Five days to go
Posted by stuart on May 30th, 2008
2008
May 30
Buy your candles over the weekend – there are only five days to go. We should not only consider the victims of natural disasters, but also those that were murdered. The hundreds who died on the orders of the CCP on that fateful evening 19 years ago, gave their lives asking for the freedoms that so many Chinese enjoy today. Their blood fuelled China’s economic miracle; they deserve to be remembered.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
– who starts the war?
– You invaded Poland!
May 30th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The fact is intentional ignored is that the Tian’anmen Square had been illegally occupied over months before martial law was established.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Linan – how did the Poles get involved in this?
Tian’anmen Square had been illegally occupied over months before martial law was established.
Even if that’s true, how does it justify mass murder and the subsequent denial of arguably the most important event in China’s modern history?
I have spare candles if you need some.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Forget the Poland joke, it’s the initial part of a long post about interpretations of history. It was accidentally striped by your website. I don’t have courage to rewrite it again.
Stuart, my point is about “intentionally ignored”, do you mind sticking with this one?
Even if that’s true, how does it justify mass murder and the subsequent denial of arguably the most important event in China’s modern history?
Well, since it’s Martial Law, it’s quite self-explanatory, isn’t it? The point I do agree with you is about its importance. However, it is important in the other way: only after 19 years, as an oversea Chinese I am able to appreciate the courage, vision, and greatness of Deng Xiaoping, who dares to scarify his life time reputation to make the decision (which I believe is a right decision but open to other evaluation) . Comparing with Deng, Mr. Gordon Brown is just a laughable chicken, has no balls to be a real leader. My candle is for him.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:20 am
There was no deliberate massacre of students. The students had been acting up before the army moved in, the army was attacked, fired in self-defence and things went crazy from there. The army were instructed to clear the square and casualties on both sides resulted – but this is far different from wilful murder. Footage of the ‘tank-man’ actually says it all. The PLA man in the tank actually popped out and tried to talk sense into the ‘tank-man’ – rather than just run him down.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:25 am
as an oversea Chinese I am able to appreciate the courage, vision, and greatness of Deng Xiaoping
You’re assuming that China couldn’t have achieved it’s current economic position without killing innocent people. Sadly, most Chinese that care to talk about the massacre hold the same view.
But think about that. Looked at another way, China’s rapid development of the last two decades can be traced to the bravery and sacrifice of the protesters who dared to ask Party leaders to honour their commitments to the people.
Deng’s response seems to have been: “OK, we need a policy shift, but let’s kill those who forced change upon us so that we can take the credit later”
Deng was certainly capable of making a tough decision, but sending PLA troops to kill innocent citizens wasn’t one of them; it was cowardly and brutal.
Gordon Brown is just a laughable chicken
I agree. Too many world leaders are kowtowing to Chinese demands – he should have met the Dalai Lama at No. 10.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:28 am
Agree 100% with Linan about Deng Xiaoping. Deng Xiaoping has improved the lives of more people in a dramatically short time than any other figure in history. Mother Teresa, the Pope, any Western politician’scontribution to humanity is a drop of piss in the ocean compared to the selfless dedication to humanity that marked Deng Xiaoping’s life. From his time as a young revolutionary, the Long March, his vicissitudes under Mao, the maiming of his son, Deng always stuck to his principles. His concern for China was wholly genuine and his vision for China extended to well beyond his own lifetime.
He ordered the troops to clear Tiananmen Square at cost of lives – but this was done in the long term interests of China, in the long term interests of the vast majority of the Chinese people.
China’s progress this past 19 years has indisputably shown Deng to have made the correct decision on June 4.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:35 am
Stuart,
Deng Xiaoping, and also a whole raft of China’s first generation of revolutionary leaders, far from being cowards were perhaps the bravest, most dedicated, selfless individuals in the 20th Century. Deng Xiaoping’s dedication to China was lifelong, from his time in Paris as a teenager, assiduously finding a way to liberate China, to the Long March, the Civil War, his sufferings to himself and his family in the Cultural Revolution, and his steadfast leadership during his years in power.
It would have been cowardice not to have taken stern measures – simply in order to preserve his own reputation. He risked sullying his reputation for the benefit of the vast majority of the Chinese people.
Often those soft-hearted people are the real cowards. They indulge their own senses of wanting to feel good about themselves. It is those who can make hard decisions, can take resolute measures for the greater good – risking their own reputations and even perhaps consciences (I’m sure Deng felt no pleasure in causing suffering) in the process, who truly drive humanity forward.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:47 am
Looked at another way, China’s rapid development of the last two decades can be traced to the bravery and sacrifice of the protesters who dared to ask Party leaders to honour their commitments to the people.
You have a point here. Any crisis forces some self-reflection and change of direction. But economic reform was going to happen anyway, regardless of what the protesters did. Deng far from being anti-democratic, wanted China to develop economically first, have stability and then democracy later.
