The China Teaching Web
Click Here to Subsribe to the 'The Vance Report' Feed
Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared
Posted in The Vance Report on 04/25/2008 04:22 am
“My father was sent to a camp to be re-educated and my uncle went to prison because they knew someone who the government did not like,” one of my close friends told me recently. She explained to me that because of ill treatment and poor nutrition, her father developed severe stomach problems in the camp which have remained with him into middle age. Her father and her uncle, of course,were detained and released long ago while Chairman Mao still ‘held the reins’ of power over the PRC. When I asked my friend if her father held a grudge against the Chinese government because of his unjust detainment, I was startled by her answer. She replied that while her father viewed his detainment as a serious mistake by the government, he was never resentful because he believed that such ‘errors in judgement’ were an integral part of the growing process for the new PRC. She explained to me that her father is not a Communist but that he greatly admires “what Chairman Mao did for China” and that he was more than willing to sacrifice his time and his health for the well-being of the country.
This fierce patriotism is the ’superglue’ that has held China together during the last 60 years. It is what has prevented people from losing faith in their government and in themselves during periods of intense starvation, political upheaval, and national turmoil. The Chinese patriotism in fact a powerful phenemenon that transcends Chairman Mao, the CCP, and the creation of the PRC in 1949. This patriotism emanates from the land itself: the mountains and valleys, the rivers and the lakes, the forests and the deserts, the rolling countryside and the sprawling cities. It is a feeling that is based on thousands of years of history, a feeling that has been passed down from generation to generation. This patriotism, which sometimes seems almost tangible, is the only form of religion that most Chinese people have ever adhered to. They worship their country and treat her with the respect that other cultures would bestow upon a ‘god.’ Of course, the principal way in which they feel they can show that respect an honor is through an unwavering allegiance to their government.
In many ways, I do respect this Chinese patriotism which is ’second to none’ in the modern world. The patriotic facade that is ‘put on’ by many Chinese people is often harsh and defensive. However, I have been able to break through that ‘wall’ and discover that behind the rhetoric there is a deep sense by Chinese people that the survival of their country in such a hostile world has been ‘nothing short of miraculous.’ So many things in China have changed but the love of country and a steadfast trust in the government are the only ideologies that Chinese people have been able to ‘hang onto’ in the past 60 years. Without this patriotism, it is highly unlikely that the PRC would have survived and continued on its current path of development. It is no wonder then that Chinese people are so defensive when people attack their government and their system of life. They feel as if their foundation and their mainstay for existence is being ‘ripped out from under them’ by the foreign media.
While I admire this patriotism and how it unifies China, I also fear it. A Chinese friend once told me that “every man, woman, and child” would be glad to take up arms for China should the Taiwan conflict ever escalate. I believe him. Patriotism is driven into Chinese children from a very early age. They grow up believing that there is nothing more important in life than their country and its interests. I would pity the country that had the collective patriotism and will of the Chinese people focused upon it in war; it would be like a military grade laser beam being focused on a single grain of wheat. The results would be catastrophic. It would be foolish to underestimate the strength of the Chinese in a conflict. For this reason, the Chinese government in recent days has attempted to gently ‘calm the masses’ as they have descended upon Carrefour and protested the comments made by CNN’s Jack Cafferty. The government does not want to dampen the patriotic spirit but at the same time understands the danger in allowing the protests to go too far.
While it is easy to imagine how Chinese patriotism would influence the outcome of a war in China, it is more difficult to imagine the Chinese with guns in their hands. The Chinese people are peaceful; they have demonstrated that quality recently during their protests at Carrefour. They just want to be heard. One of my students asked me today if I “thought it was wrong for the Chinese people to ask CNN for an apology.” I thought about it for a moment and realized that the Chinese people have this right. CNN has the right to refuse the request as well but there is no reason why the Chinese people cannot ask a news organization to retract a statement that they feel was detrimental to their culture. I just hope that they can make these protests based on their own informed opinions and patriotism and not on what the government is saying through the media. If that is the case, then the Chinese people should cherish their right to protest and do it proudly.
Other Recent Posts in The Vance Report
Don't miss...
- Whatever Happened to EV71?
- Looking Back on China in 2008
- IOC Finally Takes Action on Olympic Gymnastics Age Scandal
- What China’s Communist Party Can Teach Barak Obama
- Mooncakes and North Korea Dominate the Weekly China Roundup
- Should I Choose a China ESL Teaching Package With Free Housing?
- Should China Shrug Off Olympic Slit-Eyed Photos?
04/25/2008 at 10:03 pm
What would you define as the difference between Chinese patriotism and Chinese nationalism?
04/26/2008 at 3:17 am
Hi Demerzel,
You bring up a good question. As you noticed, I did not use the word ‘nationalism’ in my post. I’m sure you know that although the two terms are often used interchangeably they are quite different in meaning. Those who are convinced that the Chinese are ‘forcing themselves’ on the Tibetans would probably be more apt to use the word ‘nationalism’ in place of ‘patriotism.’ Nationalism is of a fanatical nature; nationalists have a one tracked mind and country is more important than anything else in their lives. Again, some may choose to use ‘nationalists’ to describe the Chinese people. I think the term definitely can be applied to the ruling Communist party. I used the word ‘patriotism’ because I do sense that Chinese people truly love this land and that their love transcends the Communist party. They love this land because of its long history and rich culture. Perhaps I could have used the word ‘nationalism’, however, in the latter part of my article to describe how the Chinese would act in war. In this case, I think that ‘nationalism’ would rear its ugly head and replace the ‘fierce patriotism’ which now exists in China.
04/26/2008 at 1:34 pm
The difference between patriotism and nationalism is the difference between the love that a child has for their mother and the love a stalker has for his victim.
A patriot will love his/her country in spite of all its faults, and will attempt to rectify them, a nationalist ignores these faults and blames everything that is wrong in his country on foreigners. A patriot wishes to serve his country, a nationalist wishes his country to serve him. A patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates his country’s enemies and thinks this is the same as love.
It is not for nothing that the online fenqing (愤清) have been labelled aiguozei (爱国贼 - patriotic traitors) by more levelled-headed Chinese observers - that is , the hateful way in which they run their mouths issuing death-threats and calls to arms which they have no intention to keep is something which is actually quite harmful to China’s image - sensible people recognise this.
As for the force of Chinese patriotism in war, before WW1 it is unlikely that any country in the world had quite the level of nationalistic fervour and desire to right perceived wrongs as that which existed in Germany, but it was the nature and sheer force of German nationalism which turned others against them. Likewise, no country’s armed forces have shown quite the willingness to die for their country as the Japanese armed forces did during WW2, but as General Paton said, the true business of war is ‘not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his’. Both Germany and Japan received a hard schooling in what the true cost of holding your country’s honour so high that every slight is seen as a national insult is, it is my true and sincere hope that no such schooling need ever be given to China.
