Pro-China bias?

[Siberia]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

The Communist Chinese regime has been a brutal psychopathic one, so it is quite surprising to me to see an argument here that their propaganda is substantially accurate. It may be better to say the US regime is super-psychopathic and the Chinese regime is regular-psychopathic. The Chinese government elite are lying liars and I believe it is a mistake to suggest that their propaganda approaches objective reality. The shameful history under the rule of Mao is a prime example of psychopaths run amok.

What makes you think that the current "Chinese regime is regular-psychopathic"? And how would you comment on 2010 session:

(Belibaste) We wanted to know the percentage of psychopaths geographically speaking, like in the US, Israel, UK.

(L) Alright, let's take them one at a time.

(Belibaste) USA?

A: 23 percent.

And from the same session:

Q: (Ailén) China?

A: 0.9

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

If you read the psychopathic Chinese government propaganda, you might think that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a part of China (People's Republic of China). In reality, the Taiwanese government was established on the island in 1949 when the losers of the Chinese civil war retreated to Taiwan and ruthlessly took over the island from the indigenous population. Taiwan (Republic of China) was recognized as the official China in the United Nations until 1971. China to this day threatens Taiwan with war if Taiwan declares "independence" from China as if Taiwan is part of China. Objective reality is that Taiwan has been independent from China for over 60 years.

Through the many dynasties, the territorial size of China fluctuated. Here is a flavor of the different sizes. So what is the true China? Even the Chinese don't know.
_https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif

The Chinese people overall are poor and live in third world conditions. I'm not saying the tables below are completely accurate; what they do is show the orders of magnitude of disparity in wealth.
GDP per capita
_http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
_http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-per-capita

The Hong Kong protesters have a legitimate grievance. Psychopathic China wants to select 2 or 3 candidates for the Hong Kong people to vote on to be the top government ruler of Hong Kong. That's not even pretending to be fair. I don't doubt that foreign governments (eg US) are adding to the fire.

Should we ignore legitimate grievances and mass protests of the people that garner international attention even though foreign forces try to use them to their advantage? Was the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King a covert government operation or a legitimate movement of the people? Was Indian independence and Gandhi a covert government operation or a legitimate movement of the people?

Do the Tibetan people want independence or continued rule under China? Do the Hong Kong people want independence or continued rule under China? I don't think we can emphatically say that they want continued rule under China.

I believe the current Chinese regime rules by brute force and crushes dissent. Many parts of current China would likely break away if they could overcome.

I'm probably suffering cognitive dissonance because it is quite obvious to me that the Chinese regime is a psychopathic one, on one hand, and yet on the other hand, intelligent and thoughtful people are saying the Chinese government is more or less objective.

 

[Bobo08]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I'm probably suffering cognitive dissonance because it is quite obvious to me that the Chinese regime is a psychopathic one, on one hand, and yet on the other hand, intelligent and thoughtful people are saying the Chinese government is more or less objective.

I notice that throughout this thread we are talking about "Chinese government" as if it is one single consistent regime throughout its history from 1949 until now. I don't think it is the case. The Chinese government has changed substantially throughout the years, through subtle and not so subtle internal coups. So it is necessary to qualify which government we are talking about.

I agree that the early Chinese government, at least up to the early 1970s, is psychopathic. The government of Vietnam, where I'm from, copied many of its policies from China and this is one very dark period in our history, not even counting the war with America. But I also think that recent governments, both in China and Vietnam, are changing for the better. How do they do that? I don't know. But it is a good thing that they could do it without any (or much) bloodshed.

When I say changing for the better, I'm not under illusion that everything suddenly becomes perfect. There's still a lot of corruption, lying, manipulation going on both in internal and external policies, simply because the old faction is still active and it will take a lot of time to get rid of those. It is similar to the situation in Russia. But what is important is that it is changing for the better, unlike the US, which is changing for the worse. I think that can partly account for the position that SOTT has taken.

FWIW.

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

If you read the psychopathic Chinese government propaganda, you might think that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a part of China (People's Republic of China). In reality, the Taiwanese government was established on the island in 1949 when the losers of the Chinese civil war retreated to Taiwan and ruthlessly took over the island from the indigenous population. Taiwan (Republic of China) was recognized as the official China in the United Nations until 1971. China to this day threatens Taiwan with war if Taiwan declares "independence" from China as if Taiwan is part of China. Objective reality is that Taiwan has been independent from China for over 60 years.

