Impious Sons: Eminent and Treasonous

I believe that the Nobel Committee in Oslo chose the right candidate this year – Liu Xiaobo. What I find somewhat disturbing is that criticism of Liu Xiaobo isn’t regularly covered in our media. That may be due to unawareness, to indifference (which would be understandable if there weren’t many Chinese nationals who take issue), to a misunderstanding, or an unwillingness to confront the possibility that the laureate may be too unharmonious even for the perception of many audiences outside China. But Liu Xiaobo himself advocates open debate.

What is frequently held against Liu by his critics – and possibly his persecutors, too -, are statements he made in an interview 22 years ago with Kaifang, a monthly magazine from Hong Kong:

Q. What developmental stage do you think Chinese society is in?
A. It has not yet emerged out of an agrarian society.

Q. Is there any need to take remedial classes in capitalism?
A. It is essential.

Q. So should China follow the usual path for an agrarian society?
A. Yes. But it has to modify its totalitarian regime because it is looking at a crisis. *)

Q. Can China make fundamental changes?
A. Impossible. Even if one or two rulers want to, there is still no way because the conditions are not there.

Q. Under what circumstances can China carry out a genuine historical transformation?
A. Three hundred years of colonialism. Hong Kong became like this after one hundred years of colonialism. China is so much larger, so obviously it will take three hundred years of colonialism. I am still doubtful whether three hundred years of colonialism will be enough to turn China into Hong Kong today.

Q. This is 100% “treason.”
A. I will cite one sentence from Marx’s Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Workers do not have motherlands. You cannot take away what they don’t have.” I care about neither patriotism nor treason. If you say that I betray my country, I will go along! I admit that I am an impious son who dug up his ancestors’ graves and I am proud of it. **)

Q. You are saying that you want China to take Hong Kong’s path?
A. But history will not give this opportunity to the Chinese people. The era of colonialism has gone by. Nobody is willing to bear the burden known as China.

Q. What can be done? Isn’t this too pessimistic?
A. There is no way out. I am pessimistic about humankind as a whole. But my pessimism is not escapism. I see before me one tragedy after another tragedy. But I will struggle and I will fight back. That is the reason why I like Nietzsche and I don’t like Schopenhauer.

In Chinese (according to an entry in a forum, and therefore not necessarily reliable):

问：你认为现在的中国社会处在历史的什么发展阶段?

刘晓波：还没有走出农业文明。

问：是不是要补资本主义的课?

刘晓波：必须补课。

问 ： 那么，今天中国的路线还是顺着农业社会的惯性在走?

刘晓波：是的。不过，它在调整它的专制，因为它面临危机。

问：中国可能在根本上加以改造吗?

刘晓波：不可能，即使一两个统治者下决心，也没办法，因为没有土壤。

问：那什么条件下，中国才有可能实现一个真正的历史变革呢?

刘晓波：三百年殖民地。香港一百年殖民地变成今天这样，中国那么大，当然需要三百年殖民地，才会变成今天香港这样，三百年够不够，我还有怀疑。

问：十足的：“卖国主义”啦。

刘晓波：我要引用马克思“***宣言”的一句话：“工人没有祖国，决不能剥夺他们所没有的东西。”我无所谓爱国、叛国，你要说我叛国，我就叛国!就承认自己是挖祖坟的不孝子孙，且以此为荣。

问：你是说，中国还要走香港的路?

刘晓波：但历史不会再给中国人这样的机会了，殖民地时代已经过去了，没人会愿意再背中国这个包袱。

问：那怎么办呢?岂不太令人悲观?

刘晓波：没办法。我对整个人类都是悲观的，但我的悲观主义并不逃避，即使摆在我面前的是一个又一个悲剧，我也要挣扎，也要对抗，我不喜欢叔本华而喜欢尼采，原因便在于此。

Obviously, it’s up to every individual if there would be a need to agree with Liu Xiaobo’s pessimism of 1988. As for my own patriotic feelings, I’ve heard several friends say that they’d wish the times of allied occupation back to West Germany. Would I run to the police to report them? Would the police care? Hardly so. Would I believe that they don’t love our country? I can’t tell if Liu Xiaobo loves his country or not – nor can his critics – but I do know that my German friends love their country.

If a Chinese court has actually ever used Mr Liu’s words as evidence to allegations of treason to either his country, or his government, it certainly wasn’t in 2009, when Liu was sentenced to his current 11-years term in jail. There, the Charter 08 was the issue, or, in the court’s own words, inciting subversion of state power (煽动颠覆国家政权).

