Who lost China's Internet?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


Actually, I draw an issue here. I don't agree that the "large Communist government in China" is all that much of a problem. I do agree that the western media seems to think it is, and I also agree that anybody whose sole source of information about China is the western media will probably believe that China is in a sad state.

Just like anybody whose sole source of information about China is the Chinese media will think that China is in a great state.

The real facts lie somewhere between the two extremes. Most Chinese people (in the cities, at least - I haven't had the chance to go to the rural areas) have told me that they have great trust in the government, and that they do not appreciate western countries (especially America - that name crops up a fair bit) opposing the government so much. In fact, several citizens also voiced the belief that America's government is specifically trying to undermine China's own government, and they strenuously object to this.

As for my own opinion, the government is doing pretty well in that it has the support of its people. It has also succeeded in raising the urban living standard by a very large margin since the days of Mao Zedong. I can see from both sides' media that both sides are prone to distorting (or just plain not reporting) facts about the other and about their own situation. What really scares me is how successfully the western media (which, unlike the state controlled Chinese media, purports to be fair and free) has maligned the Chinese situation. The very proof of this lies in this thread.

It's clear from this thread that many well-educated, intelligent, and articulate people strongly believe that China's government is malignant and that Chinese people are oppressed. As somebody who has lived there recently, I can only offer my confused bewilderment and a plaintive "No, guys, really - it's not like that at all!"

Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan. The best way to prove this is to come and see it for yourselves. You might find yourselves very surprised.

Well, you're right, I understand what you're talking about, coz I've lived in China too. But to Sikander as well as many other Americans, a powerful opponent for the US is a problem for the US, regardless of human rights or any other issue except for military might and menace. I'm trying to phrase it to show that even with that problem acknowledged, boycotting still isn't the solution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan.

*cough*Falun Gong*cough*

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Transcend
You seem unable to explain how you can reduce China's military threat by boycotting Chinese consumer products.

I have explained it, we have had a couple of exchanges, and I don't buy your appraisal of the potentialities, and you don't buy mine. As we are speculating about the future, neither of us is going to be able to prove anything. Since we have stated our views, and don't seem to be convincing each other, what's left to say?

By not sending my money to China, I know that it cannot be used to buy weapons to attack the U.S. or it's allies, nor can it be used to supress religious or ethnic minorities, nor used to jail political dissidents. I would be happy to do business with China if I felt that my money would not be used for these sorts of activities. This is my point once again. You disagree. I understand that, and I respect your viewpoint (ie engagement) even though I completely disagree about the degree of economic impact of U.S. trade on China, or that China will just go ballistic like Japan did 60 years ago given the fact that the U.S. is well-armed with nuclear weapons.

The post of mine which you copied in full was a reply to Mindseye's post directly above it, which in the end asked the question:

"Okay, given the composition and strength of China's military, can anyone explain how it poses a credible threat to the US - or anyone else not neighboring China itself?"

Feel free to comment on my reply in the context it was written in.

ranskaldan,

Does this clear things up for you also? Your post directly after Transcends seems to indicate that you thought I was missing 'the point' in what was in fact my reply to Mindseye's question directly above it.

[Adam Smith]

Alinestra:

Most Chinese people (in the cities, at least - I haven't had the chance to go to the rural areas) have told me that they have great trust in the government, and that they do not appreciate western countries (especially America - that name crops up a fair bit) opposing the government so much. In fact, several citizens also voiced the belief that America's government is specifically trying to undermine China's own government, and they strenuously object to this.

The people I spoke with in various Chinese cities (July 1998, mostly Beijing and Changzhou, but also Nanjing and Guangzhou) indicated the opposite.

As for my own opinion, the government is doing pretty well in that it has the support of its people. It has also succeeded in raising the urban living standard by a very large margin since the days of Mao Zedong.

Some commentators have argued that the government and the populace have struck an implicit deal: you keep us in power, and we will let you grow rich. Would you agree with this assessment?

Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan.

Firewall and Fa Long Da Feng (Pinyin correct?) examples have already been raised. (One could understand, but still not sympathise with, the government's response to the latter, given the prior Chinese experience with religious movements.) Also, when we were there in February 1996 and July 1998 there were substantial restrictions on freedom of movement. People could not live in cities or obtain city services (health, sanitation, education) without official permission. Permission often required Communist Party membership, which led to political control. As a result, many people who were seeking jobs but did not have official permission lived in shanty towns just over the city line. (We walked through such a place outside Changzhou.) Are such restrictions still in place? If so, to what extent are they still enforced?