Here again we find that 'independence' - in this world - is rarely what people commonly think it is. Is Taiwan 'independent' or is it a US/Western vassal state?

As the Chinese government sees things, it wants Taiwan back from the US. Objectively, this is a more accurate framing of the issue.

List of United States Air Force installations - Taiwan

The Hong Kong protesters have a legitimate grievance. Psychopathic China wants to select 2 or 3 candidates for the Hong Kong people to vote on to be the top government ruler of Hong Kong. That's not even pretending to be fair. I don't doubt that foreign governments (eg US) are adding to the fire.

I see you're under the illusion that democracy was ever, or could ever, be 'fair'. China doesn't 'pretend' because China knows it's all a load of nonsense peddled to gullible Westerners.

Should we ignore legitimate grievances and mass protests of the people that garner international attention even though foreign forces try to use them to their advantage?

Puhleeze! The Hong Kong protests are a color-revolution job, through and through!

Was the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King a covert government operation or a legitimate movement of the people? Was Indian independence and Gandhi a covert government operation or a legitimate movement of the people?

AS IF those can be compared!? They were assassinated by the same forces parading the HK protests leaders before the Western media.

Do the Tibetan people want independence or continued rule under China? Do the Hong Kong people want independence or continued rule under China? I don't think we can emphatically say that they want continued rule under China.

You're asking the wrong questions. Do 'the Tibetan people' have any clue what is best for them? Do the masses ANYWHERE have any clue? It's clear what some Hong-Kongers want... but do they understand the implications? You've lived in a Western democracy for some time now. What do you think of the elections you've participated in? Are you satisfied with the direction your society is going in? Do you feel enfranchised? Is your government responsive to your needs?

I believe the current Chinese regime rules by brute force and crushes dissent.

...as opposed to where exactly? You see, when people say such things, it's always implied that there is somewhere - presumably where they are - that such does not take place.

But ok, we're talking about China, so let's focus on China...

Wikileaks: no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square, cables claim

Many parts of current China would likely break away if they could overcome.

Oh I think you'll find you're very much mistaken!

(Anam Cara) Is there a Chinese Putin who's waiting to make his move on the geopolitical stage?

(Perceval) Ah, Pu Ting! [laughter]

A: Not likely.

Q: (Mr. Scott) You don't need a Chinese Putin when you've got a Putin Putin.

(L) When you've got Putin in Russia, what do you need a Chinese Putin for?

(Perceval) You've got a rootin-tootin' Putin! [laughter]

(Alada) Well, China is so big, but it's so relatively quiet...

A: Still waters run deep and strong. The USA and allies are in for a rude and painful awakening.

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I don't really want to get into a long discussion about Tibetan history.

Okidoki, so let's address your opening observation/question by formulating it this way:

Does SOTT have a pro-China bias?

No. What SOTT has is an anti-US Empire/Western power structure 'bias'. Bias is in quotes, however, because it's an inappropriate term in this context. A bias is something unconscious. SOTT came to its view of the Empire through long-term observation, and it had to work through many, many biases to get there.

 

[Joe]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Should we ignore legitimate grievances and mass protests of the people that garner international attention even though foreign forces try to use them to their advantage? Was the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King a covert government operation or a legitimate movement of the people? Was Indian independence and Gandhi a covert government operation or a legitimate movement of the people?

Do the Tibetan people want independence or continued rule under China? Do the Hong Kong people want independence or continued rule under China? I don't think we can emphatically say that they want continued rule under China.

I believe the current Chinese regime rules by brute force and crushes dissent. Many parts of current China would likely break away if they could overcome.

The problem is that the "will of the people" is rarely the will of the people and usually the will of a few individuals in positions of power. In the case of Asia in modern history, those few individuals were very often proxies of Western pathocrats. I have to say, the kind of "meddling" in the affairs of other nations that you are proposing smacks very much of the kind of ideas that are thrown around places like the Brookings Institute. Take Ukraine for example. What a shining example of the "will of the people" in action. How lucky all those Ukrainians are that they got what they wanted. Eh....

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

As the Chinese government sees things, it wants Taiwan back from the US. Objectively, this is a more accurate framing of the issue.

This is an interesting framing. However, it is not how the current Chinese government frames the issue; I am really interested in looking at sources that allege this is how the Chinese government looks at it because I've never seen that from them.