History proves that Deng would have willingly sacrificed not only his own well-being, but the well-being of his family, for China. Compare him to the current crop of Western leaders – Bush, Brown, Clinton or Obama – all lying scheming opportunists with a sum-total of integrity not even one-hundredth that of Deng’s.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:53 am
If China had democracy today you can be sure of two things:
1. Economic disparity between rich and poor provinces will accelerate -with no hope of ever closing (just look at how, in the wake of the Earthquake the Central government has been able to direct rich cities, rich provinces to provide direct aid to the affected areas)
2. ethnic minorities will suffer -simply by being outvoted by Han Chinese – current autonomy, separate education tracks to preserve indigenous cultures and languages could well disappear, state funded TV, newspapers in minority languages could disappear, enforced bilingualism could disappear, and perhaps the most significant affirmative action item – the right of minorities to be exempt from ‘one child’ policy could also be endangered.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:56 am
China’s progress this past 19 years has indisputably shown Deng to have made the correct decision on June.
Wayne – this was my response to Linan in the ‘Unified China’ thread:
“The mistake is to assume that because the material wealth of a market economy followed the Tiananmen massacre, China’s prosperity is the result of the ‘89 incident.”
Often those soft-hearted people are the real cowards. They indulge their own senses of wanting to feel good about themselves.
Perhaps. But would anyone say that of Wen Jiabao after his open displays of compassion during the last three weeks?
May 31st, 2008 at 1:06 am
It is those who can make hard decisions, can take resolute measures for the greater good – risking their own reputations and even perhaps consciences (I’m sure Deng felt no pleasure in causing suffering) in the process, who truly drive humanity forward.
I agree with this. Then again, weren’t those that stood in opposition to the hardliners equally resolute?
It is possible that China could have descended into chaos without Deng’s firm approach. Who knows? But why can’t we have this debate publicly? And why won’t the Chinese government show the courage and responsibility to talk openly about the events of that time?
That would ‘truly drive humanity forward.’
May 31st, 2008 at 1:13 am
The army were instructed to clear the square and casualties on both sides resulted – but this is far different from wilful murder.
When the parents of the students who never came home the previous night gathered the following morning to look for their sons and daughters, they were given a few seconds to disperse before the firing began.
Mothers fell with bullets in their backs. That was murder.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:18 am
Stuart: The alternative would have been to do nothing, chaos would have ensued, social stability undermined – and investmen tscared away. If this movement had not been supressed China could well have fallen into an abyss of turmoil and suffering from which it would take decades to extricate itself.
Now of course we cannot say that things definitely would have turned out the way just described. But the fact is if you are considering the well-being of one-billion people, even a 20% chance, or 10% chance of chaos happening is not worth it. But in reality I would have put the probablility of disaster happening to be about 80 or 90%. China could well have turned out like Iraq is today – only about 50 times worse and 50 times harder to clean up.
The protesters had in fact been heard, had even met and argued with Premier Li Peng on TV. What more did they want? They were simply getting more and more truculent and their demands unreasonable. Deng did not order the protesters to be murdered – he wanted them cleared out – with or without collateral damage. But that is different from wilful murder. Otherwise you could charge George W Bush with the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are considered ‘collateral damage’ in his drive to bring ‘democracy’ to Iraq.
Stuart – I never said compassion was bad. Wen Jiabao display of compassion was genuine, but did not require any onerous sort of decision making. It was not a case of not being compassionate would have had better results (for the country or himself) than showing compassion. Without being cynical (because I believe Wen was genuine), showing compassion was a win-situation for himself and the country and the party.
But Deng’s decision was a hard one- and one that was strenuously argued over within the party. It was not one taken lightly. There were plenty of negatives either way. In the end Deng took the decision that was bad for his own reputation, bad for some innocent protesters, but good long term interests of the country. That is what takes courage.
There was far more deliberation, agonizing within the party on the June 4 actions, than there was by Truman when he decided to drop that atomic bomb. And the price China would have paid in not suppressing the rebellion would have been far far greater, than the price the US would have sustained in not dropping the bomb – which was completely unnecessary.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:19 am
If China had democracy today…
I’m really not advocating democracy for China in this thread – just the remembrance of a pivotal moment in China’s recent history, and more specifically, an acknowledgment of the sacrifice made by those that died in the name of change.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:27 am
Otherwise you could charge George W Bush with the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
He should be.
Wayne, you are making a lot of good points. I can’t respond to them all right now. We obviously don’t always agree with each other, but intelligent, opposing views are exactly what I want for this site.
And the price China would have paid in not suppressing the rebellion would have been far far greater, than the price the US would have sustained in not dropping the bomb – which was completely unnecessary.
That’s a thread for August 6
May 31st, 2008 at 1:34 am
Stuart: I am sure the issue will be revisited in the not too distant future. And if innocent people died, that is tragic and their families deserve sympathy and compensation.
But that does not make the original decision wrong. This may sound paradoxical but it is not. For example even those Americans who justify Hiroshima may have nothing but sympathy for the victims.
It is sometimes hard to accept, but sometimes good comes out of actions that were immoral.
