Article seeks Author

This article, if correctly attributed to Liu Xiaobo, could be relevant in discussions about this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award.

According to China Elections, it first appeared on a New Century website (新世纪网) on November 2, 2004, and discusses the role the Iraq war played during the presidential election campaigns and debates in 2004. It basically sets out from the post-cold war period and its promises of democracy and freedom, and rates the 9-11 attacks as a threat to these promises.

Excerpts1) :

[…]

Bush, as all responsible Western leaders, saw the promotion of “freedom and democracy” as an important part of the “national interest”, and the removal of Saddam Hussein’s vicious government as a major measure for spreading freedom and democracy, and to safeguard world peace. Because “feedom and democracy” are universal values, all people worldwide, regardless of race, culture, nationality, religion and other differences, are entitled to a free life and and to democratic institutions.  Therefore, as he is seeking reelection, Bush insists that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right choice. Even if no weapons of mass destruction had been found, eradicating Saddam Hussein’s tyranny and establishing a free Iraq, thus promoting freedom and democracy in the whole Middle East, constituted sufficient reasons to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
布什象所有负责任的西方大国领袖一样,把向世界推广“自由民主”视为“国家利益”的重要组成部分,把铲除邪恶政权视为推广自由民主和维护世界和平的主要手段。因为,“自由民主”具有普世价值,世界上所有的人——不分种族、文化、国别、宗教等的差异——皆有资格享受自由生活和民主制度。所以,谋求连任的布什坚持倒萨之战乃正确的选择,即便没有找到大规模武器,铲除萨达姆暴政和建立自由伊拉克,进而在整个中东地区推动自由民主,便足以作为倒萨之战的理由。

Kerry accused Bush of being arrogant and reckless for referring to “an axis of evil”, but indeed, as Reagan had referred to the USSR as an “evil empire”, Bush’s referral to Iraq, North Korea, and Iran are simply true. Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il are undoubtedly the world’s most evil despots. […]
克里指责布什对“邪恶轴心”的指控是傲慢和卤莽,而在实际上,象当年的里根总统指控前苏联为“邪恶帝国”一样,布什对伊拉克、北韩和伊朗的指控,仅仅是事实陈述而已。特别是萨达姆和金正日,无疑是当今世界最为邪恶的两大暴君。

[…]

[…] Therefore, considering the atrocities terrorism committed, is commiting, and is preparing to commit, considering the difficulties in preventing terrorist attacks, considering Saddam’s bellicosity and his support for terrorism, ever seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, repeatedly violating the United Nations’ resolutions on weapon inspections, this intensity of wickedness isn’t smaller than bin-Laden’s. Saddam repeatedly went to war and had dictatorial powers in his country. His ability to create terrorist disaster surely exceeded bin-Laden’s and the Taliban’s by far.
所以,鉴于恐怖主义已经实施、正在实施和准备实施的反人类反文明反自由的暴行,鉴于恐怖袭击的难以防范,鉴于萨达姆的一贯好战和支持恐怖主义,一直在谋求大规模毁灭性武器,屡次违反联合国有关武器核查的决议,其邪恶程度决不次于本•拉登。萨达姆屡经战争且拥有统治一个国家的独裁权力,在制造恐怖灾难的能力上,肯定要远远超过本•拉登及塔利班。

[…]

Neither in the war on terror, nor in handling international relations, is Bush a perfect president, but after all, he has, one by one, won the war in Afghanistan by striking only after the enemy had struck (后发制人), and the Iraq war pre-emptively (先发制人). Western leftists can turn temporary setbacks into a big fuss, but as people spoke about Churchill after world war 2, and about Reagan after the cold war,will they rate Bush as “a great, intelligent strategist”.
无论是反恐之战还是处理国际关系,布什都不是一位完美的总统,但他毕竟先后赢得了后发制人的阿富汗之战和先发制人的倒萨之战。西方的左派们可以抓住暂时的挫折来大做文章,  但在历史过去多年之后,人们才会象事后谈论二战初期的邱吉尔和冷战时期的里根一样,以“具有大智慧的大战略家”来评价布什总统。

No matter how much risk it meant to overthrow Saddam, the risk of inaction would have been even greater. World war 2 and 9-11 are  proving it! Either way, it was justified to overthrow Saddam Hussein. President Bush’s decision was correct!
无论倒萨的行动要冒的多大风险,不行动的风险将更为巨大,二战和9•11就是明证!
所以,无论如何,倒萨之战是正义的!布什总统的决定是正确的!

