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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