The US has contributed to humanity – but its founded on slavery and the dispossion of millions of indigenous people. The West has made its contributions to humanity – Bach, Beethoven and the polio vaccine. But without the Opium Wars, colonialism, imperialism – completely immoral, the West would not have been able to transmute the knowledge of the Scientific revolution into the economic gains of the industrial revolution. And the East would not have modernized – for good or for bad.
So I am sure the debate will be held in the future. But for now what China needs is stability. If China was not stable, or divided do you think she would have been able to respond in what Gordon Brown called the ‘magnificent’ way to the earthquake?
100,000 dead, 4 million homeless – that is the herculean task that China has to grapple with. Do you think the West would be able to handle such a crisis any more effectively than China? I think not. Think not only of Katrina, but the complete balls-up in Iraq.
Like it or lump it, ever since Mao, China has been blessed with extremely competent leaders and overall good governance. Just look at the current crop of leaders- all Engineers – technocrats who will go with what works (without a scintilla of desire for personality cults)- a complete reversal from the Cultural Revolution where “red is better than expert.” Now it is the West who have become slaves to ideology – the ideology of ‘ballot box idolatory’. Does not matter if the country is going to hell in a hand-basket – as long as everyone has the vote.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:14 am
If anyone has any doubt that those students of the time were duped by the West, and eager to ape the West just take a look at that “Goddess of Democracy” – how embarrassing.
Today’s young are far wiser, far more aware (including many former protesters)
May 31st, 2008 at 3:19 am
If anyone has any doubt that those students of the time were duped by the West, and eager to ape the West just take a look at that “Goddess of Democracy” – how embarrassing.
I think it’s a little unfair to say they were ‘duped’. They were naive, perhaps, believing in an ideal that simply wasn’t available. At the time the “Goddess of Democracy” was a symbol of their dream of a better future. Many of them are now living that dream.
I take your point about the overall competence of China’s recent leaders. It would be nice, however, if they could open themselves up to the kind of questioning that western politicians face from their people.
May 31st, 2008 at 5:31 am
It would be nice, however, if they could open themselves up to the kind of questioning that western politicians face from their people.
That is what I hope too. But before that can happen, China needs a thriving, numerically large middle-class with strong civic values and public spiritedness. This is what Western democracies have – but it did not happen overnight. But Chinese people get enough information today on how other countries are run. They are desperate to learn from others, and also to join the rest of the world.
The backbone of any successful democracy is the middle class with good, strong yeoman values. And China’s middle class is expanding rapidly – thanks to economic growth.
One thing at a time, but in the meantime the most important thing is to treat people humanely – drastically reduce capital punishment, bring in a legal system which is more transparent, and most of all hold officials accountable to the people they purport to serve. All these things can be done without immediate democratization – but these things will lay the foundations for the inevitable arrival of true representative government.
By the way thanks for the forum Stuart. Appreciate it.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:02 am
By the way thanks for the forum Stuart. Appreciate it.
Thank you for your contribution, Wayne. As for everything else you just wrote, I agree entirely.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
You’re assuming that China couldn’t have achieved it’s current economic position without killing innocent people. Sadly, most Chinese that care to talk about the massacre hold the same view.
Like I’ve commented on the other thread, I did not make the assumption. My interpretation of the incident is not about students, but the ugly roles US/UK played.
But think about that. Looked at another way, China’s rapid development of the last two decades can be traced to the bravery and sacrifice of the protesters who dared to ask Party leaders to honour their commitments to the people.
I never doubt the courage of those students. They were idealist, brave and determined while insanely naive. Most of them, except those whom are propagandised as heroes in the west, admit they might do the wrong thing.
Deng’s response seems to have been: “OK, we need a policy shift, but let’s kill those who forced change upon us so that we can take the credit later
So you do agree that the current policy is a right/good one, but Deng stole it from students, right? It’s inconsistent with your first paragraph.
To Wayne,
The relation between “middle class” and “democracy” is a myth. It’s an evil logic invented by so called elites. The logic argues that only educated people are capable of making right decisions. It’s f*cking inhumanity. It’s an insult to poor, uneducated people. Please pounder upon my remarks.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Stu,yr right!
Totally Support u!
May 31st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I have come late to this discussion but I think we should also remember that, as well as calling for democracy, the demonstrators were protesting against the tendency of the party elite to enrich themselves and their cronies corruptly at the expense of ordinary people. The demonstrators’ protest against corruption is totally compatible with the foundation ideals of the Communist Party in the early 1920s. The Party’s success in gaining power in 1949 was in large part due to the hopeless corruption of the Guomindang in contrast to the Communists’ strong anti-corruption principles.
In case my remarks are interpreted as being anti-Chinese, I hasten to add that corruption is a global problem which is largely responsible for the current situation in which billions throughout the world are poor and malnourished while a few are wealthy – the complete opposite to socialism. The least corrupt countries are generally not only more successful economically than other countries, but the wealth tends to be more evenly spread. I think the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International can be taken as a guide to the prevalence of corruption – it’s at http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007 .
The Tian’anmen Square demonstrators’ anti-corruption stance is compatible with the punishments meted out by China’s government against corrupt officials in recent years.