04/27/2008 at 12:51 pm
A patriot will love his/her country in spite of all its faults, and will attempt to rectify them, a nationalist ignores these faults and blames everything that is wrong in his country on foreigners. A patriot wishes to serve his country, a nationalist wishes his country to serve him. A patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates his country’s enemies and thinks this is the same as love.
Now that is good way of explaining it! I think one can go a bit further in explanation as I have come across Americans whom think that the US is technologically advanced in every single thing above every other nation. I would put those kinds of thoughts under nationalism as well–that the country is and always will be the pinnacle of civilization.
04/28/2008 at 3:28 am
I’ve certainly seen my share of angry Chinese these days. They are making threats - Internet Tough Guy[tm] threats, but nonetheless they feel violent. The most common theme is “shut up”. Needless to say, this is hardly a productive attitude.
The other edge of the sword here is the media truthfulness - now that China has discovered what the rest of the world already knew (Western media are either lazy or lying to serve their personal biases most of the time), I wonder if the Chinese people will begin to question their own media.
04/28/2008 at 6:45 am
Good point Mr. Ningbo. I am not big fan of the Western media myself but when Chinese people point fingers at other media oulets while acting as if their sources in China are the epitome of truth, their words ring hollow. It is time for the Chinese people to wake up and realize that all media outlets, whether government controlled or not, have their own biases. I would offer a large sum to the person who show me a truly objective news organization.
04/28/2008 at 7:10 am
@Demerzel - this is why contact with the outside world is the ultimate antidote and cure for nationalism, and why nationalism is more prevelant on the whole in countries like the US and China where people have little opportunity to meet those from other countries.
As a young boy I thought that the UK was the best at everything, I remember my disappointment when the English football team lost in the semi-finals against Germany “How could we lose?” I thought, because at that time I believed we were the best - but obviously Peter Shilton and Chris Waddle were not as good (or, at least, not as lucky) as their German counterparts. Likewise, as a child I had an argument with my mother: “Britain has always been on the right side in the wars she has fought, and has never lost”, my mother tutted and said “haven’t you ever heard of the opium wars? And what about the American war of independence and 1066?”. I had always thought Britain to be the richest country on earth, until I discovered that Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg etc. are richer, and although Stone Henge might be more than 5,000 years old, this still only puts it in the same age bracket as Chinese civilisation - and the Pyramids are still much older than both.
You see, without those experiences, and the myriad discoveries that one gets from contact of any kind with people of other countries, I might still be walking around thinking that the UK is the best place in the world at everything - it is from this position that I view both Chinese and American (and British) nationalism.
Still, we kick arse at Rugby!
04/28/2008 at 7:30 am
“Good point Mr. Ningbo. I am not big fan of the Western media myself but when Chinese people point fingers at other media oulets while acting as if their sources in China are the epitome of truth, their words ring hollow. It is time for the Chinese people to wake up and realize that all media outlets, whether government controlled or not, have their own biases. I would offer a large sum to the person who show me a truly objective news organization.”
Bob,
We have been always knowing our media has problems. We have known it better than you did. But we knew what kind of information the government hided something and what kind of didn’t.
Dare you bet for me about Feudal Serfdorm system ruled by 50 years ago?
Dalai said it’s peaceful theocracy and you believed it.
Chinese government said its’ serfdorm system and I believed it.
Now should we bet on that?
04/28/2008 at 7:39 am
FOARP and Demerzel,
Thank you for the interesting comments. I have one question. If you had written a similar story would you have chosen to use the word ‘nationalism’ in place of ‘patriotism?’ In my opinion, there are plenty of people in China who fall into both categories.
04/28/2008 at 7:43 am
“You see, without those experiences, and the myriad discoveries that one gets from contact of any kind with people of other countries, I might still be walking around thinking that the UK is the best place in the world at everything - it is from this position that I view both Chinese and American (and British) nationalism.”
FOARP,
Please don’t be so confident on it since you have been to China. I have been to US, UK, Canada and Sigapore and Malaysia, totally oversea time more than 2 years etc. I just returned from UK on 3/10. I mastered 3 languages (English, German, Chinese) and 2 dilacts. Think about millions of oversea Chineses, they have been to every corner of the world. They are enjoying the western freedom and democracy.
Chinese has never thought they were the best in the world. Chinese knows hard working and peaceful living can make better life. If others don’t insult us, we will be friendly. If we can not bear the insult, it will break out. That’s why this time it’s broke out because it could be bearable any more.
04/28/2008 at 8:10 am
“If we can not bear the insult, it will break out. That’s why this time it’s broke out because it could be bearable any more”
Once again, if protests which were almost entirely non-violent, the ill-advised comments of one CNN commentater and a few photos showing Tibetan riots in Nepal over a piece about riots in China and elsewhere add up to ‘an unbearable insult’ then what chance is there of ever living in peace with China? And why are the small and harmless insults that foreigners have made so much more important than the vast wrongs that corrupt officials and businessmen inflict on China everyday?
04/28/2008 at 8:58 am
“While I admire this patriotism and how it unifies China, I also fear it. A Chinese friend once told me that “every man, woman, and child” would be glad to take up arms for China should the Taiwan conflict ever escalate. I believe him. Patriotism is driven into Chinese children from a very early age. They grow up believing that there is nothing more important in life than their country and its interests. I would pity the country that had the collective patriotism and will of the Chinese people focused upon it in war; it would be like a military grade laser beam being focused on a single grain of wheat.”
In regards to the Taiwan conflict, what you are describing is patently not patriotism, but nationalism. As George Orwell defines it (and I agree):
‘Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.’
Taiwan is never going to attack the mainland. If a war comes, it will be because the mainland attacks Taiwan for making a decision the mainland doesn’t like. Therefore, any support for a war against Taiwan is support for aggression rather than defense. You can’t be enthusiastic about taking up arms and forcing people to become part of your country, regardless of what they want, without being a nationalist rather than a patriot.
But setting aside that, having a population of fanatical nationalists is a good asset in war. I tend to think, however, that military competence, intelligent diplomacy, and modern weaponry turn out better results. There’s a reason why U.S. analysts refer to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan as the ‘million man swim’, and the last time China turned it’s laser-beam-like ultra-nationalism against a country the result was the debacle of the Vietnam invasion of 1979.
I don’t fear China….yet. Barring an actual invasion of the mainland, which would of course be horrific and probably catastrophic, China simpIy isn’t prepared for the kind of naval and air war which would likely mark a war with the United States and/or Japan.
Call me back in 2050 and I may have changed my mind, but for right now Chinese nationalism is far more dangerous to China itself than to any of it’s neighbors.