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander
By not sending my money to China, I know that it cannot be used to buy weapons to attack the U.S. or it's allies, nor can it be used to supress religious or ethnic minorities, nor used to jail political dissidents. I would be happy to do business with China if I felt that my money would not be used for these sorts of activities. This is my point once again.

Nothing disrespecting, but this is where you are wrong with your assumption. You seem to assume that oppressions need money. The truth is exactly the opposite. Back then, Mao didn't need money to commit his atrocities, and neither did Pol-Pot, Stalin, and the rest. The poorer a country is, the more oppression there will be. Or are you oblivious to the fact that most autocratic countries are poor? Actually, the jailing of dissidents and surpression of minorities have been reduced by many times since China opened up to the West. You NEED to finally recognize this fact.

Certainly the US has enough nukes to wipe out China or the rest of the world. But I don't consider it a victory if it means the loss of 30 million Americans.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
The people I spoke with in various Chinese cities (July 1998, mostly Beijing and Changzhou, but also Nanjing and Guangzhou) indicated the opposite.

The atmosphere can turn hostile if Americans start acting like Sikander.

Some commentators have argued that the government and the populace have struck an implicit deal: you keep us in power, and we will let you grow rich. Would you agree with this assessment?

That's better than the outright oppression before the 1990s. At least now the government has to do something for its citizens to ensure its hold on power. If the population keeps making more demands(which I think it will since humans are inherently greedy), then the country is moving in a more democratic direction.

Firewall and Fa Long Da Feng (Pinyin correct?) examples have already been raised. (One could understand, but still not sympathise with, the government's response to the latter, given the prior Chinese experience with religious movements.)

Although I did not agree with Falungong's teaching, I also disagree with government's handling of the whole situation. The government was the one who brain-washed its population for decades and made the people succeptable to the non-sense sects like FLG. They(the commies) were the one initially supporting and encouraging these sects for some very obsure reasons. Finally, they were the one who used the most harsh methods available to crack down on those sects. Ironic, huh?

Also, when we were there in February 1996 and July 1998 there were substantial restrictions on freedom of movement. People could not live in cities or obtain city services (health, sanitation, education) without official permission. Permission often required Communist Party membership, which led to political control. As a result, many people who were seeking jobs but did not have official permission lived in shanty towns just over the city line. (We walked through such a place outside Changzhou.) Are such restrictions still in place? If so, to what extent are they still enforced?

I think a major reform about the residence permission is going on right now. There is definitely more freedom today than 4 years ago.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Okay, what about this? I send you a copy of my VCD, you send me a copy of yours, and we both send a copy of our doco to Adam Smith who will act as an arbitrator.

I double dog dare you.

Two days for this?

I'm finished with you. I shouldn't bully you. Instead, I feel pity for you. You will always have this problem, and never be truly happy. The more you try to convince yourself otherwise the worse you'll get.

[mindseye]

Sorry, I haven't been around for awhile, and wanted to catch up on this interesting thread ...

Urban Ranger wrote about his friend who was at Tiananmen and claims the popular version is wrong:

It wasn't a morning. The PLA finally entered the square at 22:00 IIRC. He was right near Tiannamen at the whole time, or most of the time anyway.

I think your friend was hours late and some distance from most of the killing. Most of the casualties were inflicted on civilians manning blockades on the main streets leading to Tiananmen, to the west of the Square and several miles to the east of it. The army entered the city around sunset on June 3, the worst of the combat took place that evening, before the army reached the Square itself around midnight. However, there was still plenty of bloodshed in and around the Square on the morning of the 4th. Here's a very detailed account written by a Canadian Chinese witness apparently much closer to the action than your pal.

Really, UR, you should be embarrassed by your selective blindness about China's history (I recall you also claiming hardly anyone died during the monstrous famine caused by the Party's policies during the Great Leap Forward). The events of June 3rd and 4th are well documented by Chinese and western sources. You are ranking yourself with Holocaust denyers!

... and about Fairbanks:

I did. I have his China: A New History. He didn't have much to say about it.

