Why They Hate China

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Intelinvestor, Mar 27, 2008.

  1. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12585

    Why They Hate China
    Well, you have to hate someone…
    by Justin Raimondo

    China's continuing crackdown on Tibetan pro-independence protesters is a big
    , big issue here in San Francisco. Why, just the other day, I was coming out
    my front door, and there was one of my neighbors – a very nice woman in
    her fifties, albeit an archetypal limousine liberal, typical of the breed.
    So typical that she might almost be mistaken for a living, breathing,
    walking, talking cliché. She hates George W. Bush and the neocons because
    she's against the (Iraq) war, but she's eager to "liberate" Darfur – and,
    lately, Tibet. That morning, as she earnestly informed me, she was on her
    way to a meeting of the Board of Supervisors (our town council) to exhort
    them to vote for a resolution condemning the Chinese government's actions
    and calling for "freedom" for Tibet. What she doesn't realize, and doesn't
    want to know, is that she and the neocons – the very ones who brought us
    the Iraq war – are united on the Tibet issue. I tried, in vain, to point
    this out to her, but she just shook her head, cut the conversation short,
    and was on her way…

    As it turned out, the supervisors voted for a meaningless, toothless
    resolution, stripped of provocative rhetoric, much to the dismay of the far-
    lefties who argued for a stronger statement. The initiative for this effort
    was made by supervisor Chris Daly, an obnoxious left-liberal with delusions
    of grandeur, whose pose of self-righteousness is both grating and
    characteristic of his sort.

    Prior to the vote on the Daly resolution, which was vociferously supported
    by the supposedly pacifistic supporters of the Dalai Lama, the Chinese
    consulate was… firebombed. This is what the War Party would like to do to

    Fortunately, there are a number of restraining factors that get in the way:
    in the meantime, however, our preening politicians demagogue the China issue
    , and none so brazenly as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, my
    congressional representative, who is merely Chris Daly writ large. Traveling
    all the way to India, at taxpayers' expense, Madam Speaker visited with the
    Dalai Lama at Dharamsala and announced that if Americans don't speak out
    against Beijing's repression in Tibet "we have lost all moral authority to
    speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world."

    Pelosi is a longtime opponent of Beijing – not just the Chinese government,
    but China itself. Pelosi and the unions she depends on for political
    support despise all things Chinese for the simple reason that China, today,
    is more capitalist than the U.S. – in spite of the Chinese Communist Party'
    s ostensible commitment to Marxist ideology. Thinly veiled racist-chauvinist
    bilge is routinely directed at the Chinese people by union bosses and right
    -wing paleo-protectionists, who stupidly claim that the "chinks" (or, as
    John McCain would put it, the "gooks") are stealing "American jobs" – as if
    Americans have a hereditary right to the very best salaries on earth, a "
    right" that doesn't have to be earned by competitive business practices but
    is conferred on them by virtue of their nationality. Like hell it is.

    Lucrative trade and cultural exchanges between China and California, as well
    as the fact that many Chinese in her congressional district have continuing
    ties to the mainland, have – so far – failed to deter Pelosi and her
    fellow Know-Nothings: politics, as they used to say during the Cultural
    Revolution in China, is in command.

    These Sinophobic protests, engineered behind the scenes by leftist union
    bosses and God knows who else, are focused on the passing of the Olympic
    torch, which is slowly but surely making its way to Beijing, where the games
    are scheduled to be held Aug. 8-24. Here in the Bay Area, activists in the
    "Free Darfur" movement announced they were mounting demonstrations urging
    China to "extinguish the flames of genocide" in Darfur in San Francisco on
    April 9, the day the flame passes through the city.

    Pre-Order this Book

    The hosting of the Olympic Games in Beijing is the focus of much pride in
    China, seen by the people as well as the ruling caste as symbolic of the
    nation's arrival in modernity. As such, the worldwide protests and political
    posturing of preening politicians – from Pelosi to Nicolas Sarkozy – are
    bitterly resented and have been met with increasingly shrill denunciations
    by the Chinese state-controlled media – a sentiment that probably
    understates popular resentment of Western criticism in the Chinese "street."

