups?

A coup took place a poverty-stricken African country again. This time it was in Niger. The reason, of course, was to restore democracy. But unlike most others, its cause was somewhat justified. While being criticized by most international organizations and governments, the spokesperson of U.S. State Department murmured, blaming it on the dictator’s attempt to prolong his rule.

Coupled with the coup in Honduras last year, this brings us a serious question. What is our attitude to the good coups – those against bad or brutal leaders?

Everybody agrees that coup is a bad thing, but when there is no democracy and rule of law in those countries in the first place, is it really that bad if it can help restore the democracy?

Of course, say the dictators around the world, holding the international law in their hands. With this, it seems that only atrocities committed by the incumbents will be tolerated and ignored.

But if you want to prevent the coups, you should do something to ensure there is no popular support for them. Can we do something? The international law is blocking our way, claiming that those are internal affairs.

That really sounds familiar. Allowing husbands to rape and torture their wives, but stoning the wives who resist. We all know this kind of problem can only be solved by laws which can be enforced, but why can’t we do anything in the international stage?

The only reason is that, the world is still ruled by abusive husbands and men who might be nice to their wives, but they are doing business and even owing money to those abusive husbands. This certainly sounds miserable, but I’m sorry that it’s real.

Use Internet to bring democracy to China and Iran? Not Yet!

It seems that the Iranian regime has indeed started blocking the access to Gmail on the eve of the Islamic Revolution’s anniversary, the most important day in Iran’s political calendar. Twitter and other social networking sites are still accessible right now, but they are equally fragile as Gmail. This only strengthens my belief that internet’s influence on democratization is minimal in the most oppressive countries.

Advocates believe that because the use of internet is assumedly anonymous and ubiquitous, it can spread information more freely and safely, which enables people to reveal the misconducts of the governments and increase the influence of opposition forces, domestic and foreign. They also start to emphasize its ability to help organize massive protests after the prominent Green Movement in Iran.

True, the internet is playing a positive role in some countries. For example in Ukraine, its role in uncovering the frauds during the 2004 election was significant, if not indispensable, to the final success of the color revolution. But it has only achieved modest successes in countries where the government is far from omnipotent. Strong opposition movements already existed and the ruling regime didn’t have the total control over all the government resources.

Some people also regard the Green Movement in Iran and the Saffron Revolution in Myanmar as examples of successful influence of internet. But the failure to shake the regimes and the result of more restrictive internet access can hardly second their points.

Can the internet alone achieve, or even stimulate the democratization process in the most oppressive countries? The answer is no.

Firstly, the chaotic opposition voices cannot match the well-organized response from the most oppressive governments. The advantage of the internet is that it bestows chances to everybody to make their voice heard, but that is also its disadvantage, in that there are simply too many of them. In the most oppressive countries, there are generally lacks of strong opposition core. Thousands of anonymous dissidents can send their anti-government messages out, but this only puzzles the people more, who wonder which one to listen to. On the contrary, the government has the benefit of staying in the open. Its supporters know who their leader is (Chinese Communist Party in China), where to listen to their direction (People’s Daily), and moreover, money-coveting people can be legally employed to flood the internet with pro-government statements (50-cent party).

Secondly, the most oppressive governments have total control over the internet access. However mobile and anonymous the internet service is, it still heavily relies on resources provided and controlled by the governments, no matter whether it is through the land line, wireless or even the 3G service. Radio and TV signals can be sent from abroad, which means to block them requires the installation of intercepting and disrupting facilities. In the case of Internet, it is no harder. The experts deployed by the government have learned to establish a system to filter and restrict what the people can see. Even when there is a unified powerful opposition movement, the government has always had the “North Korea solution” – the option to shut down the internet in its entirety.

Thirdly, the most oppressive governments have the determination to do whatever necessary to maintain their power. For leaders in the democracies, losing power just means 5 years in the opposition benches. For leaders in weak autocracies, losing power probably means personal notoriety and the end of their political careers. But for leaders in the most oppressive regime, losing power can mean criminal prosecution and retribution, which means they will fall from controlling everything to even not controlling over their own lives (example of Nicolae Ceauşescu in Romania). Thus, they will undoubtedly do whatever possible to keep them in power. Shutting down the internet must be one of first steps, however high the cost it would be.