One other point – democracy is not just about government through the ballot box. It also includes the rule of law, freedom of information, an independent system of justice, and the right to form independent non-government organisations. Most of the world’s least corrupt countries tend to be the most democratic, and vice versa. (Please note that I’m making a generalisation, not claiming a direct correlation.)
May 31st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
@Dean,
Thank you for your input. But I have to point out some historical mistake you’ve made.
The demonstrators’ protest against corruption is totally compatible with the foundation ideals of the Communist Party in the early 1920s.
If you referred to 1919 May 4 movement, please be aware that at that moment Goumingtang had not gain the full control of China. That movement, which we called May 4th movement was to against the Versailles Treaty after 1st World War. It’s nothing about corruption. China had entered World War I on the side of the Allied Triple Entente in 1917 with the condition that all German spheres of influence, such as Shandong, would be returned to China. That year, 140,000 Chinese laborers (as a part of the British army, the Chinese Labor Corps) were sent to France. Instead of rewarding China for its contribution to the Allies’ victory, the Versailles Treaty of April, 1919, awarded Shandong Province to Japan.
One other point – democracy is not just about government through the ballot box. It also includes the rule of law, freedom of information, an independent system of justice, and the right to form independent non-government organisations.
Thank you for pointing out this important point. Basically democracy is a package including almost every aspects. It’s a systematic approach. Therefore it’s weak. Without other necessary parts, ballot box can do nothing.
Most of the world’s least corrupt countries tend to be the most democratic, and vice versa.
It’s questionable. Let’s check the index you provided:
72 Brazil 3.5 7 3.2 – 4.0
72 China 3.5 9 3.0 – 4.2
72 India 3.5 10 3.3 – 3.7
Why Brazil and India have similar index as China?
If you know about statistics, you should know that the sample size is crucial to a “significant correlation”. Run SPSS, it won’t endorse your observation.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:33 am
Thank you, Linan, for pointing out the need for me to clarify my comments. When I referred first to the early 1920s and then to 1949, I was referring to two different periods of time, and I was not confusing the 1919 May 4th movement with the signfiicantly later Civil War. I mentioned the foundation of the CCP in the 1920s because the Party was founded on Marxist-Leninist principles, which are antithetical to the forms of corruption that deprive the poor for the benefit of the rich. I think most readers of Marx’s works would agree with that conclusion.
My reference to the Guomindang related to the struggles in the 1930s and 1940s between the CCP and Chiang Kai-shek’s forces, and from all that I have heard and read, it seems that one of the reasons for the eventual success of the CCP was that they were supported by most of the population, who were suffering largely due to the greed and corruption of the GMD. I would be surprised if you disagree with that point.
I disagree with your statement that democracy is weak because it is a ‘package’. The studies of biology and ecology teach us that the natural systems that survive the best are those that are extremely complex, and likewise the studies of sociology and history teach us that the social systems that endure tend to be those that are complex. We can find an analogy within nature, where complex systems are stronger than monocultures; for example the biodiversity of a pristine forest enables it to survive diseases or droughts that would wipe out a monocultural crop. Similarly, the checks and balances inherent to complex cultural and political systems enable them to absorb and withstand threats that can threaten or overturn monolithic systems. At the same time (and to anticipate possible misinterpretations of my argument) I know there is no country in the world that is perfectly run, and I believe that democracy can only deliver social justice if it is constantly challenged and modified.
When I referred to the Transparency International index, I was careful to state that it referred to general trends and did not present an exact correlation between corruption and egalitarianism. I do not think this forum is the appropriate place to get into a detailed discussion about the relative levels of corruption and egalitarianism within and between particular countries, but most evidence points to the conclusion that the group of countries within the top 20 of the list, for example, tend to be more econocomically egalitarian than the countries in the middle or the bottom of the list. Or do you disagree with my general point that corruption and poverty tend to go together?
I have never studied statistics so I do not understand your comment about sample size – is 179 countries not a sufficient number of countries to survey before we can reach a general conclusion? (I emphasise here the word ‘general’.)
June 1st, 2008 at 1:35 am
My interpretation of the incident is not about students, but the ugly roles US/UK played.
Linan – you really think the west orchestrated such a huge movement in China? And why is it always USA/UK? Tell me honestly; who first put that idea in your head? I’m betting it was a high school text book.
The logic argues that only educated people are capable of making right decisions. It’s f*cking inhumanity. It’s an insult to poor, uneducated people.
Then I would urge you to petition your government to redistribute China’s considerable wealth, drastically improve education in the interior, and hold referendums that allow the voices of China’s poor to be heard.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:45 am
I have come late to this discussion but I think we should also remember that, as well as calling for democracy, the demonstrators were protesting against the tendency of the party elite to enrich themselves and their cronies corruptly at the expense of ordinary people. The demonstrators’ protest against corruption is totally compatible with the foundation ideals of the Communist Party in the early 1920s. The Party’s success in gaining power in 1949 was in large part due to the hopeless corruption of the Guomindang in contrast to the Communists’ strong anti-corruption principles.
