Foundinchina.com

I don’t yet have the ear of the editorial team over at the offices of The New York Times, nor does the said publication pay enough attention to a crisis which is already upon us. Therefore, it was refreshing to read Wei Jingsheng sound out the dangers of allowing the CCP to bring their own brand of governance to the world stage:

“The message was clear for all those who sought restraint from a newly powerful China … since you made a fuss about releasing Mr. Liu after his arrest, we will punish him even more severely. In no uncertain terms, that will let you know that not only don’t we care what you think, but we don’t have to.”

Here’s the complete op-ed:

Last week, a moderate reformist in China, Liu Xiaobo, was sentenced to 11 years in prison by the Chinese government for the mere act of organizing and signing a petition, Charter 08, calling for political reform and the basic human rights much of the world already enjoys.

The message was clear for all those who sought restraint from a newly powerful China that now sits prominently at the tables of global governance: Since you made a fuss about releasing Mr. Liu after his arrest, we will punish him even more severely. In no uncertain terms, that will let you know that not only don’t we care what you think, but we don’t have to.

Though diplomats from Germany and Australia were among the two dozen people allowed to observe the “public trial,” the fact that no one from the American Embassy was admitted should be read as a particularly clear and open challenge to the United States.

We Chinese are intimately acquainted with this authoritarian arrogance.

During the eras of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, when I was jailed for 15 years for the “heinous crime” of putting up a wall poster, the Chinese government regarded international public opinion with this same attitude. If the Chinese people saw how the government blithely dismissed the concerns of powerful foreigners, the Communist Party rulers reasoned, they would also see they had no alternative but to submit to the overbearing authority of the government.

During Jiang Zemin’s time there were some changes. In an effort to reduce international pressure and develop the economy under favorable trade conditions from the United States, the Chinese regime yielded. Among other actions, I was released from jail and deported to the United States. That resulted in a strong backlash from the hard-liners inside of the Communist Party despite the fact that, over the years, America’s huge trade deficit is what largely fueled China’s rapid growth.

Now that China’s leaders believe their prospering nation has emerged as a player in world history just as America’s prestige has been weakened by the Iraq war and the recent financial meltdown, the hard-liners have been able to wrest the upper hand once again.

No doubt there is some truth in the notion that their revived arrogance is inspired by China’s role as America’s largest creditor. Surely this is one reason China’s leadership feels free to insult President Barack Obama, as it did during his visit to China, when they blocked broad news coverage of his public speech, and when they sent lower-level officials to negotiate with him at the Copenhagen climate talks until the last minute when Prime Minister Wen Jiabao finally granted him an audience.

Their humiliation of President Obama was not personal. It served to mark China’s power on the world stage. But more importantly, as under Mao and Deng, standing up to the American superpower is meant to stem growing internal opposition and cow China’s restless people into subservience under a one-party dictatorship. This is particularly critical as greater democracy in China would expose its own economic problems.

How President Obama responds to this challenge is not just a matter of his own honor and position; it is a matter of defending the democratic value system of the West against a challenge for ideological leadership in the 21st century.

The case of Liu Xiaobo presents an opportunity for President Obama to save face and stand up to the hard-liners’ untoward arrogance. As Mr. Liu’s case is appealed to a higher court, the United States and the rest of the West should insist that his sentence be suspended. Such a strong stance will weaken the hard-liners while strengthening the voices of peaceful reform within China.

If the United States doesn’t push back, the hard-liners will push on, with negative consequences across the whole spectrum of issues, from trade and currency valuations to global security and climate change.

The United States may owe a great deal of debt to China, but it owes a greater debt to its founding principles of freedom and human rights. If the West, led by the United States, does not counterbalance China’s new might in the world order, who will?

Wei Jingsheng, a prominent Chinese dissident who spent 18 years in Chinese prisons, now lives in exile in Washington.

Global Viewpoint/Tribune Media Services

Wei Jingsheng is clearly a man who can empathise with the plight of Liu Xiaobo, comprehends the nature of what happened in Copenhagen, and understands the global nightmare of a world that sings to the tune of the CCP.

http://static.guim.co.uk/

Once again China is content to snipe away at ‘rich’ countries (and the US in particular) while abdicating her own responsibilities as she hides behind the convenient – and somewhat spurious – cloak of a ‘developing’ country. I’m prepared to bet that the Chinese delegation was behind Sudan’s criticism of developed nations a couple of days ago. Enlisting a dictatorial puppet in their machinations, or coercing minnows to throw a spanner in the works are well-worn China strategies.

Let’s be clear about what China has put on the table in Copenhagen. Beijing proposes not to cut emissions, but to continue increasing them at a slower rate, to 40 to 45 per cent (per unit of GDP) below 2005 levels by 2020. In other words China is proud to be both the biggest polluter and largest holder of foreign reserves on the planet, but would rather not share the tab for this particular – or any – undertaking that does not explicitly benefit China above all others. For the second time this year, China has dissed the Earth.

It’s all one big game of hardball scheming to China, where the object isn’t to come away with a climate deal, but rather to position itself as the champion of the poor (restrain your laughter, please) and tag the ill-defined ‘west’ as the bad guys who can’t be trusted to stick to their pledges.