    I know we are supposed to believe that the vast majority of the Chinese
    people are groaning under the weight of Commie oppression and sympathize (
    albeit silently) with the downtrodden Tibetans, but that is hardly the case.
    Indeed, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. Every time the West gets
    up on its high horse and lectures the Chinese government about its lack of
    "morality," the tide of anti-Western Chinese nationalism rises higher.

    We saw this when the U.S. "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in
    Belgrade during Clinton's Balkan War of Aggression, and again when that
    American spy plane went down over Hainan island. In Beijing today, they are
    worried about the upcoming Olympic celebration, which will provide a
    platform for a wide variety of groups – including ultra-nationalist Chinese
    students, whose street antics have augured internal regime change in the
    past, and could do so again. "They are worried about a larger number of
    things and they are worried about keeping the lid on," according to Arnold
    Howitt, a management specialist who oversees crisis-management training
    programs for Chinese government officials at Harvard University's Kennedy
    School of Government. The same Associated Press article cites an unnamed "
    consultant" to the Games, who avers:

    "'Demonstrations of all kinds are a concern, including anti-American
    demonstrations,' said the consultant, who works for Beijing's Olympic
    organizers and asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to
    talk to the media."

    Any indications that Beijing is compromising Chinese pride and honor by
    appeasing the West are likely to be met by demonstrations that are both anti
    -American and anti-government – initiated, once again, by Chinese students,
    who have often been the agents of political transformation. Remember the
    Red Guards? Mao used them to initiate his own "Cultural Revolution," but was
    forced to rein them in when they started talking about overthrowing the
    Chinese state.
  2. The memory of that dark and chaotic era haunts China's contemporary rulers,
    threatening to spoil their dream of a thoroughly modernized industrial
    powerhouse that is both the forge and the financial capital of the world
    economy. The Beijing Olympics represent the entry of China onto the world
    stage as a first-class power, right up there with its former adversaries:
    the U.S., Europe, and the former Soviet Union. A Chinese nationalist cannot
    be faulted for seeing the organized campaign to spoil that debut as a
    deliberate – and unforgivable – insult.

    Viewed from this perspective – the perspective, that is, of the average
    citizen of China – the very idea of Tibetan independence might easily be
    seen as a rather obvious attempt to humiliate Beijing and remind it of its "
    proper" (i.e., subordinate) place in the global scheme of things.

    After all, what if Chinese government leaders constantly reminded the world
    that the American Southwest was stolen from Mexico? Imagine the Chinese and
    Mexican ambassadors to the U.S. demanding independence, for, say, California
    – or better yet, its return to Mexican sovereignty! Shall the Olympics be
    forever barred from Puerto Rico, which was forcibly incorporated into the U.
    S. "commonwealth" in the invasion of 1898?

    Of course not. Yet the Americans and their international amen corner are
    daring to criticize China for preserving its own unity and sovereignty. It's
    a double standard made all the more insufferable by the self-righteous tone
    of the anti-China chorus, whose meistersingers are mainly concerned with
    celebrating their own moral purity.

    Yes, Tibet was forcibly incorporated into the Communist empire of the Han,
    but this was just an episode in the long history of Sino-Tibetan relations
    – for the greater part of which the Tibetans held the upper hand. The
    Tibetan empire, at its height, extended from northern India to the Mongolian
    hinterlands and came at the expense of the conquered Chinese and Uighurs.
    It fell apart due to a ruinous civil war. A key factor in this complex
    narrative is that Mongol hegemony over China was greatly aided by the
    Tibetans, whose conversion of the Mongol nobility to Buddhism legitimized
    Mongol rule. Today, pro-Beijing historians point to this period as proof
    that Tibet has "always" been a part of China proper, yet the truth is that
    both were slaves to the Mongols – the Tibetans as their collaborators, the
    Chinese as their helots. (Underscoring Mongol contempt for their Chinese
    subjects was an edict forbidding intermarriage between Mongol and Chinese,
    although no such barrier to Mongol-Tibetan congress was imposed.) With
    Buddhism as the state religion, Tibetan priests, including the Dalai Lama,
    became the avatars of Mongol rule.

    In short, the popular narrative of the pacifistic Buddhist Tibetans as the
    good guys and the Han Chinese as the bad-guy aggressors is the stuff of pure
    myth, pushed by union propagandists, lefty Hollywood do-gooders, and trendy
    sandal-wearing Western camp followers of the Dalai Lama, who has become a
    secularized yet "spiritual" substitute for Mother Theresa.

    If the Chinese are wrong to hold on to their province of Tibet, then Lincoln
    was wrong to insist that the South stay in the Union – and we ought to
    immediately either grant the American Southwest (and California)
    independence, or else give it all back to the Mexicans.

    The same goes for Taiwan – China's rulers are no more likely to give up
    their claim to that island than Lincoln was inclined to let the Confederacy
    hold on in, say, Key West, Fla.

    China is an adolescent giant: clumsy, unused to exerting its will beyond its
    borders, and wracked by self-doubt. Emerging into the company of world
    powers, it is thin-skinned – like any adolescent – and prone to wild mood
    gyrations. During the 1960s and '70s, the Chinese were in a distinctly bad
    mood as they wrestled with the ghosts and demons unleashed by Mao. The
    triumph of the "modernizers" over the ultra-left Maoists in the 1980s
    signaled a new mood of optimism and inaugurated an era of unrivaled economic
    growth. The regime sanctified China's journey down the "capitalist road" by
    citing the reformer Deng Tsiao-ping's most famous "Communist" slogan: "To
    get rich is glorious!" Ayn Rand meets Chairman Mao (or, rather, Confucius)
    – and the result is capitalism-on-steroids.

    That's why, in spite of the sclerotic Marxoid ideology that still reins in
    and retards the natural entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese people, China
    is moving forward by leaps and bounds. That's also why comrade Pelosi and
    her union boss buddies have launched this odious Sinophobic hate campaign –
    because "their" jobs and sense of entitlement are going up in smoke. For
    decades, the U.S. government has preached the virtues of free enterprise and
    urged formerly Communist nations to adopt the free market – and now that
    the Chinese have taken them up on their offer, Western politicians are
    attacking them!
  3. The closer China has moved toward our own system – relaxing totalitarian
    controls over the economy and allowing a far greater degree of ideological
    diversity than was possible during the Maoist era – the more hostile the U.
    S. government has become. Nixon went to China at the height of the Cultural
    Revolution, where he sat next to Madam Mao during a command performance of
    The Red Detachment of Women. These days, however, as China stakes its claim
    to a proportionate share of the world market – and Chinese investors fund
    the U.S. debt – the resentment and growing hostility of the Americans is
    all too palpable.

    Why do politicians of Pelosi's ilk join hands with neoconservatives in a
    concerted campaign to antagonize China, and even threaten sanctions and
    possible military action when the occasion gives rise to the opportunity?

    To begin with, China's is a success story, and there's nothing that attracts
    opprobrium like success, unless it's success of the wrong color – in this
    case, yellow. A crude racist collectivism of a specifically anti-Asian
    character has long been a tradition of the War Party in this country: see
    the anti-Japanese Dr. Seuss cartoons from the World War II era for a
    particularly vivid example. Yes, he was attacking the "Japs," but to
    Americans, it's all the same Yellow Peril. This kind of sentiment is easily
    invoked in America, and don't tell me Pelosi and her ideological confreres
    aren't aware of it – yes, even in "liberal" San Francisco, where anti-Asian
    sentiment is part of the city's history.

    Never mind the first black president, or the first female president – what
    I'm waiting for is the first chief executive of Asian-American descent. I'm
    not, however, holding my breath…

    Relations with China are cloudy, at best, and those may very well be war
    clouds gathering on the horizon. The reason is that Sinophobia is a point of
    unity between the Left and the Right: the union of the Weekly Standard and
    the AFL-CIO, and perhaps even the majority of my paleoconservative friends,
    who quail before the rising Chinese giant and see it as a potential threat
    on account of its sheer scale – a third of the world's population, and a
    land-mass that rivals our own. Surely such a stirring titan will knock us
    out of the way as he takes his place at the center of the world stage.

    This reflects a fundamental error on the part of many conservatives, as well
    as liberals of the more statist persuasion. They fail to understand that
    there are no conflicts of interest among nations as long as their relations
    are governed by the market, that is by mutually beneficial trade agreements
    voluntarily entered into. Ludwig von Mises said it far better than I could
    ever manage, and I'll leave my readers to Mises' ministrations on this
    abstruse but important subject.

    Suffice to say here that our relations with China on the economic front are
    a benefit to American consumers – that is, to all of us. They enable us to
    buy inexpensive quality products and keep the cost of living down.
    Protectionists who argue that "they" are "destroying American jobs" are
    simply arguing for higher prices – ordinarily not a very popular cause, and
    especially not these days.

    Free trade is the economic precondition for a peaceful world and the logical
    corollary of a non-interventionist foreign policy. If goods don't cross
    borders, then armies soon will – a historical truism noted by many before
    me, and with good reason. Let it be a warning to all those anti-free trade,
    antiwar types of the Right as well as the Left – you'll soon be jumping on
    the War Party's bandwagon when it comes China's turn to play the role of
    global bogeyman. The way things are going, that day may come soon enough.

    Finally, a word or two about this nonsensical demand, raised by the "Save
    Darfur" crowd, that China must somehow "extinguish the flames of genocide"
    supposedly carried out by the government of Sudan. What does China have to
    do with Sudan and its government? Well, you see, the Chinese have oil
    interests in the region, that is, they are engaged in competition with
    Western oil companies in opening up new fields – and, well, that just isn't

    The Chinese, we are told, have a moral responsibility to either pressure the
    Sudanese to let up on Darfur, or else abandon their Sudanese assets. As if
    Sudan were a Chinese colony, and the Sudanese authorities mere sock-puppets
    of Beijing.

    A more arrogant and self-serving argument would be hard to imagine.
    Presumably Western interests will fill the vacuum left by this spontaneous
    display of Chinese moral rectitude – and that alone should tell us
    everything we need to know about what's behind the "Save Darfur" bloviators
    and their high-horse moralizing.

    If our professional do-gooders of the "progressive" persuasion are so
    concerned about the fate of Darfur, let them campaign for the granting of
    mass asylum to the survivors of this latest African catastrophe. Give them
    sanctuary and green cards, but keep U.S. troops out of Africa, specifically
    out of Darfur – and get off Beijing's back.

    Like Russia, China is awakening from the long Leninist nightmare, albeit
    less traumatically, and with greater prospects for full recovery. However,
    it wouldn't take much to push it back into a revival of neo-Maoism – or
    worse – and a new dark age triggered by an external threat. A resurgence of
    Chinese ultra-nationalism in response to Western pressure – and the
    specter of U.S.-sponsored separatism – does not augur well for the cause of
    world peace. As is so often the case, we are creating the very enemies we
    fear, empowering and arming them ideologically. We are, in this sense, our
    own worst enemies.
    ~ Justin Raimondo
  4. montysky


    Great article, thanks.

    That wrinkle-face Pelosi has always been anti-China, no matter what issue is at hand. She doesn't think.

    If I were in San Francisco I would campaign to sent her into retirement. Up for reelection this year. With an Asian demographic of 30%, mostly Chinese, we can get her to change her asinine behaviors.