Precisely, Dean. This is a point that is too often glossed over by the ‘unlawful occupation of the Square’ argument. In reality the criminals were those in power that had for years neglected the welfare of the Chinese people in favour of lining their own pockets.
As a consequence, subsequent Chinese leaders have been careful to portray themselves as brothers-in-arms in the fight against corruption.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:52 am
If you know about statistics, you should know that the sample size is crucial to a “significant correlation”. Run SPSS, it won’t endorse your observation.
Did you run the figures through SPSS, Linan? If so, you should give us the p values. Also, I think tou missed this bit of Dean’s reply:
(Please note that I’m making a generalisation, not claiming a direct correlation.)
June 1st, 2008 at 2:03 am
Dean wrote:
I know there is no country in the world that is perfectly run, and I believe that democracy can only deliver social justice if it is constantly challenged and modified.
Yes, and the mechanism for challenge is effectively denied to those people in China most in need of social justice.
This is why we should salute the memory of those killed 19 years ago; because they stood up, just as the Chinese national anthem asks its people to do.
Get your candles ready. Three days to go.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
@Dean,
…it seems that one of the reasons for the eventual success of the CCP was that they were supported by most of the population, who were suffering largely due to the greed and corruption of the GMD. I would be surprised if you disagree with that point.
Please get ready for a surprise. The theory I adopted is nothing about morality. GMD was defeated by an efficient war system. I don’t want to detail the theory. Please check out Ray Huang’s books.
The studies of biology and ecology teach us that the natural systems that survive the best are those that are extremely complex, and likewise the studies of sociology and history teach us that the social systems that endure tend to be those that are complex.
Yes and no. You’ve made a common sense mistake to regard complex systems are those have complex rules. Complex systems are not equal to “complex rules systems”. On the contrary, complex systems always have small sets of rules. Please check out my favorite book: Order out of Chaos. Since democracy needs a “package”, it qualifies complex rule system, not complex system.
@stuart,
Did you run the figures through SPSS, Linan? If so, you should give us the p values
Talking about p value. Before I run the SPSS, we need to agree on two things:
… Shall we use ordinal value?
… Which countries are “democracy”?
I’d like to run a test if we can agree on both of them. I’m pretty sure that the result won’t be good enough to support Dean’s argument, since it’s ordinal data and the sample size is not good enough, although folks with social science background can make good stories. You know, I’m in a very safe place in this argument. Even if the end result favor your argument, I can still find out problems of how the index was composed.
(Please note that I’m making a generalisation, not claiming a direct correlation.)
Yes, I noticed this line. What confuses me is that I don’t know from what data Dean drew the conclusion and generalised it. He needs to supply at least one group of data that the conclusion can be drawn from, right? In fact, I don’t believe anyone can. He will win the Nobel Prize.
who first put that idea in your head? I’m betting it was a high school text book.
Wrong bet. This idea was put before Martial Law was established, by my best friend, who is at the same age but twice smarter than me. Let me show you the blood on bed. We all know that these students had spent lots of money to built the “Goddess of Democracy”, buy equipments, foods, etc, where did the money come from?
June 1st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
“We all know that these students had spent lots of money to built the “Goddess of Democracy”, buy equipments, foods, etc, where did the money come from?”
Really, Linan. For someone who is clearly familiar with statistics and the rigours of systematic research, you cannot possibly assign cause to ‘outside influences’ in such a casual way. Show me evidence; give me verified numbers.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Really, Linan. For someone who is clearly familiar with statistics and the rigours of systematic research, you cannot possibly assign cause to ‘outside influences’ in such a casual way. Show me evidence; give me verified numbers.
Hopefully the verified numbers will surface to general public in 2039, 50 years after the event. However, Ralph McGehee, the former CIA officer, has an article entitled CIA’s War Against China. It says:
China, 88-94 Prior to the Tiananmen Square incident, NED had two offices in China that gave regular seminars on democracy. NED sponsored various Chinese writers and publications. Probably NED or CIA recruited numerous Chinese students studying in U S. When Tiananmen Square erupted, NED or CIA probably sent or helped FAX thousands letters to recipients in China, inflamed opinion via Voice of America and sheltered a leading dissident in US Embassy — which also arranged for many dissidents to flee. NED continues to support Chinese dissidents and awards Tiananmen’s “Goddess of Democracy,” to noted dissidents of all nations.
…
China, 89 The Chinese government arrested representatives of a private American org in Beijing, the Fund for the Reform and Opening of China. George Soros who founded the fund said the Chinese government has detained Liang Congjie. Soros denied any CIA involvement in the fund. Soros, an east European émigré who funds similar programs in Hungary, Poland and the USSR, Founded the China fund in 86 Soros gave the fund $1 million which it used to promote cultural exchanges and sponsor research projects in conjunction with China’s Institute for Economic Structural Reform, an influential liberal think tank supported by Zhao. Allegations that the China Fund was a tool of the CIA surfaced in 87 Washington post 8/8/89 a4
…
As an interesting footnote, this webpage http://www.iefd.org/articles/ned_an_update.php details how money has been spent to support democratic voices in Burma, China, and “Human right” in Tibet.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Thanks for nominating me for a Nobel Prize, Linan. I’m sure the people who know me will be very surprised! (That’s a joke, by the way, I hope you take it in a friendly spirit.)