04/28/2008 at 9:12 am
Incidentally, I quoted Orwell above. The essay quoted was ‘Notes on Nationalism’, which concisely explains why my feelings towards Chinese nationalism lean much, much more heavily towards intense dislike rather than fear or respect. It isn’t a virtue in any sense of the word; it’s a flawed, illogical habit of mind which makes debates with the average 憤青 a brain-cell killing exercise in futility. I would very much like to see this kind of thought weeded out of people everywhere, whether in China or the United States or Britain or insert-country-here, but unfortunately it seems to really hit people hard in China….and East Asia in general.
Here’s the essay. Extremely good read, highly recommended.
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79e/part30.html
04/28/2008 at 9:36 am
Ivan,
Thanks for your comments. I think you make a good assessment by writing that a war with Taiwan would be nationalistic reaction as opposed to a patriotic reaction. However, if I may play devil’s advocate for a moment, my friends in China ‘claim’ that most people in Taiwan want to be united with China. That is what the Chinese government tries to make them believe. I know, after talking to many Taiwanese that this is completely untrue. Nevertheless, if there was ever a war with Taiwan, the Chinese government would easily garner the support of the majority of its citizens by making them think that by using military action, they were actually defending the Taiwanese(and the country of China) against a small separatist minority. That is why I want to be careful about using the term ‘nationalist’ to label the Chinese people. Their government is definitely nationalist in its thinking but the Chinese people have been tricked into thinking that Taiwan is a patriotic issue. They think that it is their duty to defend their Taiwanese ‘brothers and sisters’ from the evil people who want to rip Taiwan away from its mother.
04/28/2008 at 9:40 am
“Harmless or not” is not decided by your perception.
So do you think he could say “Negro” agaisnt “black america” in US. According to your word, it’s harmless too. And all of discrimination words is harmless in your term.
And again it’s just few photos issue. It’s because the western media didn’t tell the truth about Tibet.
I enumerate again here:
1million massacre tibetan people
Culture Genocide
No free religion
Tibetan is suppressed by Chinese government
All above are not the true stories. That’s the reason.
Patroisam or Nationlism, it’s just a term. Ask US why 90% of their citizen agreed for inavding Iraq, 5 years still death everyday. I don’t know what you called these so democracied and so called “peace lover” agreed the war for killing. Why didn’t you charge George Bush and US patroism as War criminal?
What did your country do in the last 2 centuries? Who was the first country to invade China, bringing the opium to China? Why didn’t you blame ancenstor for the crime? Look at your British Museum. How many treasures did you loot from all of the world? Now it’s peaceful day. Why don’t you pursade your government to return these treasures to those which have been conquered by your “civilized” army? Who did really inaved the Tibet? It’s you in the earlier 1900s.
Did you China invade any other countries in the long histories? No. We have suffered for centuries. I have just begun our peaceful life after 1949. Why did we suffer so long time? It’s because of your civilized countries.
In 1949, our country just really returened back soveingty. During the developement, obviously Mao made mistakes and people suffered. But now the government has corrected the mistake and tried to focus on development. We wanted to have stable sociaty to keep on the development. Any war or unstable status is not what we need. Riots like that is not bearable. And the riots were called like peaceful demonstration is not torelated. Any method to break our mutual living between ethnics is not tolerated too. That’s why we have to fight against the western media. This is way to protect our social stable and soveingty.
If you can not understand, please don’t talk about Chinese issue.
04/28/2008 at 10:04 am
Worry about the ware is unnecessary. China appreciates this time and focuses on its economy and social problem. It has no intention to declare any war to any country unlese China is invaded. According to current situation, Taiwan will not declare totally independence with this election as Ma as president.
The relationship currently with neighbors is ok. I think the worry is unnecessary.
The country which is mostly likely to declare war is US. Every 10 years US liked to have a war overseas.
1950s Korea War Supported Iran’s “Democracy” president which was failured soon
1960s Vietnam War
1970s Overthrown Cambodian government and created a new “democracy” power and was failure quickly.
1980s Supported Iraq Sadam to fight against Iran
1990s First Gulf War Serbian War for Kosovo, resulting in Kosovo independence.
2000s Afghanistan war against Taliban, Iraq war against Sadam
What’s the next war? Against Iran, North Korea or Cuba? All possible
Try to split Tibetan? there is possibility. But China will not allow that happen.
04/28/2008 at 10:17 am
“However, if I may play devil’s advocate for a moment, my friends in China ‘claim’ that most people in Taiwan want to be united with China. That is what the Chinese government tries to make them believe. I know, after talking to many Taiwanese that this is completely untrue. Nevertheless, if there was ever a war with Taiwan, the Chinese government would easily garner the support of the majority of its citizens by making them think that by using military action, they were actually defending the Taiwanese(and the country of China) against a small separatist minority. That is why I want to be careful about using the term ‘nationalist’ to label the Chinese people. Their government is definitely nationalist in its thinking but the Chinese people have been tricked into thinking that Taiwan is a patriotic issue. They think that it is their duty to defend their Taiwanese ‘brothers and sisters’ from the evil people who want to rip Taiwan away from its mother.”
This is true, and it would probably more fairly be labelled as misguided patriotism for many or most of them rather than genuine nationalism. What worries me, however, is that large numbers of Chinese I’ve interacted with seem to have swallowed whole this idea that ‘China’ must be defined as ‘the Qing Empire at it’s height’, and anything less than that is an attempt to ‘divide China’, regardless of whether those former parts of the Qing want anything to do with the PRC.
When I see the arguments made about why Tibet is part of China, for example, the issue of what the Tibetan people themselves want is rarely mentioned. There is a lot of talk about how much better off they are under Chinese rule, a lot of talk about how ugly and backward Tibet was before the PRC took over, and a lot of talk about historic claims….but the simple question, ‘do the Tibetans want to be a part of China?’ seems almost irrelevant. If it were possible, I’d really like to do a survey and ask a large number of Chinese citizens: ‘If the majority of Tibetans were in support of independence and opposed to Chinese rule, without foreign or outside manipulation of any sort, would you still support Chinese rule in Tibet?’
I have an ugly feeling what the answer would be for the overwhelming majority, because right now the PRC has framed the entire question in terms of CHINA’s rights to it’s territory rather than the rights of other people to self-determination. In other words, it’s molded the thinking of the population of China to think in terms of nationalism rather than patriotism.
I’m only happy they’ve chosen the Qing as their model of what the ‘true China’ should be. I can’t wait for the day some wit decides to start defining ‘China’ as the Yuan dynasty at it’s height and lays claim to Siberia, Korea, Vietnam, and so on.
04/28/2008 at 10:29 am
Jason Ding,
You are commiting a very, very common error which I see repeated by Chinese netizens constantly. The technical term for what you’re doing is ‘Ad hominem’, and it’s a logical fallacy. Read about it here in English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
Or here in Chinese:
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%BA%E8%BA%AB%E6%94%BB%E6%93%8A%E7%9A%84%E8%AC%AC%E8%AA%A4
To put it simply, if the United States were spending every second of every day boiling Iraqi children alive, it would not make China’s actions in Tibet even the slightest bit more correct. Or incorrect, for that matter. It has no relation to anything related to Tibet. Not even in the slightest.
04/28/2008 at 1:22 pm
@Ivan - Yes, I have even heard Chinese of the ‘愤青’ variety call for the return of Mongolia - which after all was de facto Chinese until 1921 - de jure the R.O.C. still claims Mongolia as part of the ‘Mainland area’. The PRC recognised Mongolian independence after the civil war - this following a referendum held under Soviet auspices in which the Mongolian population voted overwhelmingly for independence. Somehow these elements - a seperate ethnic group wishing to found their own state, being allowed a referendum in which they voted for independence and then peacefully spliting off - are not mentioned in Chinese text books, which merely noted that in such-and-such a year Mongolia acheived independence and leave it at that. Where is there hatred for the Mongolia ’splitists’?
04/28/2008 at 3:51 pm
Ah, yes. Jason Ding said it right there - don’t talk. Don’t debate, don’t argue, don’t say anything that doesn’t agree. And attacks against other countries are a substitute for defending your own. As an American, I am so accustomed to being relentlessly attacked at every opportunity for every reason under the sun, I barely notice it any more.
04/28/2008 at 6:50 pm
@ Ivan,
Any chance you are the Ivan of Peking Duck.com fame?
04/28/2008 at 10:14 pm
“To put it simply, if the United States were spending every second of every day boiling Iraqi children alive, it would not make China’s actions in Tibet even the slightest bit more correct. Or incorrect, for that matter. It has no relation to anything related to Tibet. Not even in the slightest.”
@Ivan,
First of all, I think you have deviate the topic, not me. Here Bob said he worried about the war that China may declare. My answer is no. But most probably, there will be another war declared by US, the history of the war showed about that. And we have seen the patrioism of US citizen’s. I listed the evidence and told the truth. I don’t think I could agreee that you said that I’m “Ad hominem”. If I provided the information is wrong, please pointed about, I could read the book again and correct my mistake. Then apologize to you.
For Tibet issue, when you said that government did things wrong, please give me evidence. Please don’t use “culture revolution”, at that time, the whole countries were suffered seriously. Please presented the evidence about the current government’s wrong doing.
04/28/2008 at 11:20 pm
@Bob,
To my surprise, I thought only Chinese used the “Hat” to put on someone if any dispute happened. I found now that US guys are also familiar with these skills. I got two, perhasp Three Hats now “Brainwahsed”, “Ad hominem”and perhaps “愤青”, wondering if Foarp has already put that hat on me.
Why did such kind of debate still applu the “Hat” to someone? In US or Uk, do you use the same way during debate?
04/29/2008 at 3:20 am
“wondering if Foarp has already put that hat on me.”
In the UK we say “If the cap fits, wear it”
04/29/2008 at 5:16 am
@Bob - To answer your question, yes, I would have used ‘nationalism’ rather than patriotism. Patriotism cannot be a political force in the same way that ‘parenthood’ cannot be a political force - it is something that the vast majority of people agree with.
04/30/2008 at 8:51 pm
@FOARP
Britain may be the best at rugby, but that’s only because no one cares about the sport, just like no one cares about American football.
Seriously though, you are right, and it’s always why I tell my Shanghainese friends that Shanghai is not yet Cosmopolitan.
@Robert Vance
I may have titled the article “Why Nationalism is a Double-Edged Sword” instead, but would I interchange patriotism with nationalism? No. I would, however, note the very fine line between patriotism and nationalism.
@Jason Ding
China invaded Vietnam after the US which was after France.
“During the developement, obviously Mao made mistakes and people suffered.”
uhm… that’s a nice way of saying millions die of starvation by a man who never learned how to govern see the errors of his ways (incidentally, similar to many other country uniters-turned rulers)–thank goodness for Deng Xiaoping.
04/30/2008 at 8:54 pm
Sino-Vietnamese war in case you’re wondering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
05/01/2008 at 6:18 am
“Britain may be the best at rugby, but that’s only because no one cares about the sport,”
Spoken to any Aussies/Kiwis/Springboks/French/Argentines/Italians/Irish lately?
Plus you forgot to mention the invasion of India and the Soviet Union. If I was Nanheyangrouchuan I would now cut into a rant about how China is an aggressive country and a threat to world peace, but this would be an exaggeration. The Chinese leadership see little wrong with invading their neighbours when it suits their interests, but they have no interest in sparking a war at the moment.
As for the difference between patriotism I would say that Mao was a clear example of a nationalist who is obviously not a patriot. Several times he had the opportunity to end the civil war and to co-operate better with the KMT in fighting the Japanese, but in each instance he preferred to carry on with the internal dispute with the KMT and inflict great suffering on China. Sure, Chiang Kai-Shek had his own share in this, but Mao could have ended it. His clear goal was the accumulation of power, placing himself as indisputable leader of the country and eliminating even those he suspected of being capable of challenging his leadership - and ruining China in the process as most modern historians accept.
05/01/2008 at 9:44 pm
@FOARP
Oh, I know, just joking around with you on that
moral of the story: Mao = Nationalist, Deng = Patriot, yes?
05/01/2008 at 10:54 pm
[...] a cultural attitude in China that seems to contradict an article that I wrote recently entitled Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Feared and Respected. The Chinese love their country very much and gladly join hands on political issues, but this unity [...]
05/02/2008 at 4:03 am
@Demerzel “moral of the story: Mao = Nationalist, Deng = Patriot, yes?”
I’ll answer that one with an absolute and resounding “maybe!”
05/02/2008 at 9:07 pm
@FOARP
Good man! hahaha
05/05/2008 at 1:51 am
Jason
You might also want to check up on your history of the korean war. It was actually started by N.Korea, not Amercia as is trypically stated by most Chinese. In addition it was a UN force of 17 nation that helped to repel Chinese and N.korean forces from taking control of S.Kore, not just America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
it is always interesting to understand how history is reflected locally in China especially when it relates to foreigners. A good example being the boxer rebellion in 1900. The normal Chinese opinion on this is that 8 armies invaded China for no reason other than to attack Beijing and loot it. There is no mention of the fact that hundreds of westerners were under siege in Beijing at this time, or that the German ambassador has his head cut off.
