1976 and 2016

[Oliver]

How appropriate that the junta should stop this brave young democracy activist from entering Thailand on the anniversary of the right-wing (today's "Yellow shirts") massacre of students in 1976.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/05/hong-kong-activist-joshua-wong-detained-thailand-china-deportation

[arsenal]

Yep. The US and The EU did their best but the battle for democracy is all but lost. China is calling the shots now. As this clearly shows.

[latintopxxx]

sometimes I really have to wonder who has their head screwed on tightly. We have the trumo/hillary jokers vying to run the worlds most powerful country...and the EU is being held to randsom by crazy lady merkel flooding then place with people that even their own co-religionists dont want. Thank fuck I no longer live in the northern hemisphere, its going to hell in a handbasket...and not even a gucci one at that.

[francois]

Thank fuck I no longer live in the northern hemisphere, its going to hell in a handbasket...and not even a gucci one at that.

Just where do you live latintop if not in the northern hemisphere?

[fountainhall]

How appropriate that the junta should stop this brave young democracy activist from entering Thailand on the anniversary of the right-wing (today's "Yellow shirts") massacre of students in 1976.
I abhor the action of the Thailand government which is clearly in China's pocket now. But I don't recall much comment - if any - on this site when five Hong Kong booksellers were illegally held for months in China, one having been picked up in Pattaya a year ago and sent by the Thai authorities to mainland China rather than back to Hong Kong. At least young Wong was sent back to his home in Hong Kong.

As far as democracy is concerned, in Hong Kong it is totally wrong to consider this a black-and-white issue. The history of the Anglo-Chinese Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong and the later passing of the Basic Law is a hugely complex subject involving, as we now know, not just the published treaties but agreements subsequently made between Britain and China in total secrecy without any Hong Kong people knowing about them. Britain's last governor, the self-serving Christopher Patten who had a television crew secretly filming him for a year of his term which itself could have breached the official secrets act, comes out of that saga with a very tarnished reputation. What is now happening in Hong Kong is in large part due to Patten, Britain and its primary concern for future trade with China rather than democracy in Hong Kong.

[Oliver]

Since today is the anniversary of the massacre of students and democracy activists in 1976, it is only right that attention is drawn to the shared ideologies of the junta and its Yellow shirt supporters and those responsible for those appalling events.
An interesting article in today's Bangkok Post revisits one of the defining images of 1976, " the chair", and illustrates the methods still favoured by royalist, right-wing militias (whom we saw at work in Bangkok not so long ago) and the military of today.

[AsDaRa]

Since today is the anniversary of the massacre of students and democracy activists in 1976, it is only right that attention is drawn to the shared ideologies of the junta and its Yellow shirt supporters and those responsible for those appalling events.
An interesting article in today's Bangkok Post revisits one of the defining images of 1976, " the chair", and illustrates the methods still favoured by royalist, right-wing militias (whom we saw at work in Bangkok not so long ago) and the military of today.

Out of curiosuty I have spoken with quite a few Dutch people who have lived abroad in both left wing dictatorshiops and right wing dictatorships and all of them say - while both are bad obviously - a right wing dictatorship is to be preferred above a left wing dictatorship.

So maybe you must count your blessings? It could have been much worse for you: living under left wing oppression.

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: I think you're being a little unfair on The UK. Negotiations were taking place in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square and so the world knew what China was capable of. As Jiang Zemin told Margaret Thatcher.
"I could walk in (Hong Kong) and take the whole thing this afternoon."
Given the circumstances The UK probably did as much as it could. But the China of today is unstopable.

[fountainhall]

Sorry arsenal but you have your facts the wrong way around. The Joint Declaration - the main document that decided and mapped out Hong Kong's future - was negotiated between 1982 and 1984 when it was signed. That's a full four and a half years or so before Tiananmen Square. The Basic Law was finalised in 1990 but it drew on and merely amplified the agreements made in 1984. But even the provisions in the Basic Law are controversial because the British backed down and agreed to leave several items "open to interpretation". Add in the secret agreements which have only recently come to light, Patten's lack of understanding of China and his absolute refusal to listen to what China hands were telling him, and it is perfectly clear that Britain sold Hong Kong down the river - as far as democracy is concerned! Because of Patten, the "through train" with the same legislature carrying on after the handover was totally derailed. The end result was a new legislature more pro-Beijing.

Thatcher, as is well known, wanted to keep Hong Kong and Kowloon and just let the New Territories - that part which was on the 99 year lease - go back to China. Her civil servants thought she was mad, and everyone now agrees that would have been impossible. I believe it must have been Deng who quoted that phrase as Jiang Zemin did not come to power until after Tiananmen Square. China then did not even need to send in its troops. It merely needed to cut off Hong Kong's water supply!

As I said earlier, this is a hugely complicated subject. I was living in Hong Kong throughout that entire time and Britain certainly comes out of the mess with no glory.

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: The timelines you mention are correct and also yes, it was Deng who made the comment and Thatcher replied that there was nothing she could do to stop him but then everyone would know what China was like.
But my main point is that it wouldn't have mattered what was/was not signed. China today clearly does as she pleases from having 'escaped' people delivered back in the middle of the night (again Thailand) to drilling for oil in Vietnamese waters to building military bases in international waters. What we are seeing is a country that will have unprecedented wealth and zero respect for international rule of law.
So what could The UK, some 6000 miles away have realistically done?

[fountainhall]

I agree that China now decides what China will do. But we should not forget that the treaties returning Hong Kong to China were lodged with the United Nations back in 1984. At that point in post-revolution China, the country had, I believe, never abrogated or gone against the terms of international treaties it had willingly entered into.

