Last time, I talked about why we should not call China communist anymore. It seems that Foreign Policy magazine does not agree with me.
It says "If Vladimir Lenin were reincarnated in 21st-century Beijing and managed to avert his eyes from the city's glittering skyscrapers and conspicuous consumption, he would instantly recognize in the ruling Chinese Communist Party a replica of the system he designed nearly a century ago for the victors of the Bolshevik Revolution."
True, but maybe Signor Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek or even Herr Hitler can also recognize this system as a replica of theirs. Foreign Policy argues that the party controls personnel, propaganda and military. But that is the case for most dictatorship, and even a lot of autocratic regime.
I believe communism has two key parts: political and economic. Losing its economic nature, the communist (or socialism) system is not there. If the strict central planning system with collectivization in the rural part is not used anymore, China is hardly different from many non-communist regimes in the world. Thank about it, Foreign Policy.
February 27, 2011
January 29, 2011
Momentum of revolutions
Politicians take momentum seriously. That's why Iowa and New Hampshire can play such an important role in shaping the American politics. This holds true not only for elections, but for revolutions.
Why did U.S. go to Korea and Vietnam to fight against the communists in countries that does not concern the American key interests? Because there was a theory called "Domino Effect" that if one country was allowed to fall, countries by countries will follow suit, and communism will reach the shore of the cornerstone of the free world.
This did not happen. Although there were communist movements in many countries, and some of them achieved success to grip the power here and there, but it never reached the scale to threaten the West. One thing was that the Soviet leaders decided to settle on what they had at that time, but it also showed the limit of the momentum.
On the other hand, the momentum showed its strength when the communism collapsed. All but five communist countries surrendered to popular demonstration from 1989 to 1991. The color revolutions also toppled a couple of dictatorships, although to no avail. Everybody is waiting to see what is going on in the Middle East, but the success in Tunisia proved to be contagious.
People do feel emboldened when they see the success of their peers. One thing that sustains the dictatorship is opposition's lack of ability to mobilize, and that is why those regimes shudder to see those social network sites. When everybody sees the success in our countries, this serves as an alternative for mobilization. But the key is that people need to believe that others will also think this way. That's probably why the Tunisia revolution can only affect Egypt, not Belarus. Georgia to Ukraine, but not Burma.
I think we do need to think harder on how people think, and how momentum works. State Department had better be doing that right now.
Why did U.S. go to Korea and Vietnam to fight against the communists in countries that does not concern the American key interests? Because there was a theory called "Domino Effect" that if one country was allowed to fall, countries by countries will follow suit, and communism will reach the shore of the cornerstone of the free world.
This did not happen. Although there were communist movements in many countries, and some of them achieved success to grip the power here and there, but it never reached the scale to threaten the West. One thing was that the Soviet leaders decided to settle on what they had at that time, but it also showed the limit of the momentum.
On the other hand, the momentum showed its strength when the communism collapsed. All but five communist countries surrendered to popular demonstration from 1989 to 1991. The color revolutions also toppled a couple of dictatorships, although to no avail. Everybody is waiting to see what is going on in the Middle East, but the success in Tunisia proved to be contagious.
People do feel emboldened when they see the success of their peers. One thing that sustains the dictatorship is opposition's lack of ability to mobilize, and that is why those regimes shudder to see those social network sites. When everybody sees the success in our countries, this serves as an alternative for mobilization. But the key is that people need to believe that others will also think this way. That's probably why the Tunisia revolution can only affect Egypt, not Belarus. Georgia to Ukraine, but not Burma.
I think we do need to think harder on how people think, and how momentum works. State Department had better be doing that right now.
January 22, 2011
Stop calling China communist
20 years after the end of the Cold War, many people still persist using the term "Communist China". True, China is still a one-party state ruled by the Communist Party, but this usage of this term is not very accurate.
The beginning of the usage of Communist China was resulted from the division of China. Communist is an adjective to distinguish it from the legitimate government, or Nationalist China. Nowadays, only 24 countries still recognize the government in Taiwan, and that government itself has ceased to call itself China. In this sense, there is no need to add that adjective for distinguishing them from each other.
You can still say that the usage of the adjective was aimed to indicate the nature of the regime. Most people would know that China adopted capitalist economy more than three decades ago. It is not on the path to the glorious communist utopia. Even the political environment is much looser compared with any communist society in the past, let alone China in Cultural Revolution. People can choose their own lifestyle, and people can freely travel (I mean most of them). Those privileges were not enjoyed by the citizens of any communist state.
Granted, the party is still called Communist Party. But you cannot call it Communist China just because of that. It is like calling North Korea "Democratic Korea" because it has Democratic in its official name. That was true for East Germany as well.
So how should we call today's China? Considering the complexity of this large and populous country with a long history, maybe no adjective can fit. One thing is for sure, it is not longer communist any more.
The beginning of the usage of Communist China was resulted from the division of China. Communist is an adjective to distinguish it from the legitimate government, or Nationalist China. Nowadays, only 24 countries still recognize the government in Taiwan, and that government itself has ceased to call itself China. In this sense, there is no need to add that adjective for distinguishing them from each other.