On a serious note, do you think that the demonstrators in Tienan’men Square were wrong to protest against nepotism, cronyism and corruption amongst the party elite? Do you disagree with my assertion that corruption is contrary to egalitarianism and socialist ideals?
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
It’s my honor to know and nominate a Nobel Prize nominee. The next nominee will be Stuart and Mongol Warrior for the peace prize.
On a serious note, do you think that the demonstrators in Tienan’men Square were wrong to protest against nepotism, cronyism and corruption amongst the party elite? Do you disagree with my assertion that corruption is contrary to egalitarianism and socialist ideals?
Including senior CCP leaders, nobody says it’s wrong to protest against nepotism, cronyism and corruption amongst the party elite. The real problem is, the movement was targeted to replace the government in the later stages. The widely believed (including me) conspiracy theory says the movement is actually a CIA/NED/MI5 joint force operation, aimed at destabilizing China. There are unverified materials support the theory, and more importantly, the USSR and eastern European cases show us the serious consequences. The notion “stable is the most important thing for China” is supported by vast majority. We do value demonstrators’ efforts, but worry about the hidden agenda.
Do you disagree with my assertion that corruption is contrary to egalitarianism and socialist ideals
I do agree CCP is not the party as pure/noble as it tries to illustrate. However, even Roman Catholic suffers sexual scandals. It’s unrealistic to ask a 70 million members party to be problem free. A better question might be: is it designed to corrupt? if not, what are the realistic approaches to correct it?
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I know that the CIA etc often interfere in the affairs of other nations, but what evidence is there that they were involved in this case? How did they persuade so many Chinese people to take part in the demonstrations, and how did they persuade workers and housewives in Beijing to plead with soldiers not to fire at the students? I don’t think Western spy agencies have ever been that clever and competent.
What evidence is there that the demonstrators wanted to replace the CCP? They were calling for the party to democratise and to fight corruption.
By comparing the CCP with the Catholic Church, are you suggesting that all large organisations eventually end up trampling on the high ideals under which they were founded?
Of course nobody expects all 70 million CCP members to be pure, but party leaders are obliged to uphold high principles and to honour the stated ideals of the party.
I agree that stability is important for the sake of peace, and there are many examples where rapid political changes have resulted in large-scale tragedies. However, too many dictators and war criminals have held on to power by claiming that they alone could guarantee stability – Suharto in Indonesia and Mobutu in Zaire are two prime examples.
Maybe I am just more sceptical than you about political leaders, especially their tendency to limit andor manipulate information flows. I agree with the old saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s not limited to any particular country but, sadly, is a truism about human nature. Which is why we who possess little or no real power must continually question our governments and to hold them to account.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
How did they persuade so many Chinese people to take part in the demonstrations, and how did they persuade workers and housewives in Beijing to plead with soldiers not to fire at the students? I don’t think Western spy agencies have ever been that clever and competent.
The CIA is experienced in these kind of things. They don’t do door to door preaching like LDS, JW do in UK:) If I were a CIA operater, I’ll just seduce the leaders of the student movement. It’s a simple and more efficient way. Accidently, many of the senior student leaders escaped to US/HK before June 4th, 1989, including Chai Ling (the cute girl cried in front camera shouting that PLA was killing, but she was not there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Ling), Wuer Kaixi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuer_Kaixi). In an article details the leadership power struggle among the students, the author argues that all the later “heroes” leaders were those who managed to get funding. Large portion of the funding came from foreign organisations. In fact, only one senior student leader, Wang Dan, was captured and put into jail. And he is the one suggested to dismiss the movement after the first round of student-government talk. The things most Chinese people hate about those student leaders, is that they firstly encouraged other students to fight, but flee to US before the night, and became heroes. They are shit. If you can read Chinese, you can easily find articles written by those betrayed students about the whole process.
What evidence is there that the demonstrators wanted to replace the CCP? They were calling for the party to democratise and to fight corruption.
I, witness the whole process of changing of movement target. I remembered clearly in the first stage, the slogans were about Guan Dao (officer’s corruption), the it changed to democracy, and finally it asked the CCP to give up the power. In fact the change is very logical: 1) CCP has serious problem, 2) CCP needs to change, 3) what if CCP doesn’t? CCP should give up the power.
By comparing the CCP with the Catholic Church, are you suggesting that all large organisations eventually end up trampling on the high ideals under which they were founded?
Actually there is a saying about large organisations. Something like XXX’s Law: the ultimate goal of any organisation evolves to sustain its existence. The Animal’s Farm is not only for communism parties. It’s great only because it presents a universal pattern of political organisations, leaders and movements.