I do happen to believe that Britain could have made better use of diplomacy during the 1980s/start of the 1990s to tighten up at least some of the loose ends in the Joint Declaration. But John Major's then sending a career politician to be the last governor when all previous governors had been senior civl servants who had spent time in the Embassy in Beijing, knew the Chinese leadership and spoke the language, was to my mind a disaster. If Patten had not interfered to the extent and in the manner he did, there is a reasonable chance, I believe, that the through train would have succeeded. I read somewhere that Major himself was so appalled at what Patten was doing by searching for every tiny loophole and then exploiting them without any reference to Beijing that he, Major, tried to recall him twice. Patten refused to budge.

We should also not forget that despite Major's concerns, a lot of UK parliamentarians and other countries were happy to egg Patten on. To the United States and its allies Patten was trumpeting a democracy bandwagon. But little of it was part of the Joint Declaration. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese dismantled his reforms - as they were legally entitled to do - as soon as Patten departed. And now Hong Kong is and will continue to suffer as Beijing under President Xi is not going to back down!

[arsenal]

I don't recall those events the same way Fountainhall. As I remember them the Chinese hated Patten because he was implementing more democracy than they wanted. They called him "The Whore of the East." Major didn't recall Patten but Patten flew back to Britain on several occasions mainly to calm Major down such was his fury at the way the Chinese were treating towards Patten. In the UK Patten is largely regarded as having done as good a job as possible given the hand he had to play.

[goji]

Democracy is fairly fragile at the best of times. Excluding the tiny places like Andorra, I think there are less than 5 European countries that have not been under dictatorship or unwilling full or partial occupation in the last century.

I cannot think of a single properly functioning moslem democracy, so I would suggest we should stop interfering & overthrowing stable benign dictatorships in that region.
Further afield, I think there is more to be gained by facilitating a regime change in places like North Korea.

As for Hong Kong, the UK has long since passed the point where we could defend a place like that. The US is not going to interfere there.

Where the west might gain some ground is if we could show a united front on trade and only trade freely with countries which meet certain standards. However, since that would cut off most of our oil supply, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[fountainhall]

I don't recall those events the same way Fountainhall. As I remember them the Chinese hated Patten because he was implementing more democracy than they wanted. They called him "The Whore of the East." Major didn't recall Patten but Patten flew back to Britain on several occasions mainly to calm Major down such was his fury at the way the Chinese were treating towards Patten. In the UK Patten is largely regarded as having done as good a job as possible given the hand he had to play.
Many of the UK politicians in the mid 1990s were not those who had been around when the British Parliament had approved the entire Joint Declaration a decade earlier. Many of the new breed were unhappy with the deal struck by Margaret Thatcher. So when Patten unilaterally began exploiting those small loopholes left in the wording and then announcing his decision to introduce greater democracy without any prior reference to the other party to the agreement - China, two things were inevitable. First the Chinese would be furious - and they were. I think the "Whore of the East" was probably the kindest of the epithets fired in his direction! Secondly, many backbenchers in Westminster were delighted and voiced encouragement.

To the dismay of the Prime Minster, Patten was unquestionably a loose canon whose actions threatened future British relations with China. But of course to the majority in the UK and elsewhere, he was fighting for democracy - and so he was often much praised. But when there are two parties to a formally ratified Agreement that has been sanctioned by the United Nations, one party just cannot unilaterally start tinkering with the meaning of certain phrases within that Agreement - the more so when, being an astute politician, Patten will have been 100% certain that the other party would reverse them when it took over sovereignty. If he did not realise that, he was a fool! And he was indeed proved a fool, for that is precisely the root cause of Hong Kong's present problems.

Worse, Tiananmen Square notwithstanding, Hong Kong people had become accustomed to the reality of Chinese rule after 1997. Indeed, well over 100,000 Hong Kongers who had emigrated with their families to Canada, Australia and other shores, were to return to live and work in Hong Kong from the early 1990s on. And let's never forget that whilst some countries openly welcomed Hong Kong citizens after the Joint Declaration and especially after 1989, the one country which absolutely refused to give citizenship to any Hong Kong people was - Britain! Two-faced Britain! At the same time as its pro-consul was ensuring life after the handover would cause greater problems for the people of Hong Kong, Britain came under withering criticism within the colony for not doing what it had earlier done for citizens of some of its former colonies. And the reason? Trade. Britain could not afford to anger China to the extent that trade would suffer.

I lived in wHong Kong throughout that entire period. Patten was a self-serving snake. It is interesting that the longest-serving and most-loved Governor in Hong Kong history, Sir Murray MacLehose (1971-82), said in 1994, "such mindless political polarisation cannot be in Hong Kong's interest." Even the people of Hong Kong as a whole ere often extremely concerned at the extent of what Patten was doing and the effect on their livelihoods after 1997.

But everything goes back to those days in December 1984 when the Joint Declaration was signed. Margaret Thatcher described it as a victory for British diplomacy. The truth is the last 13 years of Britain's finest and most successful colony represented a bitter defeat. Britain had had many decades to introduce some form of democracy in Hong Kong, and did nothing. As the senior British diplomat responsible for negotiating with China said in 1996, "All who look beyond the headlines will wonder why Britain, with all its long and rich experience of China, should reserve its biggest mistake for the last act of the play."

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: While I don't disagree with everything you've written you're incorrect about one thing. Britain did offer citizenship to Hong Kong residents but that citizenship did not guarantee the right to live in The UK. So in effect the British government redefined the idea of citizenship which had held true since the ancient Greeks.

[fountainhall]

Sorry I have to keep disagreeing!

