The Shotgun Blog
« Passion and politics | Main | What Will Happen if the NDP Form the Next Gubmnt »
Saturday, December 17, 2005
'A new kind of threat to human freedom'
Hats off to the Ottawa Citizen for publishing an op-ed yesterday by Carlton journalism professor David Van Praagh "The real threat is China." [thanks to MV in Comments for the link].
---
The real threat is China: Greedy or distracted world leaders have failed to recognize that we are not just in a war on terror, but a new cold war as well
The Ottawa Citizen
by David Van Praagh
Friday, December 16, 2005
As 2005 limps to an end, the biggest problem we face is not Iraq, but China. Defeating terrorism growing out of the Middle East will mean far less if the democracies fail to contain tyranny in Asia and the Pacific. The danger is that the free world is so torn-apart by the war on terror that it risks losing what has become an undeclared war with Chinese Communist dictators intent on global domination.
This is not the stuff of 15-second TV clips, at least not since the slaughter of students in Tiananmen Square by the tanks of the People's Liberation Army in 1989. This war has so many fronts that it's hard to connect them. One of them is Canada, and Prime Minister Paul Martin put Canadians on the wrong side -- I hope temporarily -- when he eagerly embraced China as a "strategic partner" last September.
But Mr. Martin joins other Western leaders who have bought the myths about China and the despots who have ruled the People's Republic since 1949. The names Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chretien, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton spring to mind. Countless lesser apologists go back to those who called the Chinese Communists harmless "agrarian reformers."
Realists like Paul Martin Sr. must be at least twitching in their graves.
Four dramatic events this month, within days and a few hundred kilometers of each other, illustrate the China challenge.
In Hong Kong, more than 100,000 Chinese went into the streets to demonstrate peacefully -- again -- for full democracy. And opponents of globalization from other countries protested -- again -- at a meeting of the World Trade Organization. But since the former British Crown colony became a "special autonomous region" of China in 1997, the dictators in Beijing have steadily chipped away at its guaranteed legal status.
At the same time -- and missed by the protesters -- they have used WTO membership to lubricate a massive flow of exports that keeps "market socialism" in business in China, undermines the economies of other countries large and small, and pays for a rapid buildup of conventional and nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the first East Asia summit happened in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- with Canada and the United States deliberately not invited.
This was potentially a huge victory for China in largely realizing the unashamedly racist dream of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad: keeping the United States out of Asia and the Pacific, with Canada as the other North American power barred as an afterthought. But the United States is by far the most important economic and military player in Asia and the Pacific, and Canada is a major player.
And three powers that were invited made it clear to China that it will not have a free ride even in such a symbolic exercise. These are Japan and India -- major democracies and U.S. strategic allies determined to prevent Chinese domination of Asia -- and Australia, which has a clearer view of the region than Canada whatever its racial problems at home.
The mainland fishing village of Dongzhou, not far from Hong Kong, was the scene of the fourth event. In perhaps the worse massacre in China since Tiananmen Square, police and locally recruited thugs shot dead up to 30 poor Chinese for protesting the government's confiscating their land for a pittance in order to build a power plant.
Official land grabs, common in China, are one of the main causes of popular protests against the Communist regime, along with corruption of party cadres. Bureaucrats count and report the number of protests -- they say there were 74,000 in 2004. But we don't know what actually happens in the vast majority, including how many people have been killed.
Thousands of police isolated Dongzhou as soon as word of the massacre reached Hong Kong, even denying recovery of bodies to family members, and the authorities cut off all electronic channels of information.
These events underline what we have learned about the Communist dictatorship in Beijing headed by Hu Jintao: its fanatical rejection of democracy and human rights; its single-minded drive to acquire the resources -- including Canadian oil and high-tech -- necessary for economic supremacy; its clear determination to become a military superpower; its unrelenting campaign to dominate other Asian countries; and its systematic brutality to most of the 1.3 billion people of China except party members. More than 50 million Chinese have been killed by Communist rulers.
So why do myths about China persist? The main reason is profit.
Beijing's "market socialism" -- mixing of economic adventurism and political tyranny -- permits not only the Chinese leaders to profit from the world's biggest dictatorship but also countries standing up to China or vulnerable to China: the United States, Japan, India, Canada, Australia, the countries of Southeast Asia, even countries in Latin America, Africa and Central Asia.
One myth is that China will become democratic as its economy shoots up. But the Chinese dictators are tightening the screws, not loosening them.
Another myth is that China is not really Communist. If it were possible for the survivors of Dongzhou to speak out, they would surely say otherwise.
The most dangerous myth is that "Rising China" cannot be stopped in its drive to become the overlord of Asia and the Pacific and much more -- really the world domination that Mao Zedong wanted not so much for China or for Communists as for himself.
But China can be contained by one of two things, or perhaps both. One is an alliance for democracy among nations that understand political liberty and collective security must accompany economic prosperity. The other is the growing prospect of the dictators losing control of the people as China implodes under the increasing strains they are imposing.
Even with the war on terror likely to go on for many years, the war between China and the democracies -- still cold but it could become hot, quite possibly over Taiwan -- may be the most important conflict since the defeats of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia saved civilization.
Communist China poses a new kind of threat to human freedom, and both Western civilization and Asian civilization.
David Van Praagh, author of The Greater Game: India's Race with Destiny and China, is completing a book on the countries of Southeast Asia and China. A former Asia correspondent, he's a professor of journalism at Carleton University.
---
Posted by Kevin Steel on December 17, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8349ad7c769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'A new kind of threat to human freedom':
Comments
Thanks for the interesting article.
It's nice to include the article here in case it becomes unavailable at the Citizen, but could you also please include a direct link to the story itself?
Here it is for others:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=54a97e29-1d24-4e93-b98e-b45f8830f536
Posted by: MV | 2005-12-17 1:32:13 PM
The Americans aren't perfect, but it's incredible that many Canadians have a positive impression of the Chinese oligarchy and harbour negative opinions of the States.
ps: Power Corp rules!
Posted by: bushman | 2005-12-17 2:10:25 PM
I guess we need more whistle blowing.
How about diminishing trade, but in an orderly fashion? This could be done through a new alliance sort of an Asian NATO.
If China attacks Taiwan, it would face a combined alliance made of Japan, India, USA, Russia, Australia, Indonesia.
We could design a specific approach like: more trade for increasing measures of democracy. I can suggest an important first stringent measure: guarantee the freedom of speech and religion. If not applied, we should progressively slow down trade.
As for the last massacre in a village I would ask for an international investigation, just like the one about the assasination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-12-17 3:54:48 PM
Is China in the WTO? Is Hong Kong in China? Is Pascal Lamy a greek name/easter icon? Oh well...>>
D-G, Pascal Lamy, of WTO has a weblog. He is a moonbat socialist, of course; but, with a touch of class & fine albeit rare cigars. Ahhh, the life of a socialist. (BTW, does Maurice Strong have a weblog?) This will make you want morrreerrr >>>>
"Friday
16th December
The difficult part begins but all options are open.
It's dark when I wake up and day when I go to bed. It has been almost a week that I am here in Hong Kong and I have not seen much of the city, besides the convention centre and sporadically the hotel. But occasionally during the day, as I puff one of my rare cigars, I catch a glimpse of the harbour and of that boat I mentioned earlier with the blue sails. It strikes me now that it's a bit like our conscience. The message painted on the sails today in big white letters reads: “when will the poor start getting richer?” Pretty direct message for us all, as we continue on the treadmill of meetings. True, trade can contribute to alleviate poverty, but — and this is a big BUT — it is only one of the pieces of the puzzle.
My poor staff are looking at me more and more with eyes that ask: when will we get some sleep?" >>> more
http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/dg_e/pl_visitors_e/min05_blog_e.htm
H/T William Watson, FP Comment. His column today is entitled, "Canada, your hypocrisy is showing again." Watson is an economist but with excellent, readable prose.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-12-17 4:19:07 PM
How Israel can continue to be criticized by the UN, while China and Iran are not shocks me. Both countries' actions during the past few weeks should get them expelled. But, no, they'll get a seat on the human rights council!
What kind of an Orwellian world are we living in when human rights abusers get to judge human rights progress across the Globe? The MSM has turned all human rights focus to the treatment of suspected murderous terrorists who won't tell us who their friends want to kill next!
Foreign issues have not been discussed enough during this campaign. It was Harper's speech at the policy convention back in March that first caused me to support him and abandon the Liberals, when he said that he would never be caught "shaking the hands of dictators" like Paul Martin.
