chinese government says it doesn't push for human rights in nations
like sudan, burma, and north korea because its policy is not to
interfere in the INTERNAL AFFAIRS of those nations. the chinese
government claims to respect their sovereignty.
also, when the world criticizes china on human rights, china tells the
world not to interfere with its INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
this has become a cliche with the chinese. whether it's human rights
outside or inside china, chinese always bring up the issue of
'internal affairs'.
obviously, this is purely self-serving on the part of the chinese.
first of all, the only things that the chinese care about is money and
power. chinese have no values, no moral standards. they are purely
obsessed with power and wealth. so, chinese wanna make as much money
in the world by doing whatever deals--even if it's dealing with the
nations like sudan. also, china wants secure borders and will sup****t
compliant regimes like ones in burma and north korea.
and, there is the fact of china's own human rights problems. since the
chinese government allows no human rights, it knows it has no right to
preach about human rights to other nations. during the maoist era,
china did intervene in the world by trying to spread communism
everywhere. but, when communism failed, china only thought in cold
terms of wealth and power. anyway, china's stuff about 'respect for
internal affairs' of other nations is purely self-serving. by
remaining mum about the human rights abuses of other nations, chinese
is hoping that other nations will remain mum about human rights abuses
in china. there is no principle in any of this.
indeed, all this preaching about respecting the sovereignty of other
nations is the chinese communist party's equivalent of 'human rights'--
one that only apply to govenments. according to chinese political
philosophy, there is the right of the state to rule as it sees fit;
THAT is the ultimate or the only 'human right' that matters. as for
the PEOPLE, they have a right to be ruled, not the right to rule;
since chinese people are 'justly' ruled by a sovereign government,
there is nothing more to be said. and since the people of sudan, north
korea, and burma are ruled by their own leaders, they have nothing to
complain about either nor should the world care nor try to intervene.
if some people in those nations complain or rebel, that's something
for the governments to deal with; or, they are 'troublemakers' who are
making things bad for EVERYONE since order maintained by the state is
absolutely crucial.
this way of thinking is largely the product of chinese history. for
millenia, the chinese state was used to running its own affairs
without interference from abroad, and for the most part, the chinese
did not interfere in the affairs of others. so, chinese have not been
used to interenationalism. chinese rulers of the late 19th century
saw international trade as dangerous to their own control over the
nation, and they were right. china's opening up to international
trade would have, one way or another, led to the demise of the
imperial dynastic order which utterly depended on an isolated china
ignorant of the rest of the world.
for a time, chinese communists also feared that opening up to the
world would lead to the demise of state power--dominated by the
communist party. but, chinese communists in the 80s learned from
singa****e and, as yet, undemocratic south korea and taiwan, that an
authoritarian regime can open up to international trade AND maintain
political control over the nation. so, unlike the imperial dynatic
order, chinese communist party came to embrace international trade and
correctly conclude that such would boost the power and prestige of
the state(even as it expands on the power and influence of those
outside the state. it would be an expanding pie for both the state and
the private sector than a zero sum game where one gains at the expense
of the other.) but, can the chinese regime survive internationalism
in human rights? this is far more worrying. some chinese rulers fear
democratization for purely greedy and cynical reasons; they wanna keep
what's theirs. but, there are decent chinese rulers who genuinely
fear that democratization at this time in china's history will only
lead to more corruption, more social malaise, more problems, and even
anarchy. and, there is no iron law in history that says democracy
works for all places at all times. germany would have been better off
under someone like putin or pinochet for a few decades after WWI.
instead, a weak democracy led many germans to run to radicals like
hitler.
also, chinese have come to see 'freedom' and 'human rights' as merely
political weapons used by foreign imperialists to take control of
china. for example, the british justified its imperialist rule in
india by claiming to bring freedom, human rights, and progress. brits
were not entirely wrong as india gained much from british imperialism;
still, india was ruled by foreigners. according to the chinese, a
poor and weak nation needs a strong government to maintain
independence and sovereignty; strong and rich nations--the
imperialists--are seen by the chinese as using the issue of 'human
rights' to impose its political will on other peoples by using divide-
and-conquer tactics. there is a kernal of truth to this(even jews in
the US have used 'human rights' or 'civil right's issue not so much to
help blacks but to use blacks against wasp power in a divide-and-
conquer strategy), but not much. indeed, rise of china owes a great
deal to 'western imperialism'. in the 80s and 90s, much of the
business model for and investment in mainland china came from
overseas chinese(and hong kongese and taiwanese) who made their
fortunes under a neo-imperialist order maintained by the anglo-
american predominance in the pacific region. now, suppose all of
asia--hong kong, taiwan, southeast asia, korea, etc--had come under
chinese communist domination in the late 40s. would there even have
been asian models for china to follow and emulate in the 80s if all of
asia would have turned into one vast gulag? though officially
communist, chinese communists ultimately learned more from capitalist
south korea--'puppet of US imperialism'--than from fellow communist
and 'independent' and fully 'sovereign' north korea.