When, I wonder, is a citizen not a citizen? Citizenship surely carries with it the right of abode - as was the case for Hong Kong born citizens who emigrated to Canada, Australia etc. The British National (Overseas) Hong Kong passport grants Hong Kong citizens who applied and received them prior to 1997 the protection of the British Consular Service - and precious little more. The holder remains a citizen of Hong Kong. If you check the gov.uk website you will note it definitely does not make the holder a British citizen!

Also, if you hold a BNO Hong Kong passport, you are not permitted entry to China! You also have visa-free access to fewer countries than holders of the Hong Kong SAR Passports! And most interestingly of all, whilst 800,000 BNOHK passports had been issued by 2007, most did not renew. As of December 31 last year, only 143,200 existed. Another major fudge by Britain!

[latintopxxx]

funny...yet stoopid dirt poor portugal gave all of macau portuguese passports...

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: Semantics with the words national and citizen. They have different meanings and are used differently depending on who uses them and what they choose to use them to define. There is no accepted use of either word.
Wikipedia: "Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship in English."

Whether they chose to renew or not is their choice. There was a genuine fear (after June 1989) that perhaps 3 million HK citizens would want to come to Britain and the government (rightly in my opinion) acted to prevent that happening while affording them a level of protection. But, with all due respect my original question "what would you had had Britain do? remains unanswered." The reason there is considerable disquiet there now is not because of Britain. It is because China is tightening the screw with every passing month and will no doubt continue to do so. Indeed I suspect that China's crackdown of dissidents, human rights lawyers and general malcontents will get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

[fountainhall]

But, with all due respect my original question "what would you had had Britain do? remains unanswered." The reason there is considerable disquiet there now is not because of Britain. It is because China is tightening the screw with every passing month and will no doubt continue to do so.
There we disagree! Yes, China is tightening the screw and will continue to do so. But why is it doing so? The reason is totally a result of Britain's failure in the last years of its rule in Hong Kong.

What would I have had Britain do? Keep a career politician 6,000 miles away, given him a Peerage or whatever else he wanted, and in accordance with past practice put a senior civil servant with vast experience of China in as Governor of Hong Kong.

Let's recall that after 1990 and the passing of the Basic Law, Hong Kong citizens knew what would happen after 1997. Of course there was concern and in some cases genuine fear. But as the economy began to boom in the early 1990s the exodus slowed and, as stated, many returned.

The reason why there is now instability is specifically because of Britain - and more particularly its pro consul Patten! After decades of sitting back and telling Hong Kong people that everything in their garden was lovely, that they were earning lots money and that Britain had their best interests at heart - yet at the same time denying 90% or more any form of democratic participation whatever in its government, suddenly Patten comes along and pushes wide open a democracy door.

There is one additional issue which is at the heart of Patten’s misguided approach to China and its leaders. Patten was a cut and thrust politician. He had been answerable to his electorate until thrown out at the 1992 election. Not being versed in Chinese affairs – an issue which takes many people decades to come to terms with – he made the serious mistake of not taking “face” into account. “I don’t care about face”, was one of his famous dictums. In the west, the issue of face plays a relatively unimportant role. In China it is all but paramount.

There is an excellent study titled Critical Discourse Analysis in Historiography: The Case of Hong Kong’s Evolving Political Identity by John Flowerdew. He points out that Patten had little clue about the issue of face and what he knew he dismissed. He refused an invitation to visit Beijing during his first three months, thereby insulting the Chinese. He announced his democracy reform proposals as “discussions” but went ahead with them anyway without discussions. His two massive errors were in assuming the Chinese would be prepared to come to some sort of compromise on his reform proposals - they didn't. And then assuming China would not dare dismantle them in the face of world opinion once they were a fait accompli - they did!

The issue of face to the Chinese involves gaining face as well as losing it. Patten also failed to acknowledge this, something his predecessors had never done, whatever the disagreements. He misguidedly assumed the Chinese would deal with him, a Governor, when all previous negotiations on Hong Kong’s future had been conducted at higher Foreign Minister or Prime Ministerial level. In that he was making the Chinese lose face.

He then repeatedly said he wanted cooperation with China – but cooperation on his terms. He also failed to understand the hierarchical nature of Chinese society that requires individuals to be sensitive to their position on the social ladder and to the status of those who are above and below them. Secondly, loss of face in a Chinese society results in shame and guilt that require face-saving measures. Without such measures, it is open season for those hurt through loss of face to vilify those who treated them so unthinkingly.

Avoidance of direct criticism is an important element in the face business. Patten went out of his way to crtiicise China internationally. Ultimately it was John Major’s failure to take the advice of his civil servants and realise that as an underling, Patten was singularly unable to discuss and negotiate at the highest levels in Beijing. Yet for those whom Beijing trusted, as they had Sir Murray MacLehose, meetings with top leader Deng Xiaoping were possible.

Patten is a man with a huge ego and at that time had personal political ambitions. Not only did this set him apart from earlier Governors, it represented a distinct change in British policy. Instead of spending his time working with Hong Kong and China to ensure a smooth transition and a through train in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Declaration and Basic Law, Patten put his personal ambitions ahead of Hong Kong interests. Had he not done so, had he accepted that his role was to ensure that smooth transition without all his tinkering and often open infighting, Hong Kong's democratic aspirations would have remained at an extremely basic level. Once you have opened the door, though, it's extremely difficult to close it. And that is what is happening now. Britain is no longer in charge, but it still has a responsibility for Hong Kong under the terms of the Joint Declaration. And how does it exercise that responsibility? With some tongue-wagging and tut-tutting. If it had stuck to the deal it struck with China, Hong Kong would now be a lot better off.

I'll end with a quote from Anson Chan who was the Chief Secretary under Patten and for a time his successor after the handover.