I think the article is a good one though with a lot to make one think, I do find it interesting about the frequent comments made that Chinese are a peaceful race. I can’t really say that China in the same way as any western powers is any more peaceful than the others. they have been involved in conflicts with korea, Russia, India, Vietnam, since the foundation of the PRC,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
and the nationalism that one sees at the moment hardly seems to say anything different has changed. Is there a lot to fear, in this respect I would certainly agree with Ivan, not at the moment, but lets see what happens in another 30 years
05/05/2008 at 8:16 am
“During the developement, obviously Mao made mistakes and people suffered.”
uhm… that’s a nice way of saying millions die of starvation by a man who never learned how to govern see the errors of his ways (incidentally, similar to many other country uniters-turned rulers)–thank goodness for Deng Xiaoping.
”
The war was totally wrong. That’s the last war that China involved. But did you know US actually supported this while Deng’s visit in US.
But if CIA didn’t subvert Cambodian Kingdom,how could Kehmir Rouge take over the power? How could the following disaster happened? There would have no vitenam invasion to cambodia and the consequent China invaded vietnam.
05/05/2008 at 8:28 am
“You might also want to check up on your history of the korean war. It was actually started by N.Korea, not Amercia as is trypically stated by most Chinese. In addition it was a UN force of 17 nation that helped to repel Chinese and N.korean forces from taking control of S.Kore, not just America
”
Yes, that’s the truth. But when did China involve this war? It’s at the time that the whole North Korea was defeated to Yalu river and it’s direct threat to Chinese border. It’s the MacArthur who made wrong judgement to provoke the Chinese to involve the war. If at the time MacArthur stopped at 38 lines, there would have been no reason for Chinese involvement. Did you agree?
05/05/2008 at 8:39 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
@Guy,
Which country really make this trouble? It’s UK which set the argued border line.
UK actually made more troubles, Tibet issue is another case.
The seperation of Inida and Pakistan resulted in serious conflict and many lifes lost. Still Keshmir problems was left.
UK fought so many countries and grabbed the treasures and left so many conflicts and pains to those people living there until now so many issues haven’t been solved.
Which country should really be blamed? Think about it.
05/05/2008 at 8:52 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
China has so long borders. There are some border dispute is regarded as normal. Resorting to war is not wise. The conflict between Soviet and China should be considered smaller in terms of War but it really severly degraded bilateral relationship which led to build normal relationship between US and China.
China learned from if that war can not solve the problem. Did you see within past 30 years China hasn’t involved any war except UN peace mission?
But look at US, 30 years, how many wars did it involve? How many lifes have been lost due to those wars?
05/05/2008 at 8:54 am
“Why the Train Collision in Shandong is not Big News”
Why did you think “Chinese thought it was not Big News”? Look at the newspaper of Chinese, actually it is.
05/05/2008 at 9:24 pm
Jason
I agree that China did physically join the Korean War after UN forces crossed the 38th parallel. However the point I was trying to make in this regard was that the Korean conflict was not started by the Americans which is typically stated in Chinese history, it was a UN conflict with support from many other countries, although America did provide the majority of the troops.
China and Russia as well as in the Vietnam conflict in the 1960’s and 70’s were behind the scenes providing supplies. America which was trying to act as a bulwark against the spread of communism and trying to promote democracy and capitalism, China and Russia also had their own agendas which were to support the spread of communism.
Regarding the other points you raised I certainly don’t disagree with your comments about the between the conflicts with Russia and India. Although I could certainly discuss with you the merits of whether these conflicts are justifiable from either side or not, as this is based on the presumption that China as it is now is entitled to the lands where the border conflict took place in the first place, both XinJiang and Tibet having been conquered in the first place by Manchu troops as part of the Manchu empire, not the Han Chinese empire, certainly what the UK and other imperialist powers did in the 19th Century was not good, and many people accept this and history has judged it accordingly. But then how many of these countries still have colonies? China frequently complains about Western Imperialism but then practices it itself in their colonies, however in this respect I digress.
You stated that “The country which is mostly likely to declare war is US. Every 10 years US liked to have a war overseas.”
1950s Korea War Supported Iran’s “Democracy” president which was failured soon (Not started by the US, UN action, supporting a country is not the same as fighting a war)
1960s Vietnam War
1970s Overthrown Cambodian government and created a new “democracy” power and was failure quickly. (Who did they overthrow, they engaged in a war to do this?)
1980s Supported Iraq Sadam to fight against Iran (not with troops, only with equipment and advisers, no different than what Russia or China has done in Cambodia, Korea and Vietnam)
1990s First Gulf War Serbian War for Kosovo, resulting in Kosovo independence. (First Gulf war was a not started by US, UN Action, Serbian war in Kosovo, not started by US, UN action)
2000s Afghanistan war against Taliban, Iraq war against Sadam (Afghanistan conflict is primarily a UN action)
In the conflicts you listed above most of these are UN actions, not US actions. In many of these cases the US was not the initial aggressor. Certainly since 9/11 America has become a lot more aggressive in how it protects itself, hence the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Were these the right things to do? We don’t know, history will judge them on this, certainly Iraq will be hard to justify
Yes since the invasion of Vietnam in the late 1970’s China has not invaded any other countries this is true, but their actions internally such as Tibet and Tiananmen Square as well as their attitudes towards Taiwan don’t show China to be any better than how the US has behaved. How will their attitudes change in the future? Again nobody knows. Since China still lays claims to other areas in India, Russia, Mongolia and Taiwan it will be interesting to see how they handle these.
05/05/2008 at 11:28 pm
@Guy,
“Serbian war in Kosovo, not started by US, UN action?”
See Below: (it’s NATO, not UN, who gave NATO the right to do this regardless of UN?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war#Kosovo_in_Tito.27s_Yugoslavia_.281945.E2.80.931986.29
[edit] Reaction to the war
The legitimacy of NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council because the war was opposed by permanent members, China and, in particular Russia, who had threatened to veto any resolution authorising force. NATO argued that their defiance of the Security Council was justified based on the claims of an “international humanitarian emergency”. Criticism was also drawn by the fact that the NATO charter specifies that NATO is an organization created for defence of its members, but in this case it was used to attack a non-NATO country which was not directly threatening any NATO member. NATO claimed that instability in the Balkans was a direct threat to the security interests of NATO members, and military action was therefore justified by the NATO charter; however, the only NATO member country to which the instability was a direct threat was Greece.
05/06/2008 at 1:01 am
Putin’s opinion represents most of our Chineses’ thoughts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#States_which_are_about_to_formally_recognise_Kosovo
Russian President Vladimir Putin described the recognition of Kosovo’s unilaterally declared independence by several major world powers as “a terrible precedent” that “breaks up the entire system of international relations” that have taken “centuries to evolve”, and “undoubtedly, it may entail a whole chain of unpredictable consequences to other regions in the world” that will come back to hit the West “in the face”.[156] During an official state visit to Serbia following the declaration, Russian President-elect Dmitry Medvedev reiterated support for Serbia and its stance on Kosovo.[157]
Russia has also said that the recent violence in Tibet is linked with the recognition by some states of the independence of Serbia’s breakaway province, Kosovo. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in an interview with a Russian newspaper, also linked the demands for greater autonomy by ethnic Albanians in Macedonia with the Kosovo issue. Lavrov said, “There are ground to presume that this is not occurring by chance. You can see what is happening in Tibet, how the separatists there are acting. The Albanians in Macedonia are already demanding a level of autonomy that is a clear step toward independence. Furthermore, events in other areas of the world give us grounds to assume that we are only at the beginning of a very precarious process”.[158]
05/06/2008 at 3:01 am
[...] people are even in the face of great adversity. I recently wrote about this in an article entitled Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared . This optimism that I speak of has fueled the Chinese people desire to work hard and to help bring [...]