I know that there are people who honestly take offense from what Liu said in 1988. And I can understand that (without agreeing with them), so long as they still insist on lawful procedures at the same time, rather than advocating revenge through the courts. But it puzzles me when a – supposedly Chinese – commenter on another blog calls Liu a “traitor” on the one hand, and then quotes Amartya Sen, an Indian national, with the following words:

The eminent Indian economist Amartya Sen, has estimated that “compared with China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused an extra 4 million deaths a year since India’s independence…India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame, 1958-61’”.

How offended should Indian people feel when listening to Amartya Sen? To insult India was hardly Sen’s intention. To urge them to do better in reducing poverty and famine was – most problably – what motivated him to use Maoist China as a negative example. Sen, too, used tough language, and besides did injustice to those who died during the Great Leap Forward at the same time. But I don’t think he’s “unpatriotic”. He just doesn’t like the way certain people in power habitually abuse the concept.

____________

Notes
*) 专制 may also be translated as authoritarian or despotic
**) 我无所谓爱国、叛国，你要说我叛国，我就叛国! (my translation would be “I don’t care about this so-called ‘loving the country’, or ‘trason’ [correction, 2010-10-13: 'treason'] – if you want to call me a traitor, so then I’m a traitor!”)

Related
“Barack Obama has committed another act of treason”, Infowars / Youtube, 2010

Press Conference: Natural Disasters, January – September 2010

The State Council Information Office held a press conference on Tuesday, reports chinanews.com.cn [via Enorth]. Land and Natural Resources deputy minister Wang Min (汪民, Wāngmín) told the press conference that geological disasters this year had been serious, and that they could be explained with four causes – meteorological and geological factors, earthquakes, and the capabilities to control disasters [the last point apparently pointing to limits on the ability to prevent disasters]. Up to September, 29,000 “geological disasters” occured (or 26,000, as quoted by CNTV), 368 of which had led to injuries and deaths. 2,892 people were dead or missing as a result, and economic damage amounted to 6,26 billion Yuan.

Wang explanatory list included exceptional meteorological factors (特殊的气象因素); geological causes (地质地貌原因) which had featured relatively prominently this year, especially in western mountainous areas; and the aftermath of earthquakes (地震活动的影响), as the 5-12 Wenchuan earthquake of 2008 in particular had added to existing geological instabilities in the belt of Sichuan, southern Shanxi and southern Gansu [the area of southern Gansu, 甘南 or Gānnán, apparently refers to parts of historical Greater Tibet - JR] . Disaster prevention or relief capabilities were lagging behind the occurences (防治能力的滞后), as the combination of factors experienced this year had rearely been seen before. Even though capabilities had been expanded in recent years, it had been difficult to keep pace with the events.

____________

Related
‘Grim situation’ at Three Gorges Dam, China Daily, May 24, 2010
Cracks on Li Peng’s Memorial, March 18, 2010
Wenchuan Earthquake and Zipingpu Reservoir, Febr 5, 2009
CNTV English (CCTV Website)

Economist: “The Laureate behind Bars”

Mr Liu is precisely the kind of dissident that the party regards as most threatening, writes the Economist:

He is a seasoned campaigner, a veteran of the Tiananmen protests who has shown no sign of succumbing to the party’s intimidation in spite of three periods of incarceration over the past two decades (more than five years in total). He is a mildly spoken literary critic who has created the sort of consensus that is unusual to forge among China’s infighting intellectuals. Mr Liu’s Charter 08, a document that calls for democracy, was signed initially by more than 300 liberal thinkers (and then by thousands of others online). It struck a reasoned tone to which radicals and moderates alike could subscribe. The debate over “universal values” that it helped to fuel still rages within the party today.

I believe that the prize went to the right candidate this year – but I doubt that Liu would be precisely the kind of dissident that the party regards as most threatening. Liu worked in a transparent, public way. He advocates a genuine public life. The CCP probably still fears Falun Gong a lot more.