If you look at how China (People's Republic of China) and Taiwan (Republic of China) frame the issue, it starts with Dr. Sun Yat-sen, who is highly revered by both sides. This is a civil war that has not reached a resolution.

It seems you are invested in your position and I don't have a goal of changing your mind.

Your arguments do not invalidate my basic premise that both US and Chinese governments are bad, just one is worse than the other. The Chinese government may not be as bad, but that does not make them good.

It is disturbing to me that you seem to turn a blind eye to Chinese government deficiencies.

Shall we have benevolent philosopher kings instead of people trying (and not succeeding) to rule themselves? If the masses don't know what is best for them, should the dictators and elite decide for them? If the masses know what they want, should it be denied to them and so they are prevented from learning the lessons?

the kind of "meddling" in the affairs of other nations that you are proposing

Sorry, I'm not understanding what is the meddling I'm proposing.

The Taiwan issue is not new and is not just a Western sponsored issue. The KMT just got their butts kicked in the last election (if you believe those are legitimate) which sets the stage for a potential big problem with the DPP and the 2016 presidential election.

 

[Joe]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

You're citing "independence protest movements" that you think should be supported by...well us I suppose, and using previous protest movements to support your point. That's the same kind of process that Western governments engage in to lobby for 'regime change' or "revolution".

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

You're citing "independence protest movements" that you think should be supported by...well us I suppose, and using previous protest movements to support your point. That's the same kind of process that Western governments engage in to lobby for 'regime change' or "revolution".

Do the Tibetan people want independence or continued rule under China? Do the Hong Kong people want independence or continued rule under China? I don't think we can emphatically say that they want continued rule under China.

This was not to suggest that we or outside governments should suggest or engage in regime change. It was directed that the following comment.

I can pretty much guarantee you that all the ones that get attention, are.

It is not a new issue that people of Hong Kong want their autonomy. What is new is the recent Chinese proposal to limit the executive office to only 2 or 3 candidates of their choosing. The subsequent protests against that proposal have a valid point. I am not disputing that covert operations are involved. However, I don't understand why some people here are ok with the Chinese proposal. It is not a proposal from a benevolent government. And that is the whole point. The Chinese government is not a benevolent government, is not a promoter of what is objective.

 

[Joe]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

The Chinese government is not a benevolent government, is not a promoter of what is objective.

I suppose it depends on what "objective" is for you and that, I think, would be based on your understanding of human nature, human history, civilizations and theories of government.

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

This is an interesting framing. However, it is not how the current Chinese government frames the issue; I am really interested in looking at sources that allege this is how the Chinese government looks at it because I've never seen that from them.

I don't mean to suggest that official Chinese narratives spell it out like this. That's my reading of it in a geopolitical context. And I know that the Chinese elite incorporates geopolitics into its strategic thinking. Strategic thinking in East Asia isn't generally publicized as 'We don't like US bases in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and elsewhere'... but those with eyes to see know what the problem is and always has been: Western, imperial 'great games'!

Taiwan is to China what Ukraine is to Russia - not 'possessions' or 'potential possessions', but places and peoples that are culturally, economically, religiously, historically ('civilizational-ly'?) bound to them, so why the heck should the US or UK be entitled to use them as 'sore spots' with which to poke the Bear and Panda?

Your arguments do not invalidate my basic premise that both US and Chinese governments are bad, just one is worse than the other. The Chinese government may not be as bad, but that does not make them good.

Ok, but whether you intend to or not, when you criticize the less bad one by the standards propounded by the more bad one, standards that it uses merely as a weapon and has zero intention of applying to itself, you do battle for the more bad one.

It is disturbing to me that you seem to turn a blind eye to Chinese government deficiencies.

It's disturbing to me that after what happened in Kiev last year, you still think the Western perspective of China has any merit.

Shall we have benevolent philosopher kings instead of people trying (and not succeeding) to rule themselves?

That's exactly how your Brzezinskis and Kissingers and Bernhard Henri-Levys see themselves. What I mean to say is that this is how the real world works. The ordinary people in the West are given nothing more than the illusion that they rule themselves, or choose their rulers for themselves.

If the masses don't know what is best for them, should the dictators and elite decide for them?

