Singing in the Strait

While this kid can sing well, I highly doubt that the song will become Taiwan's policy towards China any time soon.

"Democracy" in China, Part III

Few people outside of China have ever read the words of Mao Zedong. From my perspective this only contributes to the ignorance surrounding the CCP's position on Western democracy and continued tensions between the West and the PRC.

As such it is only appropriate to briefly discuss Mao's position on democracy, as his thought still guides the CCP. In his speech on democracy, Mao clearly outlines why the Chinese people could not accept Western democracy. In the fourth and fifth paragraphs, he describes the Chinese people's experience with Western democracy and its ultimate failure because it excluded so many of the Chinese people. Moreover, despite such strong yearning to become modern through Western ideals, the Western powers (Europe, the U.S., Japan, and Russia), were still treating China as a backward state, demanding commercial contracts for railroads and banking. They also still clung to their spheres of influence where Chinese law had no power.

In the fifth paragraph, Mao describes that socialism will abolish classes in society, reflecting the growing disparity between the rich and poor. Now one could argue that such a disparity always existed in China, however socialist philosophy had never entered the Chinese psyche before.

In the paragraph concerning abolishing state power (towards the end), Mao is quite honest stating that anyone who opposes the socialist revolution in China will not be treated kindly. Only those considered "the people" will be treated with benevolence. Recognizing that purging political threats has been a mainstay throughout the Republic of China under Yuan Shikai and Chiang Kai-shek (who hunted the CCP), this position cannot come as a surprise.

To sum up, Mao and the modern day CCP leadership have no taste for Western democracy. Not only is it viewed as corrupt (ironic considering that no government is free of corruption), but also because "democracy" in China is associated with chaos, civil strife, and weakness. The Republic of China was never able to stand on its own two feet and govern the entire territory of China (which in and of itself is a subject of debate). As such Western calls for liberalization in Chinese politics will fall of deaf ears in Beijing for the time being.

"Democracy" in China, Part II

Today I'll be talking about Chiang Kai-shek (referred to as Jiang Jieshi from time to time by Beijing). While several American administrations and elements of the American public portrayed him as a Chinese George Washington, he was more like Benito Mussolini.

Chiang Kai-shek was born to a merchant family but like most people from his class studied in Japan, in his case at a military academy for two years. Upon his return to China (which was under the administration of Yuan Shikai), Chiang became involved with various crime organizations and eventually the Nationalist Party (led by Sun Yatsen).

Eventually Chiang would assume leadership of the Republic of China after the government moved to the south. His style of government really can be compared to fascism, as he utilized secret police and believed that the people and state should be of one mission. Far from promoting democracy, he hunted down political opponents (even the Chinese Communist Party prior to the Nationalist "defeat"in 1949).

Once in Taiwan, Chiang never released his grip. He imposed martial law on the island, which remained in place until the late 1980s when his son would lift it. One of my teachers remembers studying in Taiwan during the 1970s and clearly recalls the "political commissar" stationed in the dorm.

Tune in over the weekend for Mao's thoughts on democracy.

"Democracy" in China, Part I

Sorry about the downtime. A little after I posted last Tuesday, I spilled soda on my laptop and promptly ruined it. Fortunately I back everything up and am now up and running again.

So what do I mean by "democracy"? More or less the form of government in the United States, otherwise known as a constitutional republic. So let's be clear that when politicians and citizens call for "democracy" in the PRC, they are really talking about instituting a republican form of government.

The first modern appearance of republican government in China was the establishment of the Republic of China. It was established in Beijing on January 1, 1912 after the last emperor of China was forced out. The Republic of China still exists, although on the island of Taiwan since 1949. Unfortunately it got off to a bad start from which it never recovered, as a general named Yuan Shikai was its first president.

Yuan began his career by serving in the Qing imperial army and rose through the ranks. He was part of the clique that brought an end to period known as the 100 days of reform, during which Emperor Guangxu tried to usher in reforms to transform the Chinese empire into a constitutional monarchy (think Great Britain). Positive sign, right?

The Chinese can't be blamed. In fact, Yuan was THE muscle in China. He had the largest and most modern army in China at the time. So despite the fact that Sun Yatsen should have been president by all accounts, the person with the largest amount of force assumed the position.

My next post will discuss Chiang Kai-shek (or Jiang Jieshi in pinyin). While I recognize that this is skipping a few years, I'm sticking the milestones in China's experiments with less authoritarian forms of government. After that, I'll delve into what Mao Zedong's thoughts were on democracy. For a good review on this material, John Spence's book "The Search for Modern China" is an excellent resource.

Heads up

Wow, has it really been the 3rd since my last post? Sorry about that. I had the pleasure of hosting my sister last week.