For once in their shabby, narrow-minded, selfish, dictatorial lives why can’t the Chinese government treat a global conference as something other than a winner-takes-all game of risk?

Answers on a postcard to P.O. Box 666, Zhongnanhai.

Update

The Australian spells out the problem:

RICH nations, including the US and Australia, are demanding that China and other major developing-nation greenhouse gas emitters pledge clear reduction targets in an internationally binding agreement that allows the promises to be checked.

The US special envoy on climate change, Todd Stern, arrived in the Danish capital with a clear message: China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, had to take on a binding and verifiable commitment.

Mr Stern said the US accepted its responsibilities, but added “the country whose emissions is going up really rapidly is China”.

“You can’t even think about solving this problem without China,” he said. “You just have to do the math. There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass.

“Virtually all of the growth in emissions going forward . . . will be coming from developing countries, of which about 50 per cent will come from China alone.”

And there you have it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/

James Fallows’ page at The Atlantic should be the first port of call for anyone interested in a balanced perspective of what’s up with China. Fallows  is one of the most well-connected, respected, fair-minded, and knowledgeable China commentators out there. Which is probably why a member of Obama’s Asia delegation contacted him to set the record straight on the spreading of a false perception of failure following the US president’s recent China visit.

As Fallows was already on the record as being displeased with the negatively skewed American press coverage of the Sino venture, he was the perfect recipient of the inside scoop. Some of the insights (see here, here, and here) are both revealing and fascinating, providing some real money quotes about the difficulties of negotiating the big issues with China.

Below are a few samples of the what was really happening on inside, both on the run-up to, and during,  the China visit :

Administration hopes for the trip

“In thinking about the trip, the things we were trying to accomplish were all basically long term things. We were not looking for ‘deliverables’ or one-day stories. You’ve now got eight or nine countries among the G20 that are Asia-Pacific countries. The historic shift of power and influence from West to East is reflected in that number.

“Obama is very focused on global issues, things like climate change, financial imbalances, non proliferation, energy issues. We saw all the countries on this trip as players on those global issues. Of course China is important in particular, but also Korea and Japan and the ASEAN countries. So we saw this as a way of developing relationships that would be helpful to us as we tackled these issues coming down the road.

DPRK and Iran

“In the joint statement, the Chinese did in fact commit to seeking resumption of Six Party Talks at an early date. They agreed to that principle, and they were pretty robust in their insistence that they care about the denuclearization of North Korea. In fact they more than anyone else have reasons to be troubled by the program. The missiles may not be aimed at China, but they are right next to China. So our perspectives are not identical, but on North Korea, we’re doing pretty well.

“Iran has been more difficult, and will probably become a more sensitive issue. On the one hand, they get it. But as a matter of principle they don’t like sanctions and are concerned about their energy supplies, and they always like to free-ride. If the Russians are on board they will be on board too. At the end of the day, I expect the China will be on board. There may be some foot-dragging about specifics of a resolution, depending on how draconian it is.

Economics

“Discussions with the Chinese just don’t offer dramatic breakthrough moments. It’s water on a stone. They don’t reveal their Eurekas to you. While you’re there you get fairly predictable responses. Next time you go back and get a little different treatment.”

Town hall meeting

“We negotiated endlessly against a very difficult Chinese government on the issue. Their intransigence tells me several things. It was the day before the meeting with Hu Jintao, and there were uneasy about what might be said in a live format. ["Surprise" = "unacceptable risk" in many official Chinese dealings.] This was also a townhall format of a type they had never had before. We wanted to have 1000 or 1500 people. They said No. Security problems, and so on. So, we got to 500. We insisted on live streaming. Endless fights on that. Then live TV. Endless fights. And questions from the internet. Huge fights over who would pose them and who would screen. There wasn’t a single aspect of the meeting that wasn’t hard fought.

“It was tortured enough that we thought about pulling the plug. At the end of the day we decided to go through. The point is that on the Chinese side, this showed more than the usual anxiety. I think there was a genuine anxiety about the possible… force of Barack Obama. I would say a word short of “subversive” or “destabilizing.” But something profoundly disturbing to their system of government and control. The anxiety was a tribute to the kind of inspirational force he has.”

This represents just a little of what is offered by The White House insider. Tomorrow, James Fallows promises a final installment. I thoroughly recommend tuning in.

Yahoo News reports on the latest diatribe from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang:

Asked about a possible meeting between Obama and the Dalai Lama, Qin said the U.S. president should recognize the exiled Tibetan leader — a Nobel Peace Prize winner — as the former head of a slave state.

“In 1959, China abolished the feudal serf system just as President Lincoln freed the black slaves. So we hope President Obama more than any other foreign state leader can have a better understanding on China’s position on opposing the Dalai’s splitting activities,” Qin told reporters at a regularly scheduled news conference.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/

Qin’s analogy is nonsensical on so many levels, but if I may ask Qin one question that puts it in its appropriate place: when can we expect to see a free speaking, native Tibetan elevated to the position of PRC president via a fair, representative, and democratic electoral process?

Silence.

Many more memorable Qin Gangisms are available to those with free internet access. For those in China, you’ll have to make do with the real thing.