RMB Appreciation: the Specter of a “Lost Decade”

Maybe as a contribution to reported efforts by Japanese premier Naoto Kan and Chinese chief state councillor Wen Jiabao to mend bilateral ties, Takatoshi Ito, a Japanese economist and University of Tokyo professor, has some words of advice for the guardians of China’s currency, especially those who disapprove of a rise in the Yuan RMB’s exchange rate. On October 7, Ito wrote in an article for the Handelsblatt that

A specter haunts China’s exchange-rate system: the long-standing dispute between the US and Japan during the 1980s and early 90s about the Japanese Yen’s value. The dispute only ended when Japan’s economy entered its “lost decade”. The Chinese are determined not to repeat this experience. Obviously, history – and the history of finance in particular – never repeats itself to the letter. But the arguments one can hear concerning the Yuan these days do generate a strong sense of déjà-vu among the Japanese.

From JR's foreign currency reserves

Just as back then, US Congress – preparing retaliatory action – is the center of American anger, reacting to pressure within the US, writes Ito, citing the September 1985 Plaza Agreement as China’s main argument against RMB appreciation. After America, Britain, France, Japan and West Germany had agreed to common efforts to depreciate the US dollar, the Yen’s exchange rate rushed from 240 to 178 Yen per USD by March 1986. Japan intervened into the opposite direction: lowering interest rates, selling Yen and buying Dollars. Low interest rates discouraged capital inflow and pushed inflation of assets.

Ito:

The bubble of Japanese property and share prices didn’t build and burst because Japan had given in to US pressure to revaluate the Yen, but because it resisted [appreciation]. If China wants to draw the right conclusions from Japan’s experience, it needs to know what really happened in Japan back then.

China should look carefully if there are indications of overheating within the domestic economy, and if prices for shares are rising sharply. To allow for a rise in the Yuan’s value would be a good approach to avoid both.

Michael Pettis believes that the rise of the RMB’s value will be inexorable, and adds a warning:

This is the problem China faces.  It must raise the value of the renminbi as part of its rebalancing towards greater domestic consumption, but if it does so too quickly, the rebalancing will occur not as an increase in consumption relative to rising production, but rather as a drop in production relative to declining consumption.

This may seem like a confusing point, but it is worth understanding.  China can rebalance with high unemployment as well as with low unemployment, and the difference has to do with the speed of the rebalancing.  If China adjusts too quickly, consumption will actually decline, and production will decline even faster.  In that case China rebalances (consumption rises as a share of GDP), but under conditions of rising unemployment.

____________

Related
“Full of Expectations”, October 5, 2010
Geithner/Soros/Summers: “Growth Now”, June 23, 2010
Laobaixing against RMB appreciation, April 26, 2010

Fenqings celebrate 2010 Nobel Peace Prize

Just trouble making white motherfuckers trying to spit in the face of the Chinese people. I hope they take the fucker out and empty an AK47 magazine into his fucken head.

Mongol Warrior, commenter on Found in China, on the Nobel Committee’s decision to award the 2010 prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (刘晓波).

Taiwan News Roundup: “in Just Three Seconds”

Municipal Elections in November

Taiwan’s municipal elections will be held on November 27 – Wikipedia provides some opinion polls and results of past elections (last updated on October 3). Echo Taiwan shows the seats and offices up for grabs, and the respective numbers of contestants, plus a schedule.

A Gu commented more than a week ago on an interview which DPP chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) had given to Taiwan’s edition of Apple Daily earlier in September.

The municipal elections were about dealing with local issues, Apple Daily quotes Tsai. As for national issues, views within the DPP had also become more unified (內部意見也趨於一致), after profound reflection following the election defeats in 2008 (民進黨失去政權後，是有深刻反省的). Tsai is directly quoted as saying that

Awareness of political ideals is one thing; stability is another – the most important thing in cross-strait relations is stability (體認政治取向是一回事，穩定又是一回事，兩岸最重要的是穩定。)

Tsai currently doubles as the DPP’s chairwoman, and as her party’s candidate for mayorship of Sinbei City (新北市). Sinbei  [aka Xinbei] used to be Taipei County before a re-organization of Taiwan’s administrative divisions.

A Gu is critical of Tsai’s remarks, although

I sense she’s responding to the tendency of the ever-important moderate voter; I also note she wasn’t terribly specific.

Fan Liqing (范麗青), China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokeswoman, probably couldn’t agree more, but would certainly see the supposed election context of Tsai’s remarks in a much less friendly light. On a press conference on September 29, she said that

I have seen the coverage, I don’t know if this is election language (看到了有關報導，不知道這是不是選舉語言),

adding that the peaceful development of cross-strait relations was based on “opposing Taiwan independence” and “upholding the 92 consensus“.