You are right, it's the last thing in the book, it looks like an afterthought. For a better treatment, you might check Maurice Meisners' "Mao's China and After" (The Free Press, Third Edition 1999) which provides a much more detailed account.


DinoDoc coughed:

*cough*Falun Gong*cough*

Just out of curiosity, did the western media cover the self-immolations in Tiananmen Square by misguided Falun Gongers in early 2001? While I wouldn't dream of defending the CCP's heavy-handed treatment of them, there's more to Falun Gong than tai-chi-like exercises, as the western media so often would have it.

On a related note, I asked an American friend about the Christmas services he attended at the state Catholic church. He said it was basically the same as back in his native Chicago.


Sikander declared:

By not sending my money to China, I know that it cannot be used to buy weapons, ( ... etc)

Well, yeah, but as has been previously mentioned, the products you are buying almost certainly came from private companies, so little of that money is finding its way back into state coffers. Do you also boycott French goods? Have you every taken a look at French arms exports and who they go to?

I think on this issue we will just have to agree to disagree. I concur with most of your postings hereabouts (thank you for vomiting over Michael Milken), on this topic important to us both, we differ.

The post of mine which you copied in full was a reply to Mindseye's post directly above it, which in the end asked the question:

"Okay, given the composition and strength of China's military, can anyone explain how it poses a credible threat to the US - or anyone else not neighboring China itself?"

Feel free to comment on my reply in the context it was written in.

Sorry, finally getting around to responding to this ... you wrote in more detail:

We have to rely on MAD in the end, because I don't see how we will be able to keep the Chinese from building enough weapons to defeat any countermeasures currently contemplated.

I don't think it matters if they build one more or two thousand more. We have to rely on MAD either way. I really don't see China's nuclear arsenal as a threat as long as it is so overwhelmingly counterbalanced by that of the US. They are hardly going to launch a first strike with less than 20 ICBMs - or even a hypothetical force ten times that number.

The other main threat to the U.S. is the Chinese submarine fleet. A very significant portion of U.S. trade passes near enough China to be threatened by a submarine fleet

It's true that the Chinese sub force could certainly cause great disruption to trade through the Taiwan Strait, however I don't see how this poses much of a threat to the US, either. Think of the context such a deployment would take place in - if China was at the point of blockading or attacking merchant shipping, much larger trade considerations (i.e. direct US-China trade) would presumably already be in complete disruption. The loss of trade through the Taiwan Straits (or other coastal waters) would be peanuts in comparison. In other words, the sub force would only be a problem if there was already a far worse situation occurring. And in that case, the US Pacific fleet could probably deal with most of those outdated Chinese diesels pretty quickly (they only have a handful of truly modern subs).

Transcend mentioned:

I think a major reform about the residence permission is going on right now.

Really? Hope so, although I have not seen or heard anything about this. I have to join Adam Smith in reminding Alinestra of the houkou system (residence permits) as being one major infringement on personal freedom that the average Chinese has to deal with.

On the other hand, I heartily concur with her that in general, the personal freedom conditions of the typical city dweller are much more like life in an American city than most Americans realize (I certainly did not realize this before I moved here). I don't think a media conspiracy is behind this, just lazy reporting (stories that buck the prevailing perception are less likely to be published/aired) and a speed of change that is difficult for anyone not here witnessing it to keep up with.

- mindseye

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Just out of curiosity, did the western media cover the self-immolations in Tiananmen Square by misguided Falun Gongers in early 2001?

Yes they did.

If the Falun Gong isn't your cup of tea we could discuss the numerous other examples of religious persecution in China in an effort to make the discussion accessible to both sides.

[mindseye]

(sigh) As has been stated before, there is undeniably religious oppression occurring in China, but you would be mistaken in ignoring the larger picture of rapid improvement.

Geez, I can see a church from my apartment window!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
(sigh) As has been stated before, there is undeniably religious oppression occurring in China, but you would be mistaken in ignoring the larger picture of rapid improvement.

You might want to take a look at the context in which I brought up the plight of the Falun Gong and religious persecution in China before accusing me of myopia.

I was responding to Alinestra that personal freedon in China is similar to that taken for granted in the US which I found to be an out and out lie.

Geez, I can see a church from my apartment window!