“Talk to British business people and their first instinct is to keep their heads low,” Chan wrote in a scathing commentary Oct. 5 (2014) in The Guardian. “They just want things to carry on as before, would like the protests to disappear, and maintain good relations with China. The view from the British government is not much different.”

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: I am aware of your deep knowledge and experience of Chinese affairs and culture but I am of the opinion that no westerner can really understand something so different as the west and China. But your piece suggests that getting along with them involves basically agreeing to everything they demand and that was never going to happen. The diplomatic tightrope Britain had to walk along was unbelievably tricky. The government was accused at home of selling the HK people down the river because the measures were not strong enough but any stronger ones would have provoked China even more and perhaps led to conflict. You must know as well as I do the fury and shame that encompasses the entire nation about the defeats and humiliations China suffered in the past at the hands of not only Britain but France, Germany and of course Japan. This is a country itching for a fight with someone, almost anyone.

Recent events in Hong Kong and in fact all over China are not simply to do with one treaty, that's far too simple. They're to do with the fear the government has of the people, to do with the two revolutions they had in under 40 years, to do with the carnage those revolutions led to, to do with the Japanese invasion, to do with the fact that as the middle class rises they look to gain more control over their country, to do with the vested interests wanting to maintain power.

[fountainhall]

Yes, I entirely agree that China's actions are rooted in past humiliations, none more so than the opium wars. The return of Hong Kong from Britain was vital in being seen at home to right that massive historical wrong. Yet, as was discussed several posts ago, China could at any time in the second half of the 1900s have just marched in to Hong Kong and taken it over. Britain's small army presence would have crumbled overnight! But China did not do that. Of course it was tied up with Mao's endless campaigns at home, but then that did not stop it fighting border wars with India and Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s.

Western nations tend to be preoccupied with short-term thinking. China thinks way ahead. Its leaders were well aware that 1997 was on the horizon. Given the upheavals particularly during the Cultural Revolution there were other priorities. And then came Margaret Thatcher stumbling down the steps at the Great Hall of the People as she insisted Britain retain administration of the colony. That foolish aggressive tactic was never going to work as her mandarins had warned her in advance. Yes, it's true. Britain had little negotiating room and what it achieved for the people of Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration was quite considerable - and it was accepted as so by the majority of Hong Kong people.

But that Agreement and the subsequent Basic Law were negotiated by two sovereign powers. No matter the other issues you mention, there is little doubt in anyone's mind that what is now going on in Hong Kong is directly related to one man's interference in going out on a limb on behalf of Britain without the agreement of the Chinese partner. Had Patten not unlocked the Pandora's Box of democracy, Hong Kong now would hardly feature on Beijing's radar, for the future was pretty much mapped out in the two Agreements I have referred to.

The former PM of Australia, Kevin Rudd, who knows Xi quite well and speaks fluent Mandarin, is now the President of the Asia Policy Institute. He gave a hugely insightful talk some time ago. He explained how to build relationships with China and drew on the way Nixon and Mao slowly built up trust before moving forward step by step as the power brokers in each country got to know each other. As you will know, trust has to be earned in China and in negotiations it is certainly not the case that the Chinese always will win. They will try as I, in my own little way, discovered in working on several projects - but naturally they do not always succeed.

To suggest that China now is itching for a fight with almost anyone is, I submit, preposterous. In that talk Rudd mentioned that two of Xi's top priorities are the integrity of the country's borders and the maintenance of internal stability. Sitting on the country's southern border, in no way can a democratic Hong Kong fit in with that agenda. You clearly do not agree, but had Patten not appeared I have not the slightest doubt that Hong Kong would now be far less of a thorn in Xi's side. I watched at close range as Patten tried to weave his magic spell. Various friends and I agreed that in the context of China and the future of Hong Kong he was being an idiot. (Whether there might have emerged a desire for a form of democracy from within over the next ten or twenty years is a totally different issue which I'd certainly hate to get into now!)

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: What China considers her borders (maritime) are not the same as other countries opinions. Hence at some point it will come to a head.

[fountainhall]

Maritime borders extending well into the South China Sea are one thing - but I was not talking about them. I was specifically discussing Hong Kong. No-one can argue that Hong Kong is not a part of China and is not part of China's southern border - despite there being a tiny stream between the mainland and the Kowloon Peninsula :)

But I think we are in danger of exhausting this subject. Our views clearly differ. I respect yours even though I may not agree with them. I'll leave it at that.

[arsenal]

I agree Fountainhall. It's been a very interesting discussion.

[latintopxxx]

fountainhall, physical barriers have nothing to do with borders. Situation is fluid, what may seem to be set in concrete (iron curtain) suddenly turns out to be very brittle. Borders that existed 5 years ago are no longer valid (sudan!!) political entities that seemed to be solid (Brexit!!) turn out to be very temporary.
Closer to home wasnt half of Thailands neighbours actualy part of Thailand/Siam a century ago.
So relax, have a beer or two.....

[arsenal]

To a certain extent I agree with you Latin. I would add that events that seem almost impossible are then seen as inevitable afterwards. In early 1989 the oppressive communist block of the Soviet Union appeared rock solid but by December it had all but collapsed. It is now seen as having no alternative other than to implode.

[fountainhall]

fountainhall, physical barriers have nothing to do with borders. Situation is fluid, what may seem to be set in concrete (iron curtain) suddenly turns out to be very brittle. Borders that existed 5 years ago are no longer valid (sudan!!) political entities that seemed to be solid (Brexit!!) turn out to be very temporary.
Your present day examples don’t really hold much water, Latin. The Soviet Union was not a country. It was a political/economic union of individual states held together by force. Similarly the EU is not a single country. It is also a collection of individual states. Same was true of the defunct Yugoslavia. Where there are disputes, most go back to colonial times and artificially determined borders.