I agree that stability is important for the sake of peace, and there are many examples where rapid political changes have resulted in large-scale tragedies. However, too many dictators and war criminals have held on to power by claiming that they alone could guarantee stability – Suharto in Indonesia and Mobutu in Zaire are two prime examples.
I agree your view in principle. But again, your methodology to prove it is vulnerable. I can easily list counter examples, like Jiang Jieshi and his son Jiang Jingguo in Taiwan, military leaders in South Korea, and Lee Guangyao in Singapore. In these examples, leaders hold the power tightly and managed to develop their countries dramatically. Politic has a strong case-by-case character, it is very difficult to generalise any theory. I believe it’s never enough to emphasis the speciality of China. For example, is CCP a real communism party? As far as I concern, it’s not a real communism part from its first day.
Maybe I am just more sceptical than you about political leaders, especially their tendency to limit andor manipulate information flows. I agree with the old saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s not limited to any particular country but, sadly, is a truism about human nature. Which is why we who possess little or no real power must continually question our governments and to hold them to account.
Believe me, nobody really dare to risk their lives to trust an organisation. I just don’t believe CCP is an “evil” force as Falun Gong portrayed. It just an organisation as any other organisations, makes mistakes, has problems, and most of its members are just good people like you and me.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
@everybody
Please remember to save your text somewhere else before click “submit” button!
I know that the CIA etc often interfere in the affairs of other nations, but what evidence is there that they were involved in this case? How did they persuade so many Chinese people to take part in the demonstrations, and how did they persuade workers and housewives in Beijing to plead with soldiers not to fire at the students? I don’t think Western spy agencies have ever been that clever and competent
CIA is certainly experienced in doing this kind of operations. CIA operators won’t do door to door preaching like LDS and JW do in UK
If I were a CIA operator, my approach would be influence the movement leaders. Accidently, most of the senior student leaders escaped to USA before the bloody night. As far as I know, only one senior student leader was captured and put into jail. His name is Wang Dan. According to some articles, he is the only senior leader suggested to stop the movement after couple of rounds of protester-government talk (negotiation). Most of the aggressive leaders were already in Hongkong or USA at the night, including the cute lady crying in front of camera shouting that PLA was killing.
Western spy agencies are all as clever as James Bound.
What evidence is there that the demonstrators wanted to replace the CCP? They were calling for the party to democratise and to fight corruption.
I’m a witness, so do most of Chinese. The slogans changed from “beat down Guan Dao (officers’ corruptions)”, to “democracy”, to “beat down CCP”. In fact you can find out the logic behind the change: 1) CCP has serious problem. 2) CCP needs to democratise itself to prevent further problems. 3) What if it does not? Let’s beat it down. There is no doubt that at the final stage, protesters wanted to replace CCP, with external help.
By comparing the CCP with the Catholic Church, are you suggesting that all large organisations eventually end up trampling on the high ideals under which they were founded?
One saying, entitled “XXX’s law”, says that the ultimate goals of every organisation evolve to the same one, to sustain its existence. The Animals’ Farm is not only for communism parties. It is great because it presents a general picture of any political organisaiton, leader and movement. Why should the CCP or the Catholic Church be exceptions?
I agree that stability is important for the sake of peace, and there are many examples where rapid political changes have resulted in large-scale tragedies. However, too many dictators and war criminals have held on to power by claiming that they alone could guarantee stability – Suharto in Indonesia and Mobutu in Zaire are two prime examples.
I agree with your conclusion, but again, your methodology of proving is very vulnerable. I can easily list counter examples, like Jiang Jingguo of Taiwan, military leaders in South Korea, Lee Guangyao of Singapore. They all tightly hold the powers and then they managed to develop their countries successfully. My point is, politics has a strong case-by-case characteristic, it’s very difficult to generalise any theory. Furthermore, I’d like to argue that it’s never enough to emphases the speciality of China. Copy & paste won’t work here in China.
Maybe I am just more sceptical than you about political leaders, especially their tendency to limit andor manipulate information flows. I agree with the old saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s not limited to any particular country but, sadly, is a truism about human nature. Which is why we who possess little or no real power must continually question our governments and to hold them to account.
I have no problem with this at all. But I’d like to point out that the CCP is not as evil as Falun Gong tries to portray. It is just an organisation like any other ones. It makes mistakes, has problems, but most of its 70 million members are just common good people like you and me.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
But I’d like to point out that the CCP is not as evil as Falun Gong tries to portray.
And the Falun Gong are nothing like the devil worshippers that the CCP have convinced most Chinese they are.
I apologise for picking out this after so many good comments in the responses from you and Dean above. Class awaits.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 am
And the Falun Gong are nothing like the devil worshippers that the CCP have convinced most Chinese they are.
I read Falun Gong’s articles regularly, simply because it’s a good joke source. Just give you one example, in it’s official “the 9th statement on the CCP”, it says “the CCP is the anti-universe force”. I really admire the sense of humor!
The falun gong are surely not devil worshipper, but 100% top joke tellers.
Bed awaits
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:40 am
The government was 100% right to crack down on Falun Gong.
Of course any cult will claim to be advocating values that are more or less universal – love, compassion, forgiveness etc.