You can still say that the usage of the adjective was aimed to indicate the nature of the regime. Most people would know that China adopted capitalist economy more than three decades ago. It is not on the path to the glorious communist utopia. Even the political environment is much looser compared with any communist society in the past, let alone China in Cultural Revolution. People can choose their own lifestyle, and people can freely travel (I mean most of them). Those privileges were not enjoyed by the citizens of any communist state.
Granted, the party is still called Communist Party. But you cannot call it Communist China just because of that. It is like calling North Korea "Democratic Korea" because it has Democratic in its official name. That was true for East Germany as well.
So how should we call today's China? Considering the complexity of this large and populous country with a long history, maybe no adjective can fit. One thing is for sure, it is not longer communist any more.
January 17, 2011
Glorious return of territory? Not for China.
I am finally back. With the job problem solved, I should enjoy the last months of freedom. Therefore, I should have no excuse to not coming here.
Today, I will talk about the reported approval in the Tajik parliament to return 1,000 square kilometer of land to China.
Glorious victory for Chinese government? It does not seem that they are proud of that. Moments after that news was put on the official news websites, they were all taken off. After many years of negotiation, silence was what the government was aiming for?
It does not seem that is happening. This news quickly spread to the netizen community. Many people were not very happy. China claimed that Russia illegally forced China to cede huge chunk of territory to them in the 19th century. The land in dispute with Tajikistan was not even part of those cessation. Although China never talked about how much land was in dispute, but we could see, thanks to the official map of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which indicates that constitutionally Taiwan still claims 25,500 square kilometers in nowadays Tajikistan.
One Chinese netizen made an analogy: Someone robbed you 25,500 dollars. After fierce argument, he finally gave you back 1,000 bucks. Then you are happy and bragging about it all the time.
China is not bragging at all. But there are also other problems in this analogy. It seems that the one who returns the money was also the victim of the robber in the past. He was forced to return 1,000 dollars even though it only has 140,000 dollars, compared with the millionaire recipient, who owns 9.6 million dollars.
On the number of 9,600,000. Every Chinese knows this number. But for people who are good at mathematics, this number seems abnormally simple, with only two significant digits, compared with precise number for other countries with similar sizes. Why is that? Because the government is not sure how large China is. If they truly believe that South China Sea is Chinese territorial waters, how could China just have 9.6 million. Had that been the case, China could have been larger than Canada (and the United States, by the way, and China is claiming it is already).
The government is claiming this land, that island, but it knows that China cannot take everything. But officially giving them up will certainly lead to public anger giving the growing nationalism.
"Every square inch of land needs to be fought for." The Chinese idiom says for all. But what land is yours? In the long history of humanity, every inch of land has been changed hands many times. From when were they set and the status quo of then serves as evidence for future? Nobody knows. Be realistic and pragmatic, keep what you want, do everything to keep the interest of the people in those part of the world is the best and only solution.
With so many territorial disputes still not close to be solved, this model is certainly not encouraged, but it maybe the only solution for China. More humiliation seems to be unavoidable. Why not end the irredentist education earlier?
Today, I will talk about the reported approval in the Tajik parliament to return 1,000 square kilometer of land to China.
Glorious victory for Chinese government? It does not seem that they are proud of that. Moments after that news was put on the official news websites, they were all taken off. After many years of negotiation, silence was what the government was aiming for?
It does not seem that is happening. This news quickly spread to the netizen community. Many people were not very happy. China claimed that Russia illegally forced China to cede huge chunk of territory to them in the 19th century. The land in dispute with Tajikistan was not even part of those cessation. Although China never talked about how much land was in dispute, but we could see, thanks to the official map of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which indicates that constitutionally Taiwan still claims 25,500 square kilometers in nowadays Tajikistan.
One Chinese netizen made an analogy: Someone robbed you 25,500 dollars. After fierce argument, he finally gave you back 1,000 bucks. Then you are happy and bragging about it all the time.
China is not bragging at all. But there are also other problems in this analogy. It seems that the one who returns the money was also the victim of the robber in the past. He was forced to return 1,000 dollars even though it only has 140,000 dollars, compared with the millionaire recipient, who owns 9.6 million dollars.
On the number of 9,600,000. Every Chinese knows this number. But for people who are good at mathematics, this number seems abnormally simple, with only two significant digits, compared with precise number for other countries with similar sizes. Why is that? Because the government is not sure how large China is. If they truly believe that South China Sea is Chinese territorial waters, how could China just have 9.6 million. Had that been the case, China could have been larger than Canada (and the United States, by the way, and China is claiming it is already).
The government is claiming this land, that island, but it knows that China cannot take everything. But officially giving them up will certainly lead to public anger giving the growing nationalism.
"Every square inch of land needs to be fought for." The Chinese idiom says for all. But what land is yours? In the long history of humanity, every inch of land has been changed hands many times. From when were they set and the status quo of then serves as evidence for future? Nobody knows. Be realistic and pragmatic, keep what you want, do everything to keep the interest of the people in those part of the world is the best and only solution.
With so many territorial disputes still not close to be solved, this model is certainly not encouraged, but it maybe the only solution for China. More humiliation seems to be unavoidable. Why not end the irredentist education earlier?
October 2, 2010
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.
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.
August 28, 2010
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.
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.
August 26, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