____________

FTAs: “Keep Taiwan’s Interests in Mind”

Meantime, Dixteel argues that while signing free-trade agreements (FTA) with further countries (after establishing ECFA with China earlier this year) can be feneficial, FTAs shouldn’t be signed for FTAs sake.

I am not saying signing FTA with Singapore is a bad thing, but Taiwan needs to have a Taiwan centric thinking when signing this deal.  Otherwise, this type of deals will only be a tool of pro-China politicians and a waste of time and money, because they will not be negotiated with Taiwan’s interests in mind.

The Straits Times (Singapore), advocating the FTA, suggested on September 15 that Singapore’s and Taiwan’s economies could be a lot more complementary than meets the eye.

____________

KMT Government Approval Ratings: give me just three seconds

As various polls have shown disappointment with [Tawain's] cabinet’s performance, Executive Yuan president Wu Dun-yih (吳敦義) is quoted by Channel Asia as saying that “every cabinet member has room to improve and we will do it. If President Ma (Ying-jeou) thinks I should fine tune it, I could do it in just three seconds.”

Writing this post took a bit longer.

Nobel Peace Prize 2010 awarded to Liu Xiaobo

The campaign to establish universal human rights also in China is being waged by many Chinese, both in China itself and abroad. Through the severe punishment meted out to him, Liu has become the foremost symbol of this wide-ranging struggle for human rights in China.

Press release, Norwegian Nobel Committee, October 8, 2010

____________

Update / Related
Back in Prison – Liu Xiaobo short bio, Dec 25, 2009

This Exercise, However…

MR. MORRELL: Let me — you’ve already had your chance; going to this gentleman over here.

Q (Name inaudible) — with China Press. I have two questions regarding U.S.-China and Japan relations.

MR. MORRELL: Okay.

Q The first one, it was reported by the Japanese Sankei Shimbun newspaper that the United States and Japan are slated to hold a joint military exercise in November as a mock operation to retake Diaoyutai Islands of China occupies them.

MR. MORRELL: Yeah.

Q Can you — could you confirm this report? If it’s true, what would be the purpose of this operation?

[...]

MR. MORRELL: The first question was about this exercise — the U.S.-Japanese military exercise — and I think you tried to connect it to the island dispute. Absolutely no connection. It’s a long-planned exercise not relating to any current events. This is merely about keeping up our operational — our ability to operate well together. And long-planned, not related to the island dispute at all.

Q So you mean the newspaper connect the two things together, right?

MR. MORRELL: I’m sorry?

Q The newspaper connect the exercise with the — (inaudible).

MR. MORRELL: They did that? Newspapers. I can’t believe that. (Chuckles.)
Yes, oftentimes things that are unrelated are connected in news stories. And that’s part of why I have a job, to push back on such things.

US Department of Defense news transcript, October 5, 2010

————

Huanqiu reporter Dong Wei reports that, according to Japan’s newsagency Kyodo of October 6, American department of defense spokesman Morell said on October 5 that the governments of Japan and the US plan an “island defense exercise” between the US forces and Japan’s self-defense forces. The American side said that the exercise was “not related” to the Sino-Japanese collision incident.

However, as sources on Japanese-US relations revealed, the military exercise of the two countries is based on the hypothesis that Japanese islands were “suffering an armed attack”. It is reported that Japan’s self-defense forces will dispatch aircraft, including F-15 fighter jets and cargo aircrafts to take part in this exercise, and that 250 paratroopers will be transferred from nearby Okinawa military base. The US Seventh Fleet will also join the exercise. Some of the exercise project will be public. Morrell said: “The exercise is being planned, and is not related to this incident” (莫雷尔称：“演习早就在计划之中，与‘此次发生的事件’无关). Kyodo’s report says that because of the hard-line attitude China displayed on the question of sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands, the Japanese-US exercises could have “the effect of highlightening Japanese-US cooperation”.

Huanqiu Shibao, October 6, 2010

————

The first two paragraphs of Kyodo’s report – the one Huanqiu Shibao reporter Dong Wei [update/correction: Zhong Wei (仲伟)] apparently refers to -, have about the same wording as Dong’s own, but without the word “However” at the beginning of the second paragraph.

____________

Related

“ROC sovereignty claim is unquestionable”, Focus Taiwan, October 3, 2010
“Ring of Fire”, Taipei Times, September 15, 2010