I'm sure you can see a CPA church. I was refering to the supression of the 80 million members of the underground church, etc.

[mindseye]

You might want to take a look at the context in which I brought up the plight of the Falun Gong and religious persecution in China before accusing me of myopia.

Same difference. Whatever light you look at in, it's changing fast. You keep pointing at a single point on the graph while ignoring the steep trend line.

I was responding to Alinestra that personal freedon in China is similar to that taken for granted in the US which I found to be an out and out lie.

Call it an "out and out lie" if you like, but I would say it's more or less true, at least for the inhabitants of major cities. I'm basing my claim on my experience living here for over a year. Most of the expats I've talked with (western and Asian) agree. In fact, in some important ways, life here is MORE free due to the lack of crime, another thing routinely ignored in the western media.

Chinese people are often profoundly baffled that westerners think they are oppressed - I have had friends and students laugh out loud over the notion. Most people in big cities simply don't give a hoot about the things westerners obsess about. For instance few city dwellers could care less about Christian religion or organizing a new political party. It's simply not important to them or anyone they know.

Take the much touted issue of "human rights" - most Chinese I encounter think Americans don't know what they are talking about, and think the US should clean up its own human rights abuses before poking its nose into Chinese affairs. For example, if you want to talk about Tibet, you better be prepared to talk about Native American reservations. Anyway, this is what I hear from students and friends, not newspapers or speeches. This is what I gather from walking the side streets, not reading biased web sites.

I'm sure you can see a CPA church. I was refering to the supression of the 80 million members of the underground church, etc.

I'm sure it is a state church, but as two of us mentioned so far here, there seems to be little difference between the state church and the Rome-based version. I'll try to go to a mass soon to verify this, right now I'm going on the first-hand claim of an American friend who attended services here in Shanghai. Do you know of any differences in religious practices of the two churches?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Transcend

Nothing disrespecting, but this is where you are wrong with your assumption. You seem to assume that oppressions need money. The truth is exactly the opposite.

You are taking my statement too far. Oppression can be done for very little cash money, but it does take a lot of labor. Weapons can similarly be built for the cost of labor and materials, but there is a fairly high opportunity cost involved, and a likely tradeoff in quality if foreign designs and expertise are not utilized by a state which is not one of the leaders in military technology. Money makes it all a lot easier.

Originally posted by Transcend

Back then, Mao didn't need money to commit his atrocities, and neither did Pol-Pot, Stalin, and the rest. The poorer a country is, the more oppression there will be. Or are you oblivious to the fact that most autocratic countries are poor?

Most countries are poor period. Autocratic countries are more likely to stay that way. I see no reason to attempt to change this dynamic by propping up an autocracy with my money. Poverty itself is no inducement to Autocracy. Many hunter-gatherers live lives which are very free of coercion, despite their extreme poverty. There are also a number of well off and wealthy states which are pretty autocratic. What wealth brings is stability. People who have enough to eat are less likely to push for a change in the status quo.

Originally posted by Transcend
Actually, the jailing of dissidents and surpression of minorities have been reduced by many times since China opened up to the West. You NEED to finally recognize this fact.

I do recognize it. My first impression of the PRC was in the early to mid sixties, and it was not a good one. The only people I met from there were refugees, and they didn't have anything good to say about it. By the time I was in college in the late 1970s there were a few Chinese nationals there who weren't defectors. They were extremely hesitant to speak about politics at all, and most of them were children of the ruling class, and considered politically reliable. By the 1980s there were many more Chinese in the U.S., and a few of them were quite willing to speak their mind about political matters, though many of these people never returned to China. So through most of my life there has been a steady improvement in what I perceive to be the conditions in China.

The crackdown against the pro-democracy demonstrators seemed to herald the first sustained retrenchment by the government. It has gone on for years, and it is my impression that China has at best marked time in the human rights sphere while it's integration into the world politically and economically has continued at a steady pace. We have continued to trade, China has continued to grow economically, and I have yet to see an improvement in the human rights picture from my admittedly limited perspective here in the U.S. What's the hold up? If your theory that money promotes a freer governing style is correct then China should be making great strides as their economy has been growing at a dizzying pace. This seems to better support my impression that economic well-being tends to promote political inertia.