05/06/2008 at 9:22 pm
Jason
Sorry you are correct it was a Nato operation, however I can’t see from reading the information on this that America just decided to start a war. If you read the whole text you will find that NATO was there originally with international peacekeepers. Their role failed as they were not allowed to do anything. After Serbian troops massacred many local civilians in 1999, it was at this point that NATO became more militarily involved and bombed the former yugoslavia, Warnings were given first to get them to stop but nothing happened. Do you think that this is wrong to go into a country when civilians are being massacred and many refugees are being forced to flee their homes. Do you not think this is a humanitarian disaster? Do you not think the international community should do something? Or should they just sit and watch. As far as the reasons you gave on why the balkans are not considered of serious import to Europe, just look at what happened there in 1914. That was the flash point for the first World War, hence one reason why European countries were concerned about it. A localised conflict in that area can quite easily get out of control and move to other neighbouring states. That would be a big worry for any nearby countries.
Even if we take this example and say ok America started the conflict, which I would tend to disagree with, as the conflict was already there. NATO was trying to stop it. The actions of Germany against the Jews and other migrant peoples has had the affect on many western countries to try to help out and stop such formes of genocide / war when they happen, especially if it is right on their doorstep. The fact that Russia and China did not support this doesn’t really surprise me, when one considers their normal reactions to such things. The deaths of a few thousand people are of no importance to the governments of Russia or China.
Your comments on the impact of Kosovo’s declaration of independence are certainly a of concern for many countries, Turkey, Spain, China, etc are all in this sort of situation, will it mean that those countries will have these issues, sure, but certainly there is no guarantee of anything. If these countries really want to stop such things happening, they should maybe consider fully why the thoughts are there in the first place and try to solve them. I don’t see too much of this happening. Certainly their is a better way to resolve these issues with dialogue, rather than force, unfortunately force tends to be the easiest way, but you have to at least sit together first and try to understand the real issues.
Again though this is by the by, as I stated before your comment incorrectly stated that America itself starts a war every 10 years just because it likes to. That statement in itself is fundamentally incorrect. America has been in many conflicts in the last century, many of which it did not want to get involved in (WW1 and WW2 specifically), but as it has emerged as the worlds global policeman since the end of the second World War, it is inevitable that they will tend to be pulled into many such conflicts. Lets face it if America had not been involved in the second world war at all, think what the face of Europe and China might be now. Maybe we would all be speaking German and Chinese would be speaking Japanese….
05/06/2008 at 11:26 pm
@Guy
US may not direct start the war in Balkans, but intentionally dismantle Yugoslavia with some Acts, you can check them out in congress achieves. Considering the deaths of a few thousand people, isn’t there a better solution to solve this problem and get Yugoslavia into EU? Serbs had been living with other ethic groups for decades under one country!
I would say that the world may need a policeman, UN is too weak, but US is not a good policeman either for some cases, it has too many hiding agendas. I don’t think US people cares about the million dead Iraq civilians, but 5000+ US soldiers, do you?
Most people still appreciate the help US given in WWII, no matter how many money US business man made to selling weapons to Japs/Soviets/Germany, many US soldiers died for liberating the world from Nazi. But the US at that time is not the US in now days.
The topic is deviated. The world is not perfect, just live through it with appreciation
05/06/2008 at 11:45 pm
@Jason:
First: “Did you China invade any other countries in the long histories? No. We have suffered for centuries. I have just begun our peaceful life after 1949. Why did we suffer so long time? It’s because of your civilized countries.”
Second: “The war was totally wrong. That’s the last war that China involved.”
Just pointing out what you said before and what you said later. Oh, and if you meant long history = pre-Republic, then China did invade Korea during Song Dynasty.
Yes, US supported, but it does not disprove the point that China /has/ embarked to declare war in its own interest without another country threatening it as well.
@Guy:
As you bring up some good points of the US using the UN (the Korean War however is a bad example considering how the US shut the doors to prevent the USSR from voting) to legitimize its wars, Jason brings up a very good point about the illegality of NATO going into Serbia without UN approval.
05/07/2008 at 6:51 am
@Guy,
US is a democracy country. But what does US as a country in international stage act as? Every country knows it’s the dictator. UN is just the puppet. If UN could be utilized, US used it as legal action. If UN became the obstacle for its action, put UN aside, it did its own way. Other countries voice, it doesn’t matter. Whether it’s action correct or not, there is no punishment at all.
You could see that’s the US. A lion king of the world.
An iraq war was totally wrong and totally violated international law, was it punished or sued? No. Because it’s a dictator.
France didn’t agree with Iraq war. It immediately revenged France.
So inside country it sounds like democracy, in the international stage, it’s a dictator. How could let the popel of the countries believe such kind of democracy?
So NATO bypassed the UN is the fact, that really means it didn’t obey the international law. If the law really doesn’t fit, that means the law need to be improved. It doesn’t mean each country has the right to bypass the international law.
Why did Nato this time dare to strike Serbian? Because they knew Russia would not involve in this war. They didn’t fear about it. There was no other organization that restricted their powers.
US considered first on it’s own interesting instead of the other countries. Control oil is their real interesting.
05/07/2008 at 8:16 am
“The fact that Russia and China did not support this doesn’t really surprise me, when one considers their normal reactions to such things. The deaths of a few thousand people are of no importance to the governments of Russia or China. ”
You assumption about that is not correct. I think both countries concerned about it.
But UN is the really right place to solve the problems. If most of countries think that China and Russia’s veto is not correct or the current UN structure can not represent the real voice of all of countries’ will, the first step is to reform the UN and let it be more fair to all of countries.
We can not violate the law because the law is not proper. We could express our will to let law maker to change the law. Anyone in the country should obey the law, for the countries any country should obey international law. I think it’s the foundation of democracy country. Do you agree?
05/07/2008 at 8:45 am
@Guy
What’s the purpose of UN?
See below. It’s not the NATO’s purpose.
Human rights and Humanitarian Assistance
The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations.