Of course, many hundreds of years ago countries borders did change, but we now live in a world of global alliances and the United Nations. If the Khmer Empire wanted to regain its lost territories in Thailand, Cambodia could dream – but it just wouldn’t happen.

To suggest that land borders could be fluid in the case of China shows a mindblowing ignorance of Chinese history (especially that of the 19th and early 20th centuries) and that of present day reality in China. Not that this is unusual. I expect most are in the same boat, including a lot of diplomats and some world leaders who should know better!

Interestingly, and perhaps for a moment arguing against my own position, there was a time following 1989 when there was some talk about Guangdong Province breaking away from mainland China. It was here that Deng had started his massive economic reforms. Thanks to these and the Province’s extensive manufacturing output for Hong Kong-based companies, Guangdong was by far the richest Province in China – and has remained so for decades.

After Tiananmen Square, there was chaos in the Chinese government. The leadership was totally split between traditionalists who still believed in Mao’s collectivization and felt Deng was moving far too fast, and the reformers who were 100% behind Deng. The dreadful Li Peng, the real butcher of Tiananmen Square, was in the ascendancy and many reformers were stripped of their posts. For the next 30 months no one really had much clue what was happening behind closed doors in Beijing.

In January 1992 Deng made a much-publicized visit to Guangzhou where he reassured everyone that his reforms would continue. He had been persistently manoeuvering behind the scenes to shore up his position and realised it was time to quell any talk about secession. It worked and the reform movement pressed ahead even faster than before.

A great deal has happened since those days. Vast numbers of people have become wealthy under the reforms and the party leaders would never dare reverse them. Likewise, the Chinese military is a far stronger position to maintain the country’s existing borders. Since this discussion is about democracy and Hong Kong more than borders, I can see only one possibility of a democratic Hong Kong being permitted. That would be if the country as a whole transitions from its present controlled society to one of democratic capitalism. But that then begs the really intriguing question: how on earth do you introduce democracy to a country of 1.4 billion with a five millennium history whose peoples have known absolutely nothing but direct rule from above throughout that entire period?

[arsenal]

Fountainhall: I will answer your question, You do it very very slowly. City level first, then local level, then provincial and finally national.

But it appears that actually Xi is taking it the other way and in that respect I don't entirely disagree with him. As discussed in this thread the country was at virtual constant war for nearly 50 years and there is no way the government is likely to risk that again. It's why any dissent is so ruthlessly put down.

Personally I don't consider the China of today to be 1000s of years old. The break with the past was too severe and too complete. Almost nothing of pre-second revolution remains. In my opinion this country is little more than 40 years old.

[fountainhall]

Arsenal, basically I agree with you re democracy - but it will take many, many decades before even the basic concept of democracy can be understood from the bottom up, and that assumes the institutions essential to democracy are progressively introduced and/or revamped. By making internal stability his first priority, Xi is following in the footsteps of every leader since Deng. I'd actually suggest the country was in an almost permanent state of chaos since the start of the 19th century and so we are certainly seeing a very new China.

But you'll never get a Chinese to admit that. And it is unquestionably because the country was bested by the foreign colonial powers that it seems to rattle its sabres so often today - conveniently forgetting that if the despised Qing Dynasty had not been rotting from within, the "disgrace" of the rape of its coastline might not have happened to the degree it did. All Chinese have a deep sense of pride in their long history. In that sense they are probably no different from the Brits who look back and talk often lovingly about Boadicea's victories over the Romans, King Canute, the Magna Carta, 1066 and all that!

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Fountainhall, you say that "but it will take many, many decades before even the basic concept of democracy can be understood from the bottom up, and that assumes the institutions essential to democracy are progressively introduced and/or revamped."

That seems a bit pessimistic. After all, Taiwan, which shares a culture with China, moved from the dictatorship of the KMT regime to democracy a lot quicker than that in the 1980's and 1990's.

I know mainland China is so diverse and with such centripetal forces, that there is a lot more risk there of a transition than there was in Taiwan, but I am not convinced that there would be such problems with the "basic concept of democracy".

[arsenal]

Sorry Ronan but I don't agree with anything you said. Taiwan shares virtually zero culture with China. It's been an American protectorate for decades and the current leader is far away politically from the last one who wanted much closer links with the mainland. The green light from The US and this one would possibly push for formal secession. Also remember that there is no such thing as Chinese culture, with 56 recognised ethnic groups it's as diverse a country as exists. I have to agree with Fountainhall. Mainland China and the Chinese are decades away from understanding and implementing any kind of democratic process.

[fountainhall]

I guess I opened this door when I really didn't want to do, if only because I think it opens up another Pandora's Box!

You just cannot compare Taiwan with China - or any other country with China - and make assumptions that because democracy sort of works in one it will therefore work in China. First, the island is tiny compared to the size of China - 23.5 million people against 1.45 billion. It is far more homogeneous and there are almost no religious divisions.

Remember also that Taiwan was a pawn in the Cold War. Chiang and his wife were routinely courted by Washington with his wife even addressing Congress. There was continuing pressure from Washington to move towards democracy so as to justify its massive US subsidies and differentiate it more obviously from "red" China.

When Chiang moved 2 million Han Chinese to Taiwan, they basically had to build a new infrastructure and create a new society. After all, Taiwan had almost nothing to offer after the Japanese left. Through immense hard work they dragged that small island to the status of one of the 4 Asian Tigers with an enviable GDP. Inevitably that leads to cohesion in a society. Equally, when you have an enormous giant on your doorstep continuously threatening to wipe you off the face of the map, that in itself engenders a sense of total community working for a common purpose.