However, I have been thinking about what my posts will be. I am putting together a multi-post series concerning democracy in the PRC. Much has been made about it, and I've referred to it in a couple of previous posts. As such, it only makes sense to spend a little more time discussing Chinese democracy's historical roots and evolution. Expect the first post to be uploaded tomorrow on the 17th.

One step closer

Reuters India is reporting that the KMT has successfully prevented the potential free trade agreement with the PRC from being put to a public vote. The Taiwan opposition party (known as the Democratic Progressive Party, DPP for short), was trying to get the Taiwan public to vote on it in hopes of getting it killed. Based from what I've said on the importance on such an agreement, why would the DPP want that?

The DPP is increasingly becoming the party associated with Taiwan independence. Consequently, any agreement with the mainland is viewed by the party as surrendering Taiwanese sovereignty. From my perspective this is an instance of where blind ideology could lead to disaster. If the DPP were able to get the agreement put to a public vote and it was voted down, then Taiwan would suffer severely on the economic front. Such an event would have dramatic consequences for the island, as its economic prosperity is what partly allows it to maintain its current status (read not under Beijing's control). The KMT recognizes the basic fact that Taiwan's economic prosperity is key to its national security. As such, signing an FTA with the PRC not jeopardize Taiwan's status, it will protect it.

What's in a name?

Juliet said something to the effect when she found out that Romeo was the son of her father's enemy, inferring that names don't matter. However, she couldn't be further from the truth. For names DO matter, and it's important to understand why.

Take "China" for example. Now most people use it to refer to the People's Republic of China. However, one could also be referring to the Republic of China depending on when they grew up, because "China" was known to be short for the ROC. Moreover, the term itself infers a stable, unchanging country that simply isn't the case. Lastly, the term denotes a homogeneous state, which is not the case when referring to "China." You only need to look at the Uighurs, Tibetans, and Mongols to realize that "China" more or less is a story of the Han people.

The establishment of the People's Republic of China was a huge event for the world. The Chinese Communist Party founded a modern state with a large amount of emotional baggage. They saw "China's" past as one of humiliation under the Qing dynasty, giving into the demands of Western powers and Japan, and as such sought to lead a different "China," one that was strong and capable of being independent. Calling the PRC "China" glosses over the monumental shift that occurred when the CCP established the state.

Lately I've been in the habit of making the mental distinction between "China" and the PRC. I asked one of my professors why this is happening, and he said it's because I'm making the key distinction that exists between China and the PRC. The question is, how many other people recognize the difference?

On a personal note, sorry for absence in entries. I came down with a severe cold last Tuesday and am just now starting to feel like my normal self. You can rest assured the entries will continue on a more regular basis.

What's the big Dalai?

Apparently there is going to be another round of discussions between Beijing and the Dalai Lama's reps. As par the course, The Economist does a superb job of explaining why they won't amount to much. For those of you who could use a refresher on Tibet and China, the U.S. Congressional Research Service has a handy report.

I always chuckle inside whenever topics concerning China's borders come up, mainly because there are cultural forces at work. The West has been big on drawing lines in the sand (or dirt or stone) to establish administrative regions and the borders of empires and states. In imperial China things worked a little differently, where nearby rulers of various civilizations (Korea, Japan, Tibet, Mongols, and loads more) would travel to the capital and recognize the Chinese emperor as the big cheese. Then trade would commence (along with some parties). Imperial China cared more about spheres of influence than direct administration because all the other nearby rulers accepted China's superiority. As such, they had no need for drawing hard borders. Then the Europeans come along with their maps and love of drawing lines. Not a good recipe for agreement. Fast forward to present day and we are having the same argument.

I find it ironic that China, under a supposedly communist government, is laying claims to Tibet when it was an imperial power (although one could make the strong argument they're claiming what the Republic of China claims). One would like to think that the new China (read PRC) would practice what it preaches about socialism and anti-imperialism, but let's not kid ourselves. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

欢迎！／歡迎!

Welcome!

The United States established contact with imperial China in the late 1700s through merchant sailors. Later in the 20th century it would establish relations with two governments of China, the Republic of China (which is alive and well on Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China, simply known as China today.

So why the blog's name? Simply put the United States has historically known "China" as a relatively weak country since it was founded in 1776. However, with China's growing influence the United States is forced to factor in its response or position on any policy issue. Essentially, China's development is requiring a fundamental shift in how the United States perceives and reacts to the growing power. Therefore, I argue that the United States is getting to meet the real China for the first time.

This blog is an attempt to understand the dynamics at play in the Sino-US relationship, examining both the short and long-term. I'll mix in a lot of history, for only by looking at and understanding the past can one appreciate the current situation.

As I post news articles and my thoughts, feel free to add your comments. If by chance you disagree with my opinion, say so and include a link to a source that was used to base your opinion on. That way I can understand where you're coming from and learn something new.

Enjoy!