The NATO’s purpose is to defense not to Attack other countries. (See below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); French: Organization du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN); (also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, or the Western Alliance) is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. Headquartered in Brussels, Belgium,[3] the organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
05/07/2008 at 9:00 am
” but as it has emerged as the worlds global policeman since the end of the second World War, it is inevitable that they will tend to be pulled into many such conflicts. Lets face it if America had not been involved in the second world war at all, think what the face of Europe and China might be now. Maybe we would all be speaking German and Chinese would be speaking Japanese….”
First of all, which countries agree that US is the “policeman”? Does UN authorise US as a policeman? UN has its own peace keeping force.
US regards himself as policeman and the policeman doesn’t want any restriction to limit its power, actually it’s very dangerous.
Iraq war is the testimony how dangerous it is really. The people are suffered. Conflict continued. US taxpayer billed to cost. And on the other hand, look at the pocket of company’s like Halliburnton, Look at the oil related company, look at Arms dealer, those who have good relationship with Bush administration. Their profit is really rocketed. Any loss for Dick Cheney or Bush? I can not see. They have got enough benefit from this war.
That’s the result of the dictatorship of US.
05/07/2008 at 9:45 am
@Demerzel
Although I didn’t think the war was right(the problem should have been solved by peaceful method), there are following reason’s for this war. But I don’t think it should be called “invade” because PLA retreated its Army immediately after complete its target. That’s the strategy of “Teach Veitnam a lesson” due to the following reasons and cambodia issue. 3 wars all related to borders dispute and China declared the withdraw unilaterally. You could see China is more defensive than offensive.
The racially biased expulsion and persecution of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam (Hoa) within Vietnam that began in the late 1970s was one of the reasons. Persecution began when Vietnamese Chinese were stripped of their Vietnamese citizenship as well as rights to own businesses and hold political positions of any kind. Within the cities, large Chinese-owned businesses were seized by the Vietnamese government and their goods confiscated overnight. Any remaining small businesses were subjected to additional taxation not applicable to ethnic Vietnamese-owned business. The Vietnamese government’s rationale regarding these actions was to prevent disruption in services and goods in the event that the ethnic Chinese population in Vietnam chose to sympathize with China if conflict arose between the two countries. Vietnamese Chinese living near the China-Vietnam border were simply forced back into Chinese territory.
The second and more official reason for the Chinese incursion into Vietnamese territory was Vietnam’s intrusion onto the Spratly Islands chain; claimed by China as her territory. Vietnamese Navy vessels would move into the area, then fire at Chinese fishermen if they were found operating in the area. Military establishments were also built in the face of official protest by the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China. These Vietnamese actions were viewed by the Chinese Government as provocative and aggressive.
“The third reason was the ongoing issue of the artillery harassment of frontier villages and agricultural assets on the Chinese side by the Vietnamese army. Farmlands could not be cultivated due to risk from explosions, created by Vietnamese artillery impacts. This affected the local economy and decreased productivity. Subsequently, this led to dissent amongst the local population regarding the Chinese government’s inaction. As a result, this further raised cross-border tensions and escalated the situation.”
05/07/2008 at 10:51 am
I have a feeling that Jason won’t be the only who disagrees with me about this, but in my opinion, the responsibility of ‘policeman’ is always going to fall on the shoulders of the world’s superpower. Someday, China may find itself the superpower of the world. Long before that happens, they could certainly become the superpower in Asia. Do you mean to tell me that China will always bow down to the will of the U.N.? I don’t believe that for one solitary instant.
Jason, I hope that you are being facetious when you state that the United States government is a dictatorship because otherwise it is simply an ignorant statement. Did you forget that most of the U.S. Congress (including Hillary Clinton) voted to go to war? President Bush did not unilaterally make that decision. Congress could also vote to stop funding the war but they have not chosen to do this. It is fine if you don’t agree with America’s decision to go to war; many Americans are also against the war. However, if you are going to accuse President Bush of being a dictator, you had better back it up with some facts.
05/08/2008 at 3:03 am
@ Yonder
Many of the former components of Yugoslavia are now in the process of getting EU membership. However getting EU membership normally requires that certain requirements are met before a new member can join. There would have been no way for this to happen with an ongoing conflict in that country. However I would tend to disagree with your comments about the attitudes of the various ethnic groups within the former Yugoslavia. You are 100% right in that all options need to be considered before force is used. It is just hard to define when that point is.
I can’t disagree with you about the US acting as a world policeman. For sure it is a thankless task and many countries are hostile to it. I believe that you are also right in that the US also has some hidden agenda’s and that they are primarily looking after their interests first, but that is normal for all countries.
@ Demerzel
I don’t believe that the US shut the doors on the USSR voting against the UN action in Korea. They were boycotting the UN at this time as a protest against Communist China not holding the Chinese seat on the UN council. If it really meant that much they could have walked back in and voted. Regarding the points on intervention in a foreign country UN approval should always be sought, however as things goes at the moment this is where most of the problems tend to come up, one country or another always has the ability to veto something if they don’t like it. Sometimes this is of benefit as it allows the countries to try to work together to come up with a compromise of some sorts, which everyone can accept, sometimes though this tends to just ensure that whatever issues are trying to be resolved continue to be unresolved. When people are dying there comes a point when you have to stop talking and start acting. Again the question is where you draw the line. As Jason mentioned I would agree that if the law is not working it should be fixed and where countries break the international rules then there should be something in place to stop these abuses. Are these controls in place at the moment, I would say not.
Jason
How does NATO attacking Serbia relate to oil? I am confused on this one. Sure Iraq you can use that reasoning but not Serbia. Again it comes back to my point where would you draw the line. If a country is killing thousands of unarmed civilians and destabilizing a region what should they do? Sit and watch it the humanitarian issues become bigger, or try to nip it in the bud before it becomes out of countrol.
Regarding China and Russia’s attitudes to their own populations, I think it is hardly likely they will be particularly bothered about other countries people unless they have their own agenda.
I agree that the rule of law should be paramount, in this regard what has happened recently in Iraq is not acceptable, and certainly more so as more details start to come out. Unfortunately at the moment this is an imperfect system, sometimes these things happen. With regards to the UN and NATO sure the roles that they have are fairly clear, but you will find since the collapse of the soviet union, NATO has taken on many more peacekeeping roles in support of the UN.
If you read the rest of the article about NATO, you would see that they were originally supporting UN mandates in Yugoslavia from the early 1990’s, In Yugoslavia most of the peacekeepers had been NATO soldiers, as typically the UN doesn’t have any troops and has to call in support from member states for any forces, whether the troops come from individual member states or coalitions of countries is irrelevant. If one country is breaking the law and killing people inside its borders (we are talking mass murder here not rioting or such like) and certain members of the international community try to justify that killing, surely those governments should be held accountable as well. Why should one country then try to stop the rest of the international community from trying to stop this? When do you draw the line and say enough is enough?
