Mr Kim and his elite did not wilfully seek the deaths of ordinary North Koreans, but they accepted them as collateral damage resulting from their need to maintain power.
– from the Economist yesterday
|
|||||
|
Mr Kim and his elite did not wilfully seek the deaths of ordinary North Koreans, but they accepted them as collateral damage resulting from their need to maintain power. – from the Economist yesterday On a spring day in Beijing almost a decade ago, tens of thousands of people gathered on the pavement surrounding the high-walled Zhongnanhai compound, the Chinese equivalent of the Kremlin. They were protesting, but there was barely a murmur to be heard from the enormous crowd. There were no banners, no megaphones noisily chanting demands, no unruly behaviour. It was not a typical demonstration – the participants were seated and meditating. They stayed for around twelve hours. These people were members of the rapidly expanding Falun Gong sect, and they were asking for recognition, legitimacy and an end to perceived mistreatment from the Chinese central government. The then-Chinese premier met with the group’s leaders, following which they all left as quietly as they had arrived. Shortly after this protest, the Chinese government declared the sect a dire ideological threat to the People’s Republic of China, and a huge and rigorous nationwide crackdown followed. Practitioners in powerful positions saw their careers ended abruptly. Thousands were ‘re-educated’. Several, according to numerous human rights advocates, did not survive their enlightenment at the hands of the Chinese state. The sect’s leader was demonised, its teachings subjected to the harshest denunciations. In response, many Falun Gong practitioners held silent protests all over China. A few caught the world’s attention by self-immolating in Tiananmen Square, which explains why each of the numerous military personnel guarding the square have a fire extinguisher placed within arm’s length of their positions. Unsurprisingly, these protests failed. Falun Gong in mainland China is a massively diminished, illegal underground movement. It is still an extremely politically sensitive topic in China. It is carefully referred to as ‘FG’ when written about on-line, in the (probably vain) hope that such abbreviations will avoid the notice of China’s vigilant internet police (who probably do not care all that much about 99% of these references, but the fact that Chinese internet users go to such lengths is revealing in itself). The government has successfully and widely propagated the idea that Falun Gong is a degenerate cult. → Continue reading: A fork in the road I was going to write about the unconscionable Russian attacks on Georgia and how it is more important than ever to confront and isolate Russia and impose a cost on Russian imperialism… but then I read this article by Marko Hoare, who has written some great things in the past on the Balkan conflict, and he says much of what I would have…
Amen. Depending on whether or not they get lucky with the weather, the Beijing Olympics might not, or might, turn into a PR disaster both for the International Olympic Committee, who chose Beijing, and for the Chinese Government, who assured the IOC that pollution in Beijing would not be a problem. But, pollution in Beijing is already a problem:
I’ve been linking to news about Beijing pollution for a while now from my personal blog, and the man from Blognor Regis, to whom thanks, added that quote-and-link to my latest posting on the subject. I also added a bit at the end of that same posting about how the architectural planning of the Beijing Olympics has been done by the son of Albert Speer, who is called Albert Speer. Albert Speer senior being the man who did a similar job for Hitler’s Olympics in 1936. My thanks to Mick Hartley for blogging recently about that. As another of my esteemed commenters said, you could not make it up. But as soon as I had stuck up that bit about Albert Speer Jnr., I worried that maybe someone had made it up, and that I had fallen for one of those internet hoaxes. I checked every date involved to see that it wasn’t April 1st. It seems, amazingly, to be true. Apparently Michael Jennings of this blog emailed me in April about this Speer connection, but I paid no attention then and can find no trace of this email now. My computer must have swallowed it. Or maybe I thought he’d made it up and deleted the email on purpose. Undeterred, Michael J today emailed me another Olympic link worth following, to a Slate piece which asks of the Beijing Olympics: What could possibly go wrong? Pollution is number two on the list. Four is that the TV coverage might get screwed up, and five is that these Olympics may inflict food poisoning on lots of the athletes. Blogging personally, and in my capacity as a London council tax payer, my biggest worry is that it will all go very smoothly, that many British people in particular will be very impressed and excited, and that Britain’s politicians will then be encouraged to spend even more billions in tax money on the London version of this idiocy in four years time than is set to be spent anyway. I came across this statistic here, stating that there will be 22,000 journalists at the Beijing Olympics next week. The local bars will be doing a roaring trade, one hopes. Jesus. If you can speak and write mandarin Chinese to the extent that you can also teach it, then chances are that this is going to be one hell of a lucrative career right now, according to this report. I fear that this is a trend I am going to miss out on. Even if I had a flair for languages – and I speak French and German a bit – Chinese is a whole different ball game. And at my age – 42 – it would be probably far too late to start anyway. Mind you, an old colleague of mine who is in his 40s had been learning for several years and is how working in China, in the media business. So it is possible if one is determined enough, I guess. What the hell is going on in Japan? Even though I do not know if it should be done, given that it would be done by the people who would do it rather than by people who would do it well, I’m glad someone has at least said this:
Those are apparently the words of David Davis, opposition spokesman for something or other. His colleagues were “stunned”, says Iain Dale. Incidentally, Biased BBC, who I do not always like (basically because I do not always dislike the BBC), made a good point recently about those Burmese generals. After quoting a Wikipedia entry to the effect that the Burmese generals are quite a bit more socialist than not, Niall Kilmartin says:
Well, whatever. What is definitely true is that if, during a natural disaster, a government treats its own people as hostages rather than anyone they are supposed to help, then helping those people means shoving the government aside, at least for the duration of the disaster. Trouble is, smashing up a government does not, to put it mildly, necessarily mean helping its people. It’s one of those necessary-but-insufficient situations. I actually think that if these generals did fear an old-fashioned invasion, a bit more than they do now, they might tolerate an NGO invasion instead. Surely, a threatened invasion, a real one, might accomplish something here. Trouble is, if you threaten something, it is better to mean it. Latest from the BBC on Burma here. Things are said, by some, to be “improving”. Hmm. This story in the Daily Telegraph today about Burmese officials allegedly pilfering foreign aid and selling it just reinforces any prejudice one might have about the efficacy of sending aid to a country governed by thugs. It is not obvious to me what, if anything, the major powers could or should do about this. Outright military intervention seems unlikely and given the stretched resources of western powers, unwise. However, given its rapid economic ascent, one might hope that India could exert some influence for good, which is preferable to that of China. Right at this moment, though, the main emotion one might feel about Burma and its plight is one of dark despair. I seldom recommend TV to anyone. But I caught this last night – or it caught me – and I think many readers, able through the wonders of the internet to see the whole thing lawfully, will be interested to do so. It is the sort of serious programming that the BBC used to be famous for: a depiction and explanation using clips of films and still photographs taken by diplomats and other visitors, of the strange anachronistic religious-feudal state that existed in Tibet in the late 30s and the 40s, and how it came to be annexed by the People’s Republic of China. No-one seeing this will find it easy to make sense of the Chinese official claim that Tibet has ‘been part of China for 800 years’. Welsh readers will note that Wales has been administratively part of England for 800 years, in a much clearer sense, but that does not mean they have to like it or feel English. Bordelais readers (who are old enough) will recall that they certainly were under the English crown 800 years ago, but that does not mean they still are. History is not monotonic. And neither Aberystwyth nor Aquitaine, language apart, has for centuries had institutions wholly alien to an Englishman; whereas Tibet was clearly fascinatingly weird to everyone else only 60 years ago. There is a deeply revealing article in the Telegraph written by the Chinese Ambassador to Britain, Fu Ying, called ‘Western media has demonised China‘. It is fascinating because it reveals the same psychopathology on display that I wrote about on Samizdata when many Chinese people reacted badly to a ‘disrespectful’ image of Mao (debatably the most prolific mass murderer in human history) which was used in a Spanish car advertisement. The ambassador pains a picture of wounded feelings over the protests launched against Olympic torch carriers…
And to Fu Ying, the Chinese state and the Chinese people are simply the same thing (a profoundly fascist attitude I might add), so to her, protesting the Chinese government’s policy of maintaining the colonial occupation of Tibet is the same as protesting against the Chinese people itself. She, and a great many other people alas, cannot truly conceive of the notion that hostility to the Chinese state because of its actions does not imply any insult to or hostility to Chinese people simply because they are Chinese, because to any non-collectivist, the Chinese state is a political construct, not some expression of the Chinese soul, or some such metaphysical drivel. The western media are not demonising China because China’s demons are generally home grown. The Chinese state has moved from full blown communism to a less mundanely repressive nationalistic fascism, but it is still a state which brooks no rival power centres of any sort, be they the Falan Gong, Dalai Lama or Roman Catholic Church let alone any real political movements. Moreover it demands, with considerable success, an atavistic loyalty based on ethnicity that Chinese people see themselves as extensions of the state. As a result Fu Ying’s claims of widespread insult and incomprehension by Chinese people is almost certainly true enough, but the issue here is not ‘us’ understanding China, it is China understanding the rest of the world. Until a critical mass of Chinese people can think their way past mental collectivisation and realise they are not the Chinese state, the genuine modernisation the Ambassador craves will remain an illusion no matter how many skyscrapers they build.
Hmm. I think he has a decent point, even though his article does rather soft-play the whole Tibet issue. There has been something a bit, well, off-key about the venom directed against China, but then one should remember that for all its economic reforms, the grip of the Chinese Communist Party, an organisation responsible for some of the greatest mass murders in history (the Cultural Revolution, etc), does have rather a lot to live down. So for all that some of the demonstrations leave a sour taste, I think that most of those who object to what China is doing are on the side of the angels. |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Recent Comments