Then again, the introduction of democracy was mandated from the top, it did not filter up from the bottom, and the initial years were hugely fractious. How many times did we see on television lawmakers trading punches in parliament?

Despite regular war games, Taiwan enjoyed stability from 1949 onwards. Until around 1975 China, as Arsenal pointed out and I amplified, had been in a state of virtual chaos for roughly 200 years. For the previous 125 or so, the 91% Han Chinese were under the yolk of the hated Manchu invaders. Go further back many, many centuries and you find forced racial and ethnic segregation of peoples during the Tang and Yuan Dynasties. Yet throughout much of its history you still have a country which, for all its achievements, was based on the Confucian model of unquestioned rule from the top and unquestioned respect for authority.

That model was smashed to smithereens during the ten years of the disastrous Cultural Revolution. That set student against teacher, tenant against landlord, child against parent. Sure, it ended around 1975. But not only did more than 20 million die and 200 million peasants end up suffering from chronic malnutrition, there has never been any apology nor government compensation to those who suffered or the families of those who died. I have no doubt well over 100 million still hold massive resentment about this, especially those who were denied an education and have not been able to make the sort of incomes now made by the younger generations.

Finally, China is not one homogeneous country. It has something like 56 different ethnic minorities including 8.7 Uighur Muslims and another 3.3 Muslims in the same area. These peoples are basically and culturally far closer to the peoples of Central Europe. Yet in land area their Xinjiang Province is by far the largest of all the country’s Provinces and it borders no less than eight other countries. Then there is Tibet.

Now put all that and a helluva lot more into one melting pot and expect any form of democracy to result in anything but another long, long period of chaos. Besides, where is the rule of law, where is the absence of massive corruption, where is the education about democracy – all essential to an effective, believable, working democracy?

As Arsenal rightly stated, what the country desperately needs is a long period of stability. Throw democracy into the mix in the near future and you introduce the real possibility of an extended civil war and the country actually breaking apart.

[arsenal]

Fountainhall and I are in total agreement on this. It would be easier for him or I to relate to someone from Guandong and someone from Xinjaing that it would for them to relate to each other. They share nothing.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Fountainhall says;

"As Arsenal rightly stated, what the country desperately needs is a long period of stability".

I dont necessarily disagree - you obviously have a lot of experience of the place, whereas I have only briefly visited on holiday.

However, I will note that you and Arsenal seem to be echoing the "Beijing view" - the line perpetrated by Beijing regime that because China is so special, what with its "five thousand year history" etc, that ideas like democracy cannot work there because of ingrained Confucian attitudes, so that the best that can be hoped for is the stability offered by (surprise, surprise) the Communist party. I think that westerners should take this with a grain of salt, and be aware that Beijing plays a clever game of trying to manipulate public opinion in the West to make its viewpoint seem natural.

With regard to Taiwan, I don't disagree with the point that Taiwan had several decades post-1949 of different pressures than the PRC. However,from a long-term historical perspective, they are basically a Han culture, like the mainland, and if one goes in for the "Five thousand years of history" view, should this not suggest that the PRC could successfully democratise after all?

As for Xinjiang - this is a problem certainly, but not necessarily that uncommon a phenomenon. The population of Xinjiang is actually pretty tiny compared to The Han majority. Would it be any bigger proportionally than the population of the province of Kashmir in India, where there has been an Islamic rebellion on and off for 60 years that (despite the tragic loss of life in the province itself) has not had much of an impact on the politics of the country at large?

The southern Thai problems are another example of how these things can be contained.

As i say, I am not an expert on China, but I think we should be careful to avoid falling into Orientalist cliches about democracy and its possible appliance in southeast or east Asia.

From the PAP in Singapore to the Yellow-shirts in Thailand to the Politburo on Beijing, there are plenty who are peddling a line on this for very cynical and self-interested reasons.

[arsenal]

Hi Ronan
I'm not really echoing the views of the oil slick heads in Beijing. Firstly this is not a 5000 year old culture. The only thing that has remained from pre 1949 is being told what to do. Then, China was practically closed to foreigners until the early 80s and even then the door was only opened a little. So by my calculation this country (the China of today) is about 30 years old. I am of the opinion that the 5000 year old culture line is one used by Beijing to try and instill a sense of national pride because there is precious little of that in the current country. National Day was a few days ago and you can count the flags flown on one hand. There is no sense of a shared nationality that exists throughout this country.

Also. The different provinces operate under a system close to devolution with differing rules on business, visas, building etc albeit under the central government in Beijing. Did you know for example that if you have a mobile phone number issued in one province you can't put money on it in another province. In terms of understanding the democratic values we hold so dear in the west. They're a century behind us in that.

Let me give you a comparison. In the west we went from horses to bicycles to heavy cars to lighter cars to power steering. And we drive quite nicely for the most part. In most of Asia they went straight from bicycles to power steering and they drive like lunatics. Genuine democratic reform takes a long time and it has to because otherwise it's built on sand and soon crumbles.

[fountainhall]

I will note that you and Arsenal seem to be echoing the "Beijing view" - the line perpetrated by Beijing regime that because China is so special, what with its "five thousand year history" etc, that ideas like democracy cannot work there because of ingrained Confucian attitudes, so that the best that can be hoped for is the stability offered by (surprise, surprise) the Communist party. I think that westerners should take this with a grain of salt, and be aware that Beijing plays a clever game of trying to manipulate public opinion in the West to make its viewpoint seem natural..
As you'll have guessed, my answer will be considerably longer!!

I fully understand your point. After all, it is held by vast numbers around the world who believe that democracy is the best available form of government and that the freedom to choose one's own leaders is a basic right of every man and woman.