As for the world policeman role? Which country do you think puts the most men and money in the UN? Where does the UN get most of its forces from for peacekeeping and such like? In the 19th century this role was occupied by the British, after the decline and dissolution of the British Empire and the growth of the US they have sort of moved into the position. I don’t believe that the US specifically wanted this role but it is something they have tried to do as best they can. Sure there will be mistakes, no country is perfect, but on the other side, how many conflicts and wars have been avoided because of this.
Certainly the current US administration has a lot to answer for and I think you will find millions of people around the world, who disagree with what they have done, but that is one administration. Lets hope the next one is better…
05/09/2008 at 9:45 am
Hi Bob,
I think you misunderstood my meaning of “dictator” of US. In the international stage, each country act as a person, UN acts as a country. So US and other 4 countries as the leadership team. So every decision about the world affair should be voted by those 5 countries or voted by all of member countries. For Iraq war, it should be voted there. Also the war for Kosovo should be voted there too. Actually we didn’t see that happened. Obviously US violated the international law. The act without vote jumped into war is not the democracy action. Instead it’s the dictator’s action. Wish you understand what I mean.
What you said I have seen that most of america voted to go to the war. But here is the another question for me. Now that the advanced deomocracy still can not avoid an disaster war, does this “democracy” system have problem? Why did the wrong information easily lead to the war? Where is other voice about it? I know that at rest of the world, most people knew this war was wrong before the war. Why did American become so blind? Did the democracy really exsit at that time or have already been replaced by nationalism or patrioism?
US acted as policeman is good thing. But to be a policeman, you still have to obey the law. In US, does policeman has the right to arrest a criminal at home without warrant for arrest. I’m sure that you know he couldn’t do that. US decalred the war against Sadam is exactly the same “without warrant for arrest”.
The policeman would be charged if he violates the law. But could we charge US for his violation of international law? No. None of Western countries mentioned about it. Even UN didn’t mention that. The rest of countries also selected to be silence. Why? Because there is no way to charge and dare not to charge.
So many questions for me to think about, the more I think, the more I found that the Western democracy are far from perfect.
05/09/2008 at 9:54 am
“In the 19th century this role was occupied by the British, after the decline and dissolution of the British Empire and the growth of the US they have sort of moved into the position.”
Hi Guy,
I strongly opposed your above statement. British Empire was tried to conquer and loot from other countries via its weapons. Not the policeman totally. With its act, the Chinese government was conquered by it in first opimium war in 1848, and Hongkong was forced to be occupied by it for a century.
If you wants to comapre British’s 19century crimes to US, go ahead. But I don’t think so.
05/09/2008 at 10:37 am
“If a country is killing thousands of unarmed civilians and destabilizing a region what should they do? Sit and watch it the humanitarian issues become bigger, or try to nip it in the bud before it becomes out of countrol.”
During Khmer Rouge reigned the government, more than these numbers people were killed. Why did NATO or US send troops to save them?
If Soviet Union has had been as strong as former Soviet Union, did you think NATO would do the same thing?
NATO is not oil. The aim is to seperate the former communist countries and to transfer their culture and value to those friends of the Soviet Union. The more the countries have been seperated, the more values are transfered, the more success and safe they will feel. Kosovo war is the tipical for it. It’s not really for the interesting of Kosovo people because there will be more conflicts in Kosovo in the near future. Because Servian is too weak comparing with NATO, that’s why there is no further war. If Serbian is as strong as Russia, I dare to say NATO will not take any action for those thousands of people.
Chechen is the case. But NATO, US dare not to take any action. What’s the difference between Chechenian terrorist and KLA.
After the report of Tibet, I doubted whether there were so many one side reports against Serbien in favor of Kosovo independence? I think it must be possible. Those medias have the capability to let 1 side report going on while none of opposite side voice to be known. I could see most of Chinese government news would not be used in Western media. But once the government said that 1 Tibetan was killed by police, the western media was excited immediately and would say “Finally chinese government accepted shooting 1 tibetan”. That’s what I could really see.
So how should I believe the western media not exaggarated the situation in Kosovo? At least I should do investigation by myself.
05/09/2008 at 10:52 am
Hi Bob,
Bush as US leadership should be blamed on the international stage. Now everyone knew that there wasn’t WMD. The cause of the war didn’t exist. Did he apologize for his wrong cause? No. He still insisted that the war was right decision with so higher lose of human being and cost. He should be charged as war criminal for loss of more than 100,000 iraq people’s life and the wrong cause of the war itself. If you don’t think he should be charged along, then the whole US congress should be charged.
05/10/2008 at 10:08 am
Share the bbs who discussed about Tibet 1 year ago: (There are more answers there)
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=68073
05/10/2008 at 10:52 pm
This is a very well written piece of mind. To understand better about Chinese patriotism and their determination of having a unified nation, I suggest people to learn about one of Chinese greatest patriot, General Yue Fei of Southern Song Dynasty.
05/11/2008 at 7:27 am
Hello Andy,
General Yue Fei’s story is an interesting one especially since much of it is shrouded in myth. While I admire his resolve to help his country, I cannot help but see him as a ‘Don Quijote’ figure. In other words, he was someone who was so obsessed with heroes before him that he wanted to be just like them. What do Chinese people in general think about Fei’s story?
05/12/2008 at 2:06 am
Having been in the US military for 6 years and 2 wars, shot twice, Im still patriotic, even though at times I thought some missions were too dangerous, and down right stupid. I find some of the US bashing offensive, but I guess being a US citizen and serviceman I should.
The one comment someone made about US soldiers burning Iraqi children (or something to that effect) is really disturbing.
I spent a year and a half there, and trust me we treated our prisoners much better than our troops were treated. Yeah Yeah Abu Garib.. some photos were taken and that incident was not one that I would condone in anyway shape or form. I can tell you this though…we never beheaded innocent civilians for the sake of propoganda, or the sake of anything for that matter. I’m not sitting here saying innocent civilians have not been killed by the hands of US forces, but my first hand experiance we did our best to avoid collateral damage, at times makeing our own situation more dangerous for us. The Iraqis I fought against gave no such quarter.
2nd, remember soldiers have no choice where we go fight. That decision is made by the government, so don’t down our soldiers, as I’ve personally seen many brave men, friends, with family and children KIA. If you want to down someone then down the powers that send us soldiers to war.
I can say now that I am greatfull to have made it through, and gratefull to be here in China with my new wife. Personaly most of the Americans I meet here are more apt to try to get along with others. Seems alot of times you can walk down the street and see another foreighner, and they go out of their way to avoid you. I allways try to give a nod or a hello, if the situation is right, strick up a conversation. I personally seen a foreighner fall flat on his face off a curb, because he was doing his best to avoid eye contact with me.
As far as China goes, more power to them. My wife is Chinese and I respect her and this country, regardless of what the media says.