But the fact is Falun Gong is controlled by one man who makes some ridiculous claims in support of his own divinity. This should set off alarm bells in anyone’s head.
The social stability of a poor country like China, which has known bloody insurrections in the past caused by deluded religious headcases (some good, some bad), cannot rest on the whim of this one man.
Unfortunately supersition and horrific folkways still exist in part of China. Only last year we had some farmer digging up women’s corpses and selling them off as ‘corpse brides.’ And some of that so-called religious persecution against nominal ‘Christians’ is in fact against very dangerous and heterodox versions of the true faith – people walking round claiming to be the second coming. China must be extremely vigilant in respect of this type of stuff.
China is in fact not unique in cracking down on weird cults. Scientologists are stamped on in Germany, and the US goverment used horrific tactics against the Branch Davidians – tactics which if employed by the Chinese government would have invited opprobrium from the usual suspects.
Remember when things go wrong in China, they go wrong in a BIG way. Not dealing with cults in their early stages and you could be dealing with something later that makes Jonestown sound like a children’s picnic.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 am
Remember when things go wrong in China, they go wrong in a BIG way. Not dealing with cults in their early stages and you could be dealing with something later that makes Jonestown sound like a children’s picnic.
I think this is a fair point, although the beatings, incarceration, and organ harvesting of some Falun Gong practitioners seems unnecessarily severe in the pursuit of stability.
Btw, Jiang Zemin was a firm advocate of the Falun Gong until he realised they were more popular than he was.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
I think some of those stories of torture, organ harvesting etc are exactly that – stories. Even a cursory glance through the Epoch Times shows that this group is more than slightly wacky to say the least. I would not attach too much veracity to their atrocity tales.
Sure Jiang Zemin was worried about the popularity of Falun Gong – but hardly I think because it competed with his own popularity. I don’t think Jiang Zemin was known as a charismatic or popular leader in the first place anyway. In fact I personally felt the guy was an embarassment on the international stage, combing his hair in front of the King of Spain,
And just because he did not have a problem with Falun Gong in the first instance does not mean that he was not right to change his mind about them later on.
By the way my mother-in-law in Guangzhou was heavily involved in Falun Gong, going to their retreats, lectures etc. She was completely enthused by it. When the ban came down, no policemen called round, no hassles in obtaining a passport, no hassles from her hukou. Just one case to be sure, but I think that 99.9% of former practitioners of Falun Gong did not suffer persecution in any way from the government.
From the White Lotus sect to the Taipings to the Boxers (notwithstanding the justice of the cause of the latter two especially), China has a history of religious sects getting out of hand. For the government to stand by and do nothing would have been a complete abrogation of their duties to the vast majority of the Chinese people.
Even a small probability of the sect causing disruption to social order is more than enough justification for the ban. The suffering of the Chinese people that would be the upshot of social chaos would be of a scale that would be simply unimaginable – and vastly more intractable than the Iraq imbroglio. Economic progress and the stability that all Chinese people have enjoyed these past 20 years simply cannot be put at risk by some nutbar who thinks he has the power of flight and the ability to call up spaceships.
Rural Chinese can be incredibly superstitious and easily manipulated by charlatans like Li Hongzhi.
And there are modern-day international precedents in Africa especially. Just read about the huge problems caused in Uganda by the Lords Resistance Army and other cults.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/682667.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord’s_Resistance_Army
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
I think this is a fair point, although the beatings, incarceration, and organ harvesting of some Falun Gong practitioners seems unnecessarily severe in the pursuit of stability.
It’s a 5000 years myth. In the history, no matter Chinese or the western, bad guys all did these things. GMD, Japanese, Nazi, USSR, CIA, Communism Vietnam (for westerners), USA (for Vietnamese), South Korean (for N K), North Korean (for S K), Chinese (for the exiled Tibetan), Dalai Lama clique (for Han Chinese and those in Tibet) … all fell in the same old pattern. Bad guys are bad in the same non-creative way.
Btw, Jiang Zemin was a firm advocate of the Falun Gong until he realised they were more popular than he was.
Really? Jiang should’ve extended his list to Andy Law, Jackie, Jet Li…
Only Chinese-phobia or CCP-phobia will believe these ill-logic nonsense easily. Do you?
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It’s a 5000 years myth. In the history, no matter Chinese or the western, bad guys all did these things…. nazi…CIA…Dalai Lama clique..
Nazis and the CIA were/are organised groups with a basis in reality. The ‘Dalai clique’ is a figment of someone’s imagination at CCP propaganda HQ and actually refers to an ‘entity’ that doesn’t exist.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
In fact I personally felt the guy was an embarassment on the international stage, combing his hair in front of the King of Spain.
I hadn’t heard about the ‘comb’ incident.
And just because he did not have a problem with Falun Gong in the first instance does not mean that he was not right to change his mind about them later on.
Agreed – every politician’s prerogative.
As for the Epoch Times, the stories they run that require a large dose of salt only serve to undermine the articles that highlight genuine grievances of Falun Gong.