Should?! This is the way it is, and always has been. The only question is, does the elite, or solitary leader, at any given time genuinely try to do what is best for all? It's rare, but it can and does happen.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I don't really want to get into a long discussion about Tibetan history.

Okidoki, so let's address your opening observation/question by formulating it this way:

Does SOTT have a pro-China bias?

No. What SOTT has is an anti-US Empire/Western power structure 'bias'. Bias is in quotes, however, because it's an inappropriate term in this context. A bias is something unconscious. SOTT came to its view of the Empire through long-term observation, and it had to work through many, many biases to get there.

I guess looking at the history of Tibet is necessary for an analysis of whether Chinese claims like "Tibet has always been part of China" are objectively true or propaganda. But this is a big topic and this forum is probably not the place for it. There are other websites available for gaining information on Tibet.

I do think Sergius Kuzmin's book Hidden Tibet: History of Indendence and Occupation (2010) is a good one on the subject. I have ordered a copy of it to be sent to the Chateau. Kuzmin is a Russian author, and the back cover contains some recommendations from other Russian academics:

"S. Kuzmin is convincing in his conclusions, and his work is a serious contribution to the progress of Russian and world Tibetology" - Dr. T. L. Shaumian, Tibetologist, Russian Academy of Sciences.

"The conclusions are quite convincing as they resulted from strictly scientific and objective analysis" - Dr S. V. Dmitriev, Sinologist, Russian Academy of Sciences.

"Author's goal was to analyze the problem in detail instead of adapting facts to fit the concept" - A. A. Khramchikhin, Vice Director of the Institute of Political & Military Analysis.

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I do think Sergius Kuzmin's book Hidden Tibet: History of Indendence and Occupation (2010) is a good one on the subject. I have ordered a copy of it to be sent to the Chateau. Kuzmin is a Russian author, and the back cover contains some recommendations from other Russian academics

I can't promise I'll read it all right away, but I'll certainly consider its information.

For argument's sake, let me join you on your quest to free Tibet from China, and let's say it happens tomorrow. Tibet is now an independent nation-state.

What do you think happens next?

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

It is not a new issue that people of Hong Kong want their autonomy. What is new is the recent Chinese proposal to limit the executive office to only 2 or 3 candidates of their choosing. The subsequent protests against that proposal have a valid point.

And what is that valid point? Remember, the Chinese authorities know something those protesters don't: democracy is a façade. Worse, in this context, it's a Trojan Horse through which Western oligarchs can increase their influence in Hong Kong, and through it, into China.

I am not disputing that covert operations are involved. However, I don't understand why some people here are ok with the Chinese proposal. It is not a proposal from a benevolent government. And that is the whole point. The Chinese government is not a benevolent government, is not a promoter of what is objective.

No hlat, those students are naive. They don't understand that democracy, as practised in places where oligarchy rules, is the far greater deception. The Chinese proposal was weak because Beijing would prefer to take the flak from resulting Western soft power tactics (the protests) than risk ceding any more power in Hong Kong back to the Western oligarchy.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

For argument's sake, let me join you on your quest to free Tibet from China, and let's say it happens tomorrow. Tibet is now an independent nation-state.

What do you think happens next?

The Tibetan Government-In-Exile, the Dalai Lama and his advisors have put more thought into this question than I have. Although some Tibetans and many peace-loving slogan chanters would want full independence for Tibet, the position of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile has for decades been that they want only "meaningful autonomy" for the Tibetan Autonomous Region, while preserving the national borders of the People's Republic of China.

In his 2008 address to the Plenary Session of the European Parliament, the Dalai Lama said:

During the seventh round of talks in Beijing on 1st and 2nd July this year, the Chinese side invited us to present our views on the form of genuine autonomy. Accordingly, on 31st October 2008 we presented to the Chinese leadership the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People. Our memorandum puts forth our position on genuine autonomy and how the basic needs of the Tibetan nationality for autonomy and self-government can be met. We have presented these suggestions with the sole purpose of making a sincere effort to address the real problems in Tibet. We were confident that given goodwill, the issues raised in our memorandum could be implemented.

Unfortunately, the Chinese side has rejected our memorandum in its totality, branding our suggestions as an attempt at semi-independence and independence in disguise and, for that reason, unacceptable. Moreover, the Chinese side is accusing us of “ethnic cleansing” because our memorandum calls for the recognition of the right of autonomous areas “to regulate the residence, settlement and employment or economic activities of persons who wish to move to Tibetan areas from other parts of the PRC.”