However, let's get rid of one notion. Like arsenal I am not peddling anyone's line other than my own. Note, too, this was not always my thinking. It has been developed after living in what is now China for 20 years and still running a very small company there for a further 15 years. I realise Hong Kong was officially under Chinese sovereignty for just half that time, but my views have also been shaped through over 80 visits to well over a dozen parts of the country starting in immediate post Cultural Revolution Guangzhou. In that time I have witnessed the massive economic development of a country that has dragged roughly 400 million out of poverty for the first time – under a non-democratic system. Is there any other country in human history that has achieved anything like that in such a short space of time? I know people whose lives were almost destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and many who were born more recently and have become part of the burgeoning middle class.

And I have also made roughly the same number of visits to Taiwan stretching back to the days of martial law. I have to say again: there is zero relationship between the Han Chinese in Taiwan and the majority ethnic grouping on the mainland – apart from the fact that historically they have the same ancestors. In almost every other way they are separate peoples. The same is true with the thinking of many in the huge worldwide Chinese diaspora. They are proud of their Chinese ancestry and proud of the country’s achievements. But in terms of their thinking, they are now Canadians, Australians, Americans etc.

It is the same in Singapore. And on a slight tangent, do you seriously believe that Singapore is a western democracy? It isn’t. Most of my Singapore Chinese friends would laugh in your face if you said they live in a democratic country. It is essentially a right-wing dictatorship - a totally rigged system which is precisely what Lee Kuan Yew intended!

You know my thinking – which as arsenal points out, a poster who has actually lived in China for several years – is the same as his. But let’s turn the tables and ask you the questions. How do you introduce democracy in a country where all the population have been ingrained with top down leadership, who have seen their country and their lives improve out of all recognition under the present leadership, who have zero experience of one man one vote – and many of whom have a genuine fear of what is likely to result if the system is changed at the present time?

You seem to forget that a country like Britain had democracy imprinted on its DNA for many centuries. America was founded on the basis of freedom to worship and other personal democratic freedoms. Yet it is so easy for us to forget today that for most of those centuries, the UK was no democracy. The right to vote was limited only to a tiny number of landowners. Full democracy is less than 100 years old – and it is only a right granted to every grown citizen for the simple reason that the people were prepared to fight for it. In the United States, full democracy is again less than a century old and again had to be fought for.

Then you have to decide what do you mean by democracy? What sort of democracy do you think should be introduced in China? A deliberative democracy based on consensus? Let’s recall what Rousseau said: this is the concept that citizens bear fundamental responsibility for the nature of the laws and major policies of their state . . . that they have the right to shape these things through the political process and, as such, must understand that they are responsible for them. In no way – no way – is a majority of 1.4 billion Chinese now able to comprehend such a concept? That is certainly not me talking down to a people I admire. It is just fact.

Or do you mean an antagonistic democracy as practiced in the UK and the USA where essentially two parties go head to head and one wins? If you have any understanding of Chinese history up to the present day you will know that the concept of such direct confrontation will also take decades for most Chinese even to comprehend, let alone participate in.

Then how in China do you insert into the present system all the various checks and balances essential to the functioning of a democracy? I’d love to know.

Or perhaps you mean the sort of democracy enforced by the USA and its coalition partners on a country like Iraq? Well we now know from their own admissions that the mandarins who came up with this idea had no idea of the dogs of war this would unleash! And let’s remember that in all its 93 20th century military interventions, the United States attempted to implant democracy into no less than 33 countries! Yet in nearly 2/3rds of those interventions, they failed!

The basis of the legitimacy of the present leadership is that they are able to deliver what the people want (barring a few dissidents – but how many dissidents are there is the USA?). When the Chinese want democracy, they will make those feelings known to their leaders. A groundswell of millions is not going to be put down by the armed forces.

[latintopxxx]

...or maybe ot all comes down to ones moral compass (surprise...surprise...) , the west has had 2000 years of the 10 commandments and hell fire and brimstone....drummed into it....the chinese only know that the only law applicable is the one u can get away with....basically in china money/power is all that matters...

[fountainhall]

So much detail from latin with his vast knowledge of China! Odd that there was nothing in his post about all the Chinese boys he has had his way with.

[arsenal]

The compass was invented in China. Morals, well no one knows who invented them.

[scottish-guy]

.. the west has had 2000 years of the 10 commandments...

Given that Moses pre-dated Christ by around 1500 years, your arithmetic seems a bit suspect

[RonanTheBarbarian]

When the Chinese want democracy, they will make those feelings known to their leaders. A groundswell of millions is not going to be put down by the armed forces.

Hopefully so, fountainhall!

[fountainhall]

Well, Ronan, since you raised the doubts about the comments made by arsenal and myself in the first place, it's somewhat illuminating that your answer to the several questions I specifically asked you is a simple "hopefully so"! Does that not imply that you lap up the line spun by the anti-China movements without actually bothering to take time to check the real situation in China for yourself?

[fountainhall]

One of the points Ronan failed to answer is the more general one of how movements for democracy actually arise. I think he will agree that you cannot impose democracy from outside. You can provide guidance in putting in place democratic principles and safeguards, but the only time I can recall western-style democracy being imposed externally is Iraq by the Americans and their partners and Syria by the French, the latter quickly failing and returning to dictatorship (but accept there may be more). With few exceptions, democracy has occurred as a result of revolution or a similar bottom up movement that gains immovable force within a country - viz. France and the European democratic movements, countries battling for independence from overseas rule, South Africa, South Korea etc. With regard to the last named, I can recall visits to Seoul during the general's rule in the early - mid 1980s when tear gas hung in the air as protest movements were repelled.