That much translation for now. Comments both on the article itself and its authenticity are welcome. Mind the commenting rules.

____________

Note
1) I’m thinking about translating all of it, but only if I can get the source verified.

Related
Liu Xiaobo and the Confraternization of Nations – Comments
The Nobel War Prize, LRB Blog, December 11, 2010

7 Responses to “Article seeks Author”

  1. Comment on the article. What a mish-mash of false analogies, anachronisms and disregard of contextual facts, all drowned in a human rights call to arms.

    It would have been more convincing if the author explained Bush Jrs second invasion of Iraq as the resolution of an Oedipul struggle to assert himself against his father George Prescott Bush, one of the authors of the First Gulf War.

    Re: the claim that democracy and human rights are universal rights irrepective of historical time, place and social formation. What an idiotic claim and not worth deconstucting. Grade: Fail with extreme prejudice.

    Having due regard for the commenting rules, I’ve gone lightly here.

    Like

  2. What a mish-mash of false analogies, anachronisms and disregard of contextual facts, all drowned in a human rights call to arms
    Which is why I have doubts about the allegation that Liu Xiaobo would be the author. It seems to me that a literary critic can do better than this.

    I appreciate your going light here. That said, my main concern is that commenters will address each other in a civil way on these threads. It usually leads to more insightful debate.

    Like

  3. JR. I dont read Mandarin and don’t have the full background on LX. I was simply discussing the article itself.

    I am always civil on serious sites. How you can spend so much time reponding on a point by point basis to posters like friend et al is beyond me. Anyway, I’m waiting for the Beijing Confidential dirt on Hu Jintao and his serial mistress gig.

    Insightful debate: see my post questioning the idea of civil war in China. There could be a valuable debate there if my points were addressed, but all I have so far is avoidance. I suppose many posters including myself have strenghts in particular areas, but are pretty deficient in others. Way of the blogosphere.

    Like

  4. I don’t think that I have the full background on Liu Xiaobo either, KT – that’s why I posted this.

    As for the eloquent status quo advocate on the PD thread, I’m still keeping my replies short, compared with S. K. Cheung’s. But I think that we both believe that you won’t get better interlocutors from the pro-CCP camp than yourfriend. Those who are really decisive in creating and perpetuating the status have no reason to discuss or to account for their approach – that’s what they educate their “patriots” for. But that’s the way of the blogosphere (or rather the internet in general), too – every position can be discussed, and if, someday, anyday, the Chinese propaganda machine feels that it has to make a point by itself, because their proxies aren’t doing a good-enough job, those responsible will make efforts to explain themselves – to the Chinese public, anyway. I’m trying to read along with that public.
    Actually, I feel that much of what the “Global Times / Huanqiu” writes is such a kind of reaction. That it doesn’t look terribly convincing is another story.

    Civil war in China:
    The ideology which the CCP presents these days is probably something its own authors are too bored to discuss, let alone to fight about. It has no merits other than adding some fancy dress to a reality which would look too poor otherwise. It’s the party’s power which makes the ideology relevant.
    So I believe that a civil war would be a mere war for power, if waged among Han Chinese, and a war for self-determination if waged by national minorities. Given that there is substantial Han population in areas like Tibet and Xinjiang, it would still be a civil war of sorts. That’s not because there’d be an ideology worth fighting for, but because there is no civil society where public interests and demands could be negotiated.

    Like

  5. JR. Re: civil war. I think we are futurising different things here, but have no trouble agreeing with your points.

    http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/

    Yeah. I’ve now put the Global Times into my favourites, noting that their editorials this year focus on agricultural/serious water deficiencies on 3/4 occasions, pace my last post on PD.

    I should add that their analyses are a bit on the lite/kindergarten side – “fresh water is essential for life” sort of thing.

    This sort of superficial rubbish is hardly likely to engage a western reader, but one of their points tickled me “China once stood out as a pioneer of watercourse regulation. Ancient China once towered in this regard……”. Accurate point.

    Brought to mind Karl Wittfogel’s brilliant work Oriental Despotism where he connects ‘absolutist managerial states’ which he equates with hydraulic civilisations”.

    http://www.riseofthewest.com/thinkers/wittfogel05.htm

    This is a minor reference and one which hopefully inspire a bigger read on this fascinating thesis (which I incidentally subscribe to).

    As for their Li Na piece. Here is a prediction. She and her husband will dump their PRC citizenship sometime in the future.

    Like

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: