h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Colonel,

Iconclast, not asshole. You're right on the money in many, many ways. Computing and the points you make about it are very true- the internet is far to big to be blotted out. True, new firewalls are going up every day, but where there's a will there's a way around them. I firmly believe in the ingenuity of computer users here and elsewhere.

I am less certain about cinema, however. While the USA went through McCarthyism in the 50's, China of course went through the Hundred flowers movement, follwed by the Cultural Revolution. So much for history, but in both cases, the movements were all about the "proper" role of artists, writers, and other would-be critics.

So the track record here is definitely more sensitive to incoming ideas and the role of the media generally. I hope you're right, but I guess I'm not holding my breath. By the way, you may find it interesting that while internet media outlets are closely monitored here, internet porn is unrestricted. I leave that for you to interpret. (Thanks also for the brilliant Urban Legend "Virtual Date"- I haven't laughed that hard in ages!)

Finally, you are also correct that there is a lot of maturing that needs to go on here. I am hopeful that this will come to pass, with a minimum of pain, time, and expense. I would love to see things truly open up. But for now, I'll have to endure the jingoism and cries of "Go Big Red".

Take care,
Miao

Colonel:

I thought I replied, but I guess not. Forgive me, I am remiss. As for your point about subversive movies, well maybe they don't make them like they used to, or should. Yes, I am familiar with the tales of the Army-McCarthy hearings, Blacklists, Tricky Dick's campaign against the "Pink Lady", and on and on. As I recall, the whole issue started with a spurious "debate" about who "lost" China. Word to the wise, indeed- as many careers were made as were broken.
The corolaries to this in Chinese are all too numerous, the first coming with Qin Shihuang's "Burning of the Books" back around 230 BC. The modern update first came in Yan'An in 1942, when writers were made to pay for straying from the Party line. (I wrote my History thesis on one of the targets of this first "Thought Reform" campaign.) Of course this has happened again many times since, during the 50's (Hundred Flowers), 60's and 70's (Cultural Rev.), and through the 80's and 90's. There's always a campaign going on, it seems. Controls are still in place, and still enforced, but we can always hope for subversive love stories and action flicks.
I put much more hope in the net. You are right about that point, and chaos is definitely a virtue in this case. Either way, I think that we agree on the fundamentals; the pace and mode of change is unpredictable, but it should and needs to happen. The sooner, the better, in my book. Hope this doesn't bring the curtain down!

Miao

You did reply to me earlier, but your previous reply was, in a nutshell, "you're right, Colonel." How can I argue with that?

In order for China to fully take their place among nations, they must:

1) Reform or abolish their current governement in favor of one that promotes personal freedom and civil rights.

2) Educate the masses.

3) Make a commitment to world peace. Their current saber-rattling over Taiwan is very distressing. The people of Taiwan are not a possession, and should have as much say in their own government as any other people. When the French of Quebec wanted to seperate, it was put to a vote, and the majority chose union with Canada. When the people of the Republic of Ireland wanted to seperate from the Commonwealth, it was put to a vote, and the majority chose seperation. The people of Taiwan fled there to get away from Red China, and should have the freedom the want and deserve.

If/when China accomplishes this, they will be a truly great power... possibly even surpassing the US as a world leader.

Colonel:

Yes, we do agree on much; the problem lies in persuading certain others, I am sure you will agree. So in the mean time, it's doubly important to focus on the current structure of the debate- such as it is. Chinese leaders are fond of insisting on exceptions for thier nation on almost any occasion. Another sticking point that the government here is eternally eager to raise is the right to self-determination.

What this means in practical terms is that the Chinese government will tolerate absolutely no "foreign interference" in "purely internal matters". We both know what this kind of logic is really interested in safeguarding. A perfect example of this thinking in action came during last May's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.

The Chinese had already been upset about the NATO campaign, as it was merely another example- in their eyes- of "foreign interference in a purely internal matter". Only that internal matter happened to be "ethnic cleansing". One does not need to ponder too long in order to understand why the PRC was essentially sticking up for the "right" to commit genocide...

So the nationalist defense is a strong, almost automatic reaction here. After all, China had been carved up by foreign powers for almost 200 hundred years, and don't forget that Ao4 Men2 (Macao) returned to the fold *only last December*! So the roots are real, and the sensitivities are high. Moves towards both international acceptance and responsibility for international norms in areas such as human rights is clearly the goal. If trade, movies, and the internet are the means to get there, than I am glad that we are here making a contribution- however slight.

Miao

The part that worries me about this whole situation is that the rest of the world is taking a Neville Chamberlain sort of approach to China right now. They're turning their heads and pretending they're not seeing what they're seeing. I get the feeling the UN is going to allow China to eventually occupy Taiwan with nothing stronger than a mild protest, and that saddens me. The US is emotionally bruised from attempting to help other nations, and is now turning itself inward as in the days of isolationism. Nobody else has the credibility, resources, and leadership required to unify the globe in a strong defense against Chinese aggression. I hope they put down their swords and focus some of those newfound reform energies on human rights, but I'm not optimistic.

My intuition is that the US has been maintaining a consistent policy toward China since the Reagan administration, at the NSC level, of maintaining a connection that the progressive element can follow, as Chinese politics allows. I notice that all presidents since Nixon, now that I think of it, have tried to maintain at least trading relations.

The only consistency in US national policy since Bush left office has been inconsistency. Previous policy was to maintain an open dialogue and trade relations while still voicing disapproval for their human rights record. Clinton has abandoned the disapproval part, and extended MFN status. I wonder how much those Chinese yuan in the democratic campaign funds influenced that course change.

Colonel Sellers, celebrating Independence Day by burning Clinton in effigy.

Colonel (and Lil):

*Warning- long rant follows*

Ah, the old debate- who sets the priorities in foreign policy, and why? To quote Deep Throat, "Follow the money". One consistent element in recent U.S.-Sino relations has been the almost pathological desire on the part of monied interests for "stability" at any price. Anybody remember June of '89 and the U.S. (non) reaction to it?

In a nutshell, U.S. China policy has been inconsistent and ineffective- unless of course you're a "free trade" mogul whose products are now manufactured in Shen1Zhen1.

Clinton certainly deserves a berth in the Hypocricy Hall of Fame for his about-face on human rights in China, but that wouldn't be the only exhibit. *Pause.* His whole rubric about trade leading to a more open China sounds good, but I am still wary.

One serious problem is that the Chinese leadership reject out-of-hand anything that caries the merest whiff of being imposed from the outside, be it human rights, intellectual copyright enforcement, environmental protection, or whatever.

For the leadership in Beijing, to be seen as having been pressured into a deal by the U.S. would be tantamount to political suicide. Ahh, nationalism- sweet balm of the opressor.

On the other hand, the Chinese are desperate for international recognition in every arena, be it WTO or the Olympics; in fact they have compromised on a number of issues in order to get what they want, as is the case with MFN and WTO.

Still they insist that all bets are off as far as human rights goes, and then immediately launch into pangyerics about Chinese particularism. While Clinton has basically given away the farm, I still think that progress can be made- particularly if things are done in a certain way- even on human rights.

The key is to give China "face" while striking a deal- ever notice the Chinese love for theatrically choreographed summits? I say indulge this desire, give plenty of good photo ops, and make sure that concessions can be sold to the Chinese public without appearing to have "caved in to the foreigners". Meanwhile, do the real negotiating in private- and not through the media. No leaks allowed.

Odious? Duplicitous? Maybe, but only if you're interested in harvesting tough-talk sound bites for the next campaign. Sure, there will always be those that charge "cozying up to a dictator" and such, but the fact is that there is no opposition, and *nobody* gets to choose which Chinese leadership the U.S. deals with- least of all the U.S.!

So either negotiate in good faith and according to democratic principles, the right to self-determination, and epecially the eternal Chinese caveat of "mutual respect", or... start exporting "democratic" revolution. Which is more odious?

Remember, Nixon succeded in making an opening to China for a couple of reasons.

One was obviously that he was such a hawk on China that nobody could reproach him. Another was that he wasn't campaigning- his was a lame duck presidency. Finally, secrecy certainly hit the right spot, and the timing was perfect, closely following the Sino-Soviet split.

Talking tough (in public) may play well to a domestic audience, but only stiffens the resolve of hard-liners. Quit giving them political capital! The U.S. loves to dictate terms, but the results so far have been dismal.

A rambling response to your conversation. I am looking forward to the day that I can discuss things with you in real time; that will help keep responses short, pithy, and to the point at hand. Please bear with me- we're always eight or nine hours apart.

In essence, Clinton has been consistent in pushing for free trade; his original "hard-line" insistence on human rights concessions bit the dust on the editing room floor in a long passed campaign.

(By the way, George W. is known as Xiao3 Bu4She4, or "Little Bush" here. What's the scoop on the campaign vis-a-vis China? Any new spy scandals?)

Celebrating the Fourth? There should be plenty of Clinton effegies left over from the Yugoslavia Embassy bombing a year ago, and I still have my "Resolutely Oppose U.S.-Led NATO" t-shirt. I predict lots of watermelon and pulm wine. But no fireworks (illegal in Beijing!!!)

The artwork put up by students here was vicious- one poster featured Clinton smoking a rather cigar-like missile while a certain M. Lewinsky hovered in the background. Freudian imagery, anyone?

Don't burn you fingers on his count,
Miao

Ahh, the tautology of Chinese foreign policy. They demand to be made a partner in world affairs, and yet refuse to do anything that that would require of them. Not that China has a monpoly on hypocritical idiocy... Jesse Helms' address to the UN (effectively about black helicopters popping over the horizon to herald the arrival of the One World Government) proved that.

Regardless, I don't think US economic policies toward China will make one bit of difference either way. Any effective change has to come from within China. And if 50 years of meddling hasn't taught the US to mind its own business, I don't know what will. Our government can only work *with* other governments... working against them does nobody any good.

Anyway, there are too many variables right now with the Chinese people, so how things will go, no one can say. I can envision several doomsday scenarios, and just as many fairy tale endings. Even though I hate the reasons for it, I think MFN was a good first move. Now the world has to take a breath and see what will happen next, because the next move belongs to China. And if change can happen slowly and secretly, I'm fine with that.

Colonel:

Tautology, contradiction, hypocricy...where to begin?

You hit on one point that I was about to make: the UN. The US would be well advised to learn how to work as an equal partner in that forum, as a first step.

Another might be to give Japan a permanent seat on the Security Council- they are gifted at balancing parties and brokering compromises. And they know the value of giving "face", too.

Clearly, the US has much to learn in that area. (Silly me, I thought that's what the "art" of diplomacy was all about.) But who needs partners (or credibility) when you have your own personal missile defense shield?

Anyhow, one thing I'd like to point out to you- Chinese saber rattling over Taiwan is *almost always* a distraction from pressing internal crises such as peasant-led tax revolts to worker-led coal mine insurrections. Sad thing is, this tactic almost always works.
Next time this happens, dig deeper.

At present, I am reading a Chinese history textbook on the PRC(officially approved, of course) and while I battle with the pervasive revisionism there, I am hopeful that with the arrival of the net, it will impossible to stuff the Chinese people "back into the box" in the future. I hope we've come too far for that to happen again.

By the way, thanks for your excellent "Problems With Christianity" entry. I enjoyed it immensely, while lamenting the need for it at all. More power to you!

Miao

Interesting point about that saber-rattling. I'll keep my eyes open next time.

I dunno about Japan on the Security Council... wasn't the responsibility of that council supposed to be global security? Japan doesn't even have a defense force. But then, on those lines, neither does France, really. Anybody feeling gutsy enough to invite the Germans?

Clearly, US dealings with the rest of the world are clouded by the fact that, for the most part, they negotiate from a position of military and economic strength. The unfortunate result is that everyone else resents the arrogance, and soon enough we become politically isolated, and everyone else in the world gangs up on us. It is the common scenario that has devolved all of the world's great empires. Negotiate from a position of mutual respect, and this scenario does not need to come to pass.

Glad you liked the article. There's more in that vein at the Freedom From Faith Foundation... I've linked just about ever article on H2G2 that challenges or offers alternatives to the popular dogma: http://www.h2g2.com/a254314

Colonel:

Good points, and thanks for the link (avidly browsing even now). Well, I suggest Japan *precisely* because they don't have weapons of mass destruction to threaten anyone with. Who better to act as "honest broker"? (Please, not the US again!) Honestly, I feel that the more you think about it, the more you will appreciate why the Japanese would provide a very refreshing balance on the Security Council. No people is more conscious about the need for building consensus and agreement *before* taking any action, and perhaps no people is more experienced at balancing superpowers (the USSR, the US and China are all in their backyard.) Their experience, born of millitay weakness and vulnerability translate into strngths, in my view.
At any rate, I will be at the University of Chicago this fall doing graduate work; at that time I hope to study with Bruce Cummings, who is a noted political economist that specializes on Korea, Japan, and China. Given recent events in Korea, I am thanking my lucky stars that my timing is so good! Anyhow, he has several theses that in essence accord with your and my thinking on US foreign relations. Among the highlights: the US typically sees its own policies in moral terms ("right" or "wrong"), if at all. More often, the US likes to see itself as value-neutral...the "honest broker" fantasy I derided above. Additionally, the US has a distorted vision of the world and how to conduct foreign affairs as a result of the relaince on millitary power (think of the terms "Surgical strike", "tactical bombing", "rapid deployment force", etc.- they all give lie to the illusion that one can "take out" targets without becoming "entangled" in "another foreign war".) Sheer fantasy. There's more to Cummings, and I'll pass things along in the future.
Finally, thanks for grouping all the links together. How do I characterize them? Links for those bold enough to think? Perhaps. At any rate, all of this reminds me of my older brother who is a member of the Skeptics Society, and is also a friend of the curator of the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices. (Yes, you can still use their frenology equipment. My brother's most suitable occupation: Zeppelin Attendant!) I don't have links for the above organizations, but you might want to take a look for yourself. Happy searching.

Miao

I still think Japan is the wrong choice. You're missing one very important facet of the Japanese character, which is best described by my coworker, the one with the Japanese wife: "They have a superiority complex." This coming from an American. Japanese arrogance is far superior to American, and may only be surpassed by the French. If you're looking for peace-loving negotiators, I think your best bets would be to turn to the Swiss or the Swedes. Certainly nobody has a better record of reaching international accord than the Swiss.

Colonel:

You got me. No defense there, and I will try to be diplomatic myself (me with the Japanese fiancee). I will *heartly* attest to a general Japanese superiority complex, and even add that it is often just half of a larger sureriority-inferiority complex. More than one Japanese friend has said as much, and I agree that this is a potential stumbling block. What to do?

As for the Swiss or the Swedes, I like that idea, but isn't Europe pretty well represented in the Security Council, while Asia, Africa, and South America are either under-represented or not represented at all? After all we've said about the PRC, do we want to leave them as sole representative for Asia---epsecially on security matters?

Finally, look at it the other way- what better way to deal with Japanese superiority complexes than by administering a healthy dollop of real-world responsibility? (And in a very conspicuous forum, at that.) Talk is cheap, and delusions of one's own superiority tend to collapse upon contact with reality. Put the armchair quarterbacks into the game and then see if they change their tune.

Either way, an interesting idea, and hey- it might be beneficial on many counts. What say you?

Miao

I don't think "representation" on the Security Council is really valid. The Security Council is, theoretically, supposed to look into the security of the entire globe, and be impartial about it. In the post-WWII era when it was selected, the member nations made only too much sense, US and UK representing Western ideals, China and USSR representing Eastern ideals, and the French there to annoy everyone else. Now that I think about it, perhaps the Japanese would be better at annoying everyone than the French.

But still, your point about Europe and the Security Council is valid, so I think it would be useful to find someone outside for the Security Council. The question is, who? What South American or African country has the resources or credibility to act as peace broker? The only Asian candidate is Japan, but I still have reservations... it could go as you say, but it could also serve to fuel their ego even further, and Japanese tantrums wouldn't be an avenue to mutual understanding.

Colonel:

Excellent points, as always. Still, you mention "Western ideals" and "Eastern ideals", and that brings me right around to representation again. Don't give the Chinese a monopoly, I say.

Your points about Africa and the Amreicas are certainly valid- I din't bother to grope around for a credible candidate- there are none. A question of "stability"/ respectability, I guess. Representativeness is a vaild question here, too- does one turn to Saharan or Sub-saharan Africa (read: Muslim/ non-muslim)?

As for who is more annoying, it's a toss-up to me- both typically French or Japanese attitudes are based on snobbishness. I still say "give 'em enough rope"- if things work out, then great. If some humbling takes place, then a great service will have been rendered.

I have reservations about Japanese membership on the Security Council, too. But where are you coming from? Certainly it can't be from a disdain such a singularly Japanese contribution to progress as the beer vending machine?

Miao

The Russians and the Chinese have typically banded together, and that hasn't changed since Russia's ostensible democratization. The US and UK have been excellent partners in world affairs since WWII... in fact, even when we were wrong, the UK was there to back us. Whoever holds the fifth seat on UNSEC holds the swing vote. Therefore, whoever holds that seat effectively sets global security policy. Is that really a power you want to pass on to people with an inferiority complex?

Hmmm... now that I think about it, perhaps the Japanese ARE a good addition to UNSEC. The forces for global security would be supplied by the other four powers, and the Japanese could help bankroll the costs. They certainly were stingy enough during the Persian Gulf War. Give them a stake in it, and maybe they'll be a bit less reluctant.

Colonel:

Wait a second, aren't the French your so-called swing vote? (Hmmm, that is cause for concern- this is more serious than we imagined!)

Anyway there's also the matter of the unilateral veto (thanks, Stalin). The Japanese could swing votes against the US, but then the US can just override with a veto. Bad publicity might be a problem in that event, but that's what they invented spin doctors for.

As for the Chinese and Russians, well the US certainly made good on the Sino-Soviet split, right? Seems to me that China and Russia have few common interests aside from simply being good neighbors, quashing Muslim separatists, and razzing the US whenever the opportunity presents itself. I don't know that there's a deep level of trust between these two nations.

Back to the Japanese- I still think giving the role and the responsibility that goes with it is a good thing, all in all.

Miao