The few alternatives where it has come from the top down include Taiwan (for reasons as explained earlier), Japan (being one case where it was imposed but like Singapore is hardly a western-style functioning democracy), and more recently Bhutan. Perhaps ironically few in Bhutan actually wanted democracy but it was mandated by the King who then stepped down. The present King as Crown Prince travelled to all parts of the country explaining to the Bhutanese the reasons for the change in rule, what democracy meant and how each person had a part to play in making it work.

[arsenal]

Broadening the democracy topic. As a general rule democracy is something that the people have to fight and often spill blood for. It is rarely given over willingly for quite obvious reasons. It is therefore the case that those of us from vibrant democratic countries look down a little (while also feeling sympathy) at those from more repressive regimes. We (the nation, not me personally) paid our dues and reaped the rewards.

[latintopxxx]

fountain baby....I actually worked and lived in China for 9 years....what i have forgotten about China and how their minds work u still gotta learn.

[arsenal]

Latin wrote:
".or maybe ot all comes down to ones moral compass (surprise...surprise...) , the west has had 2000 years of the 10 commandments and hell fire and brimstone....drummed into it....the chinese only know that the only law applicable is the one u can get away with....basically in china money/power is all that matters..." And.

"fountain baby....I actually worked and lived in China for 9 years....what i have forgotten about China and how their minds work u still gotta learn."

He is therefore promoted to the job of Sawatdeenetwork's Expert on Sino affairs.

[fountainhall]

He is therefore promoted to the job of Sawatdeenetwork's Expert on Sino affairs.
Well, life is full of surprises. 9 years is certainly a long time. I wonder where and when? Odd, though, that the contribution by such an expert to this forum since it morphed into a discussion on China has been confined to the following –


funny...yet stoopid dirt poor portugal gave all of macau portuguese passports...
Another, a rather odd one about physical borders being fluid, one about moral compasses and the latest about having worked in China for 9 years. Is the rumour true then that latin caused the Cultural Revolution?

If he is going to be the Expert on Sino Affairs, I await his considered comments on the issues being discussed.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Well, Ronan, since you raised the doubts about the comments made by arsenal and myself in the first place, it's somewhat illuminating that your answer to the several questions I specifically asked you is a simple "hopefully so"! Does that not imply that you lap up the line spun by the anti-China movements without actually bothering to take time to check the real situation in China for yourself?


Bit paranoid there, fountainhall, I was just trying to bring my contribution to an end by emphasizing something I felt we could all agree on!:drink:

And I certainly don't adhere to any line, whether the propagated by pro-China or anti-China movements.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

And on a slight tangent, do you seriously believe that Singapore is a western democracy? It isn’t. Most of my Singapore Chinese friends would laugh in your face if you said they live in a democratic country. It is essentially a right-wing dictatorship - a totally rigged system which is precisely what Lee Kuan Yew intended!

I agree, Singapore is far from being a western-style democracy. That is why I had a bit of a go at the PAP in one of my earlier posts.

But it is an interesting case - it is obviously not a PRC style autocracy either in that the regime there obviously feels it is important for maintaining public support the give the impression of bring a democracy (one could argue that this is for foreign consumption only, but I believe that it is important domestically too).

I think they (the PAP) appreciate the safety-valve aspect of voting.

[fountainhall]

I think they (the PAP) appreciate the safety-valve aspect of voting.
I totally agree - as I do that it lies somewhere between what we call western style democracy and autocracy. Lee Kuan Yew constantly talked about "democracy with Asian characteristics". Yet those characteristics included in his own words -


We have to lock up people without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don't do that, the country would be in ruins
That was said in 1984!

[latintopxxx]

fountain boy....was based in a place called wuxi...its about 2 hours drive from shanghai...on taihu lake. My boss at the time, an elderly chinese with jet black shiny hair told me that there were no people like me in china (I have always been out.....) and then two weekends later i'm in eddies bar off huaihai lu surrounded by a sea of queers....all i had to do was grab my crotch and point and they would come running. Oh the joys of being a westerner with a big dick in china in the early 2000's....I almost got tired of casual sex.

[fountainhall]

Ah, Eddy's! You remind me of many visits to the bar in its three different locations in the city. Warm and friendly, but my favourite in China since it opened has always been the amazing Destination in Beijing. A more Chinese-centric bar but the eye candy is stunning!

Incidentally re Eddy's, there was a strong rumour told to me by many friends that Eddy's hosted a going away party for the Chinese Men's Diving Team prior to the Sydney Olympics, probably a year or so before your time. It wasn't in Huaihai Lu then but I've always been fascinated by some of those divers and always wondered if it was true.

[arsenal]

In that respect Latin is in fact correct. I turn down between 2 and 4 offers of casual sex a week depending on how many times I log onto blued.com. That's the problem with being a whore monger. Your standards tend to be quite high and these days I much prefer paid for sex.

[latintopxxx]

fountain ...eddys is in shanghai...
there was also another bar (the name escapes me) that was across the road in a bomb shelter...so totally underground...had sooo much fun there
....arsenal...nice to c u agreeing with me for a change....weird feeling. And yes, being a youngish gay westerner in China in a major city is the best...one is almost like a sex god...kinda goes to your head. .BTW..i very very rarely paid for sex in China...there was so much A1 free arse available...all very sub too.

[fountainhall]

latin - I never said Eddy's wasn't in Shanghai, and even mentioned it had been in three locations in that city. My reference to Beijing's Destination is that it happens to be my favourite gay venue in the country!

I was speaking with friends in Shanghai this afternoon. Eddy's is in fact now no more. It closed a few months ago. The other place you mention must have been Shanghai Studio. That was closed on my last visit and so it must have shut down about 2 years ago.