as practitioners of party dictator****p, chinese communists
conceptualize the nation essentially in terms of an entity ruled by a
government. (instead of 'government of the people', it's 'people of
the government'.) the government counts more than the people. the
people are the body; the state is the brain. the body consisting of
the people must do as the brain orders it. so, human rights for the
chinese only make sense in terms of governmental authority; human
rights belongs to the state-as-brain; the brain has the right to rule
the body. according to this logic, as long as the chinese government
is sovereign and free--from foreign influence--, the chinese people
are free(not as individuals but as a unified body that is harmonious
with the brain). western liberal political philosophy tends to be
atomic than anatomic. every individual has the right to think his own
thoughts and do his own stuff. (of course, big government liberalism
wants more power in the hands of the state, but even the biggest
Liberals in the US believe in the sanctity and autonomy of the
individual). but, in the chinese view of things, the government is
the brain and the people--the body--must do as the brain orders it.
how would you feel if your body disobeyed the will of your mind? you'd
be frustrated. how would you like it if you wanted to move your legs
or arms but they didn't move? you'd feel frustrated. because chinese
political philosophy is anatomic, many chinese--including ordinary
people--feel that only the state should have total freedom. for many
chinese, more 'human rights' is synonymous with bodily paralysis. if
your arms and legs have their own 'thoughts' and agendas and don't
obey your mind, you're gonna feel crazy. since chinese have a more
communal mindset and are not comfortable with individualism, they are
more sensitive to signs of 'disunity'. they are gonna raact like a
man who fell off a horse and can't feel his arms and legs anymore--
panic. also, chinese remember or choose to remember the opium wars
where the chinese body/soul was addicted to funny stuff and become
disconnected with the brain that warned against the danger. also,
there was the warlord period where china just fell apart and was ruled
as a varieity of fiefdoms. while warlordism is not even a remote
possibility in the near future, chinese government feels that if
central power is weakened, there will be a kind of provincialism or
regionalism which will be like warlordism of old.
the chinese want to increase the size of the national body and the
strengthen the muscles and bones of the entire nation but also believe
that only the brain--the government--knows what is truly good for the
whole body, head to toe. the fact is many chinese either don't trust
themselves or trust only themselves without trusting their neighbors.
that being the case, even most chinese favor a nation run by a strong
state than an atomic society made up of 1.3 billion individuals with
lost souls.
western society also believes in the primacy of brain centers--
government, cor****ate elite, academia, media, etc--, but there is no
single brain for everyone. also, modern western social philosophy
believes in the body as much as in the brain--both in individual and
social terms. in individual terms, there's the idea that knowledge
and intellect are not everything; this is why colleges don't just look
at grades but other criteria; we also believe in listening to our
bodies and hormones and getting funky once awhile. of course, too many
people overemphasize on bodily instincts over the intellect; if
radical feminists are ALL-brains, girls-gone-wild are ALL butts. the
rise of black culture has made americans feel more attuned to their
animal hormones and less trusting of intellect. on the other hand,
the prominence of leftwing jewish culture has made some americans
overemphasize theorizing. the anglo-american model has been to
pragmatically find a complementary if not exactly harmonious balance
between mind and body, to moderate and mediate between the two.
in social terms, american political philosophy veers from body-
centered populism to brain-centered elitism. body centered populism
tends to be instintive, emotional, irrational, and impassioned. brain
centered elitism tends to be intellectual, rational, theoretical, and
etc. huckabee appeals to the body politics while hillary appeals
to the brain politics. of course, all political movements in the US
are bundled of both brain and body. so, hillary clinton will campaign
as someone who understands THE people. and though reagan and bush were
sup****ted by the rich business class, they posed as heartland
americans or texan cowboys. and, obama is an ivy league community
organizer.
populists pick up on some fancy theories and try to talk like
intellectuals, and intellectuals pick up on the noise of the street
and try to walk like ordinary americans. ross p***** was masterful at
this for a time. though a cor****ate billionaire, he walked and talked
like popeye. you'd think he got his advantage from a can of spinach
than from his billions.