We have made it clear in our memorandum that our intention is not to expel non-Tibetans. Our concern is the induced mass movement of primarily Han, but also some other nationalities, into many Tibetan areas, which in turn marginalizes the native Tibetan population and threatens Tibets fragile natural environment. Major demographic changes that result from massive migration will lead to the assimilation rather than integration of the Tibetan nationality into the PRC and gradually lead to the extinction of the distinct culture and identity of the Tibetan people.

The cases of the peoples of Manchuria, Inner Mongolia and East Turkestan in the PRC are clear examples of the devastating consequences of a massive population transfer of the dominant Han nationality upon the minority nationalities. Today, the language, script and culture of the Manchu people have become extinct. In Inner Mongolia today, only 20% are native Mongolians out of a total population of 24 millions.

Despite the assertions by some hard-line Chinese officials to the contrary, from the copies of our memorandum made available to you it is clear that we have sincerely addressed the concerns of the Chinese government about the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the PRC. The memorandum is self-explanatory. I would welcome your comments and suggestions.

I take this opportunity to appeal to the European Union and the Parliament to use your good offices, sparing no efforts, to persuade the Chinese leadership to resolve the issue of Tibet through earnest negotiations for the common good of the Tibetan and Chinese peoples.

While I firmly reject the use of violence as a means in our struggle, we certainly have the right to explore all other political options available to us. In the spirit of democracy, I called for a Special Meeting of Tibetans in exile to discuss the state of Tibetan people and the state of the issue of Tibet and the future course of our movement. The meeting took place from November 17-22, 2008 in Dharamsala, India. The failure of the Chinese leadership to respond positively to our initiatives has reaffirmed the suspicion held by many Tibetans that the Chinese government has no interest whatsoever in any kind of mutually acceptable solution. Many Tibetans continue to believe that the Chinese leadership is bent on the forceful and complete assimilation and absorption of Tibet into China. They therefore call for the complete independence of Tibet. Others advocate the right to self-determination and a referendum in Tibet. Despite these different views, the delegates to the Special Meeting unanimously resolved to empower me to decide the best approach, in accordance with the prevailing situation and the changes taking place in Tibet, China and the wider world. I will study the suggestions made by about 600 leaders and delegates from Tibetan communities around the world, including views we are able to gather from a cross section of Tibetans in Tibet.

I am a staunch believer in democracy. Consequently, I have consistently encouraged Tibetans in exile to follow the democratic process. Today, the Tibetan refugee community may be among the few refugee communities that have established all three pillars of democracy: legislature, judiciary and executive. In 2001, we took another great stride in the process of democratization by having the chairman of the Kashag (cabinet) of the Tibetan Administration in exile elected by popular vote.

I have always maintained that ultimately the Tibetan people must be able to decide the future of Tibet. As Pandit Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, stated in the Indian Parliament on December 7, 1950: The last voice in regard to Tibet should be the voice of the people of Tibet and nobody else.

- _http://tibet.net/2008/12/04/address-to-the-plenary-session-of-the-european-parliament/

The "Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People" referred to above is here:

- _http://tibet.net/important-issues/sino-tibetan-dialogue/memorandum-on-geniune-autonomy-for-the-tibetan-people/

I think that since Han Chinese now greatly outnumber Tibetans within the Tibet Autonomous Region of the PRC, and with the modernization and economic development that China has carried out, the cultural assimilation of Tibet into China could perhaps realistically, or in terms of realpolitik, be seen now as a fait accompli.

Kuzmin says something along these lines at the end of his book Hidden Tibet:

Nowadays, the small islands of the Tibetan-Mongolian civilization diverge more and more, following the trajectories of countries to which they belong. China, Russia and independent Mongolia are on track to post-industrial development and globalization. In such circumstances, the dominant idea is productivism and bourgeois levelling (even if under communist ideology). The experience of all countries shows that in such conditions, for the most part, culture is preserved as an object of a tourist destination.

The only way to avoid this in the Tibetan-Mongolian sphere is to rely on the ideology of traditionalism and the Buddhist religion. In Russia, China and Mongolia such is unlikely, but traditionalism can still be preserved in the Himalayan Tibetan communities: in India (including Sikkim, Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh), Bhutan and Nepal.

- page 508.