Originally posted by Transcend
Certainly the US has enough nukes to wipe out China or the rest of the world. But I don't consider it a victory if it means the loss of 30 million Americans.

You seem to be saying that if we don't trade with China, then they are going to nuke us, even though it's obvious that we will wipe them off the face of the planet for doing so. What possible justification do you have for such a pessimistic view of the situation? My point is that even if the Chinese get pissed because Americans are refusing to trade, they are not going to start throwing nukes around. I am no fan of the Chinese government, but I don't think that there are more than a handful of Chinese people who would trade their existence as a nation for 30 million American lives. What sort of scenario do you have in mind whereby an American embargo ends in a nuclear conflagration?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Whatever light you look at in, it's changing fast. You keep pointing at a single point on the graph while ignoring the steep trend line.

Present actions that are showing no obvious sign of change are of much more concern than actions that might happen in some possible rosy scenario for the future.

Call it an "out and out lie" if you like, but I would say it's more or less true, at least for the inhabitants of major cities.

What is freedom without freedom of conscience?

In fact, in some important ways, life here is MORE free due to the lack of crime, another thing routinely ignored in the western media.

I can imagine that people living in Nazi-era Berlin or Stalinist Moscow saying very much the samething. Would that have made thier contemporaries cries about an opressive regime wrong as well?

Most people in big cities simply don't give a hoot about the things westerners obsess about. For instance few city dwellers could care less about Christian religion or organizing a new political party. It's simply not important to them or anyone they know.

Since when is a de minimis arguement sufficent basis to deny people freedom? I'd very much like to hear the answer to this question.

For example, if you want to talk about Tibet, you better be prepared to talk about Native American reservations.

But I don't want to talk about Tibet at all. I wish to speak about the persecution of Christians in China. What would I have to be prepared to talk about in that instance?

This is what I gather from walking the side streets, not reading biased web sites.

Show me the bias.

Do you know of any differences in religious practices of the two churches?

There are two differences that I know of acording to my sources:

1) To qualify for the clergy, one must demonstrate "political reliability" and pass an examination of their political knowledge.

2) The State-run version does not acknowlege the authority of the Vatican which seems to jive with the State's concerted attempts to eradicate the underground Catholic Church.

[ranskaldan]

A lot of you have obviously never been to China before in your life. Go there and take a look for yourself!

(Oh yes, I forgot, you aren't supposed to spend money in China, oh yes...)

What most people don't seem to get, is that A NATION IS DIFFERENT FROM A COMPANY.

In a company, the more money you pour in, the easier it is for the company to survive.

NATIONS don't work that way.

---------

Sikander has objected to "spending money to prop up an autocratic regime".

But the fact is:
You aren't propping up a regime. The regime will survive, whether or not you spend that money. The regime will be nasty, whether or not you spend that money.

However, the people of China will be richer, leader happier lives, and have brighter futures if you spend that money.

Are you going to, in your futile attempt to save 1.2 billion from human rights abuses (which actually only a fraction of them suffer from anyway), throw these very same 1.2 billion people into poverty and desperation?

----------

The Chinese economy and the economies of the West, Japan and Taiwan are already entwined. But even if they weren't, an equally important factor is OPENNESS. A well-educated, well-read population cannot be cheated and swindled by a government. An ignorant, fanatic population can.

Openness leads to better lives. If you truly want to help, you shouldn't close the door that is opening.

----------

Also, comparisons of China today to "Stalinist Moscow", and claims that there haven't been "significant improvements in human rights", are totally ridiculous.

25 years ago, you couldn't choose your job in China. All consumer products were rationed. You couldn't buy a car. You couldn't travel to foreigner countries. You couldn't speak to foreigners. You couldn't listen to American radio.
All of these have changed. Totally.

You can, in fact, live your entire life in China in the same way you would in America, without feeling oppressed. I'm not saying that everyone would be able to do so, since there are human rights transgressions. But you, me, Sikander, DinoDoc, or anyone else here, certainly can, with ease. (Well, don't write any books that criticize the government. But I'm sure you weren't planning to do that anyway.)

Before you think of living in China as "a hellhole", try to actually listen to those who have lived, or are still living, in this "hellhole". The very fact that they vehemently object to this tells you something.

As I would want to say once again, some of the posters here need to spend some time in China, to see what is really like, instead of what it sorta looks like on CNN.