ANYWAY, china IS interfering in the internal affairs of other nations
despite its claims of not messing with the business of other nations.
doing business is messing with other people's business(a lesson that
is im****tant for US as well). by doing business and sup****ting vile,
oppressive, and brutal regimes, china IS interfering in the affairs of
other nations by defacto sup****ting thugs who are brutalizing innocent
people. chinese may say they only do business or have diplomatic
relations. but, such dealings are sufficient to prop up regimes such
as the ones in sudan, north korea, and burma. as the regimes in those
nations depend on ties with china to maintain their total power over
the populace, china IS interfering in the affairs of other nations.
china is not doing it directly. china did not put those thugs in
power. china is not telling those regimes exactly what to do. but,
china has great influence on them through economic and political ties.
for instance, north korean willingness to negotiate on nukes is due to
pressure from china. so, china DOES interfere in the internal affairs
of other nations. indeed, chinese pressure on north korea to stop
making nukes is PROOF that china does interfere in the affairs of
other nations when it feels it must. (also, doesn't china blame the
west for doing business with japan in the 30s when japan was invading
china? wasn't US right to set up sanctions against japan? was the US
embargo on japan an interference with japanese or asian political
affairs? if US was right to break trade deals with japan on the basis
of japan's human rights violations and war-mongering, why doesn't
china do likewise in the world? of course, china can argue that
japan invaded another nation whereas north koreans, burmese, and
sudanese--and chinese--only harm themselves. but, this is a weak moral
argument. also, it sounds rather like japan's asian co-prosperity
sphere argument. according to japanese militarists, its aggression in
china and rest of asia was an asian affair and no business of
westerners. today, chinese tell us that what they do to tibetans is
none of the world's business because it's happening inside china.
according to the chinese, morality is geographic, not universal.
something is right or wrong depending on whose side it is happening.
following this logic, i suppose there was nothing wrong with
indonesian violence against chinese since it was indonesians minding
their own affairs in their own nation. and holocaust would have been
okay if germany only killed german jews. that is chinese geographic or
sovereign morality for you. it is always about the right of the state
to rule than right of man to be free)
imagine this scenario. suppose there is a prison community where some
lowlife thug and his cronies lord over a 1000 inmates. they
routinely brutalize and kill people . the people hope for freedom
and justice. but, suppose the thug and henchmen are able to maintain
power over the innocent prisoners by receiving aid from or doing
business with some nation. this nation can say it doesn't intefere in
the internal affairs of the prison community, but it IS indeed doing
so. by recognizing and trading with the thug and his henchmen, the
nation is ensuring that victims remain victimized by the thug and his
henchmen who are empowered thru business dealings with the outside
world.
by either giving aid or doing business with sudan, north korea, and
burma, china is in essence interfering in the internal affairs of
those nations. china is ensuring that the thugs in those nations have
the means to maintain their control over society. china is helping the
thugs against the people. chinese government doesn't see nations as
societies made up of free people but essentially as prisons ruled by
guards and wardens. because of this pathological distrust of the
people, chinese government only recognizes the rulers--guards and
wardens--of other nations but never the people who are imprisoned and
brutalized.
according to china, american pu****ng for human rights is 'interfering
in the internal affairs' of other nations; in contrast, chinese say
their sup****t of nations like sudan, north korea, and burma is
'respecting their sovereignty'. of course, china means the
'sovereignty' of thuggish oppressors, not the sovereignty of the
people who have no voice, no choice, no freedom.
chinese government is run by gangsters and its message to the world is
'let us be gangsters making deals with other gangsters around the
world'. what about the PEOPLE oppressed by gangster regimes? china
doesn't care. chinese government operates like the chinese triad.
it's all about money and power. there are no principles whatsoever.
what's truly sad is that US and the free world have allowed china to
get away with so much of this. money has a way of easing freedoms in
china but also greasing the values of the free world.
to sum it up, china IS interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations by defacto sup****ting brutal/criminal regimes that don't allow
any power and freedom to the people. and, US and the free world must
speak truth to the hideous, ugly, disgusting chinese. otherwise, US
and free nations are also indirectly and defacto sup****ting brutal
regimes who are sup****ted by china.
it's never too late to boycott the olympic and change rules that ONLY
free nations can host or participiate in the olympics.
|