If Hitler were around today, he'd have a seat at the UN and we'd be "free" trading with him. (btw - is it still free trade if the country won't let its own citizens trade free
ly?)
Posted by: Angela | 2005-12-17 4:33:33 PM
The part about how China "undermines the economies of other countries large and small" is nonsense. Mutual trade makes people richer, not poorer. If you feel poorer, it's because your own government is ripping you off.
It is trade barriers which cause wars. Free trade prevents wars, because even a vile communist dictator would rather invest in factories and get rich, than start a war and have to move into a bunker, or worry about getting toppled or assasinated if he loses.
You want to pick a fight with commies? Start with the one right at home in your own municipal, provincial and federal governments.
If you let your own government walk all over you, you're telling the would-be dictators of the world, "Kick me, I'm Canadian".
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-12-17 5:43:26 PM
I've really never made up my mind whether we need to start cutting China off or just continue to trade with them more. Juastzumgai brings up some good points. Economic sanctions and isolation don't work. The last time I looked, Castro was still sitting on the throne in Cuba.
One thing I am convinced of is that the Chinese government should NEVER be allowed to purchase Canadian corporations, regardless of how much Canadian CEOs and fund managers whine about this. Our own government seems to have quit doing this; we shouldn't allow other governments to do it either.
Posted by: Raging Ranter | 2005-12-17 6:50:46 PM
Agree Raging and Justzumgai,
I’m all for free trade, even with commies. I'm fine with foreign ownership in Canada as long as the owners are good corporate citizens. But I am against the Mafia buying Noranda or Stelco. As far as I’m concerned there’s no difference between the thugs in the Mafia and thugs in Beijing.
Our Foreign Policy should clearly state that only known individuals, or corporate entities could own significant assets of Canada. Also, these known individuals must be living in democratic nations subject to the enforcement of the law as practised in Canada. Realistically there is no way we are going to be able to enforce our laws upon the Communists in Beijing. Therefore they should be disqualified upfront as buyers. That means no Desmarais/Total Petroleum/China deals in our tar sands or Artic
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-12-17 7:04:04 PM
Canadians are going around begging for foreign investment because they have no savings. That is what you should focus on. We have a lousy, anti-business, anti-freedom government. It is not even clear that Canadians enjoy more freedom than Chinese. They can't vote, but we pay probably double the taxes that they do. Chinese get shot down like dogs when they protest their land getting expropriated. Canadians die like dogs on hospital waiting lists after their paycheck has been expropriated. (Canadians have their land expropriated by government too, and they would certainly get shot like dogs if they tried to resist the expropriation with force.)
Say that you did try to make rules to prevent "bad people" from buying Canadian property. First of all I want to know what is it that the present Canadian owners did wrong, that you would prevent them from selling their property to the highest bidder? Are you punishing them for the crime of needing cash for retirement, or for an operation, or for food? And second of all, what kind of bureaucracy will you establish, in order to determine how "bad" the foreigners are who are bidding on Canadians' private property? Do you think - I know this is a stretch - that maybe these bureaucrats, with their little tribunals and patronage appointments, and incestuous group-think, and gold-plated salaries and benefits, could ever possibly be prone to make political decisions, or self-serving decisions, instead of moral decisions? How many layers should this bureaucracy be, in order to provide for multiple levels of appeal? Should the final decision rest with political hacks in cabinet, or with black-robed hacks in the Supreme Court? Will the bureaucrats be able to penetrate layers of ownership and control in the proposed buyers of a piece of Canadian property, to find out when foreign communists are hiding behind Canadian plutocrats, or vice-versa?
I say, let's boot out our own home-grown commies and plutocrats, kick a few tens of thousands of bureaucrats out on their fat asses into the real world, build up our own businesses with our own money, then see how many foreigners can afford to buy our assets.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-12-17 7:36:09 PM
What is free trade or anti-trust legislation when individual private corporations are in competition with companies owned by a single hegemonic totalitarian government which controls the most populace country on the planet.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-12-17 10:05:48 PM
China is Scary!
Posted by: PGP | 2005-12-18 2:39:55 PM
I never buy anything made in China if I can avoid it. The Chineese people are slaves - state slaves- and I am possitive that the Chineese people in chains HATE us for making their "Masters" richer. They were disarmed eons ago, they can't even shoot themselves to escape the disgraceful life of a slave.
Posted by: jema54j | 2005-12-18 3:54:22 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.