But how can we explain internet’s seemingly growing influence in Iran? The answer is not complicated. The internet is new to everyone, and the role of the social networking sites was especially unprecedented. The Iranian regime was also in the learning process. Their recent actions actually show that they are getting more and more confident.

But does it mean we should simply give up? No. Just as the VOA didn’t stop broadcasting even though its signals were blocked, the efforts to using internet to stimulate the democratization in the most oppressive countries shouldn’t stop. It may make little difference today, but we will certainly be ready when there are internal changes in those countries in the future. At the same time, we should also remember that placing too much hope on it will only bring about disappointments and unnecessary loss.

Pictures of Legislatures around the world. You will know what HARMONY means.

Turkey

Mexico

South Korea

Ukraine

Russia

Italy

Taiwan

India

Japan

 

OK, let me show you the congress in the harmonious society: China.

 

Link: http://www.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=169282

To play in the Football World Cup, study the Koran!

Egyptian national team won the African Nations’ Cup held in Angola. The coach Hassan Shehata, who is a national hero right now, claimed when he was selecting players, religious piety and skill were equally important. (Google News)

Let alone the fact that more than 10% of the population are Christians, not all Muslims in politically secular Egypt would be pious enough for Coach Shehata’s standard. This reminds me the eccentric coach of French national team Raymond Domenech, who uses his astrological knowledge to determine who should be in his squad.

I’m not that sure that this championship is a reward from Allah. As a proof, his devotion didn’t bring his team to the World Cup final in South Africa, which is more important for Egyptian team, who hasn’t qualified since 1990. Instead, Egypt lost to their sworn archrival, the Algerian team. Probably he should make sure all of his players fulfill their salah requirements.

Revolutionary Textbook and Maths Exam

Cultural Revolution was a part of history my government wants us to forget. And most of my peers don’t know much about it. Even my parents are reluctant to tell me too much. Like those 20-year-old Americans who are coveting the magical drink, I am intrigued in this part of history.

At the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, Mao asked the students to quit classes and launch revolution against their teachers and principals. This lasted almost a year and its devastating effect on the whole nation is unimaginable.

Later, realizing this could not continue forever, Mao said students should return to classroom to continue the revolution. But their textbooks are still heavily influenced by the personality cult of Mao.

Recently I found an interesting excerpt of the Chinese textbook:

Chinese Textbook for 5th Grade, 1970 Fall:

1. Four Poems of Chairman Mao

2. Foreword for “Quotation of Chairman Mao” -- Vice Chairman Lin

3. Telegram to Chairman Mao from the Celebration of the Establishment of Hebei Provincial Revolutionary Committee

4. There is a a red sun never set in our hearts forever.

5. Long long live to Chairman Mao.

6. People in the world admire Chairman Mao.

7. Soviet People Wish Chairman Mao Live Forever.

8. I love New China, I love Mao Zedong!

Wow, this textbook is awesome. But I doubt they can learn a lot of characters in that. But as you know, you don’t have to know a lot of words to live in Oceania because the fictional totalitarian government designed by George Orwell want to destroy all words which can help people think of their government in a bad way. Yeah, the best way to prevent protest is to delete the word protest from the dictionary.

Here is an exam of maths:

1. “We do have sincere friends from places afar. Deep ocean will never do us part.” China and Albania are thousands of kilometers away, but our hearts are altogether. The distance from Beijing to Tirana is 7805 kilometers, but on a world map, the distance is 22.3 centimeters. Please calculate the scale of this map.

2. Mao Zedong Thought is the talisman of the revolution. Two young Argentineans came to their dreamland, Beijing, against all odds. On a map with a scale of 1:50000000, the distance between the capital of Argentina and Beijing is 36.7 centimeters. What is the actual distance between the two cities?

3. In the Proletariat Cultural Revolution, Red Guards learn from the Red Army veterans. They walked from Jinggangshan to Zunyi, then from Zunyi to Yan’an. Calculate the actual distance between those distances.

I'm back

Actually I was back more than a week ago, from the reclusive (in terms of internet) country on the other side of the Bamboo Curtain.

This semester is even more challenging for me, but I'm sure I will survive. So will this blog.

I will try to update as often as possible, and at least every week. Hope you can visit here more often and leave your comments.

See you very soon.