Tuesday, January 01, 2002

The Modern World: A Joint Creation of China and The West

The Modern World: A Joint Creation of China and The West
Proceedings of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Science
Professor Robert Temple
2002


Professor Robert Temple, Archaeologist and Historian

The Home of Robert Temple

People often speak of the modern world in which we live, and presume that it is a creation of the Western world. But this is not correct. More than half of the basic inventions and discoveries which led to the creation of this modern world are Chinese, and are not Western at all. Indeed, China has produced more fundamental inventions and discoveries than the rest of the world put together. Because so few people realize this, the view of China's place in the modern world is wrongly conceived. Most people in both East and West believe that China is emerging into the modern world. But China is not emerging into anything, it is re-emerging into something which it helped to create in the first place. Nor is China a developing country: it is a re-developing country. For two thousand years, China was developed while most of the rest of the world was undeveloped. It was richer, it was stronger, it was bigger, it could feed itself better, it could build more things of greater magnitude, and it could explore when it wanted to: Australia was first discovered by the Chinese, who landed near the city now called Port Darwin before any Westerners found their way to that continent, for example.

The position of China in the world has been artificially suppressed for a long time. For the hundred years before 1978, this was largely because of prolonged struggles, including an invasion by Japan, and other military and civil upheavals which disrupted the normal progress of industry, technology, economics, and society. The wholly artificial process of China's suppressed state has now come to an end. But the rest of the world is reacting with a mixture of shock and apprehension to the appearance on the international scene of a new world power which many foreigners think is sudden and perhaps undeserved. However, any foreigners who know enough facts of history will realize that China is merely returning to its natural position as a leading world power. China is sufficiently large and sufficiently important that this process cannot justifiably be criticized.

It is only natural for a re-emerging China to show signs of returning as well to technological eminence. It is not enough for China to join the WTO and to be seen to be important in international diplomacy, trade, and economics. China must also regain its status as a leading source of technological innovation. But as China seeks to pursue that goal, it is important to consider the question which has now come to be known as the Needham Puzzle. named after my old friend Joseph Needham (Li Yuese), who died a few years ago. This Puzzle is this: why did China, which invented more than half of the inventions that led to the modern world, fail itself to create that modern world on Chinese soil? Since China was technologically in advance of the rest of the world in many ways, including agriculture, for two thousand years, why did the Industrial Revolution not take place in China? Why did the Renaissance not happen in China instead of in Florence in Italy? Why did the Westerners put together the separate elements and create the modern world instead of the Chinese doing so, especially since more than fifty percent of those elements were Chinese in origin? Does this indicate that the Chinese lacked some ability to synthesize a whole from many separate elements? Was something wrong with Chinese culture or society which can explain this enigma?

There is no single answer to these questions. Instead, there are several answers. And I believe some of them have not been given before, although they may be rather large and obvious once we consider them.

I want to start by calling attention to one of the largest and most obvious of all the reasons why China failed to create the modern world on its own soil, and failed to have an Industrial Revolution. This reason is so obvious that I am amazed that no one ever seems to have mentioned it before. Perhaps I am not informed of discussions of this question which have taken place without my knowledge. But I have never come across them.

The reason to which I wish to call attention is the collapse of the Ming Dynasty, a prolonged process which culminated in the year 1644. Let me start by calling attention to one amazing fact: Between 1585 and 1645, the population of China seems to have declined by as much as forty percent because of disease, bad weather conditions, bad government, economic distress, and the collapse of law and order. This figure has been suggested by the sinologist Mark Elvin, based upon his extensive studies of the source materials. If such a population decline occurred in China today, it would be equivalent to the deaths of 520 million people, without any of those deaths being replaced by new births. The population of China would thus decline from 1.3 billion to 780 million. Since a decline in population size of these proportions occurred at the time of the collapse of the Ming Dynasty, it is clear that China was in no condition to do more than attempt to survive, and the creation of an Industrial Revolution was out of the question.

Most of you will have read the wonderful stories by Pu Songling. He was born at the end of the Ming but lived most of his life during the early Qing. If you think about it, there is a strange feature in his stories. You will recall that so many of those stories mention large empty houses all over the countryside, in which ghosts live. Have you ever thought about why Pu Songling is always mentioning empty houses with ghosts? Well, the reason is that he grew up in a China which was indeed full of empty houses in which all the inhabitants had died. This was a true description of the world he knew. During his youth, it was common for entire households of ten or twenty people to die, without a single one surviving. There were too many bodies for burial to be possible. One contemporary writer, Chen Qide, says that the worms from the bodies filled the houses and crawled out of the doors into the roads, and no one dared to go inside the many houses filled with corpses. Between 1640 and 1642, thirty percent of the population of Huzhou Prefecture, a densely populated area, died from disease within only two years.

At this time, China was swept by many plagues and epidemics, including smallpox. In 1641 there was an epidemic in Tongxiang County of Jiaxing Prefecture in Jiangnan, when between 80% and 90% of all households were infected. But disease was not the only killer. Millions of people throughout China died of starvation. Terrible weather conditions afflicted China, causing drastic crop failures and loss of income. There were alternating droughts and floods on a huge scale. In 1638, the Grand Canal dried up. In 1640, the Yellow River dried up. People were so hungry that there were instances of cannibalism, for rather than starve to death they decided to eat their neighbours or even dead members of their own families. In the north of China, the intense cold also meant that the growing season was two weeks shorter than it is today. The intense cold extended further south, and lakes of the Yangtze Basin froze over in the winter.
At the same time, terrible pestilences of locusts occurred, which destroyed what crops there were remaining in the fields.

At the time when all this was happening throughout China, what was going on in Beijing? There were no less than 40,000 officials and relatives of the Emperor in the capital who were supposed to be supported by public funds, as well as 3,000 court ladies and 20,000 eunuchs in the imperial palace. Because the money ran out, these people turned to extreme forms of corruption and embezzlement to survive. In 1643, when the Chongzhen Emperor insisted upon viewing the contents of his Treasury in the Forbidden City, the guards at first pretended they could not find the key, but as the Emperor insisted, when they finally opened the door, it was discovered that every one of the imperial treasures of the many storerooms had been stolen by the officials, and all that was left was one small red box containing a few faded receipts.

Does this sound like a government or a nation which could possibly sustain an Industrial Revolution? But there were other terrible things going on at that time as well. Law and order disintegrated entirely, and marauding gangs of bandits and even government soldiers were rampaging around the country breaking into houses and looting them whenever they pleased. No one could obtain protection. There was no justice at all. Peasants were roaming around the countryside with no homes and no food, but even in their penniless condition they were nevertheless robbed and beaten, and the women raped. Some became criminals and more became the victims of criminals. The silk industry in the Yangtze Basin had collapsed, causing enormous numbers of workers to lose their jobs, because there was a serious economic recession in Europe, and the Europeans were not buying Chinese silk anymore.

Even at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty, an enormous burden had been placed upon the people by the creation of a permanent army of three million soldiers to defend China against the northern barbarians. That meant that there were three million men plus their families all of whom had to be fed by the people. At the time of the collapse of the Ming, the people were feeding the same soldiers who were robbing them, as the social situation deteriorated into total chaos and anarchy.

The final collapse of the Ming Dynasty led to the foundation of the Qing Dynasty by the invading Manchus. The Manchus reinstated order in China and brought back some prosperity. The bad weather stopped, and people recovered. The second Qing Emperor, Kangxi, was a truly remarkable man with a deep interest in science and technology who would have made an excellent Fellow of the Academy of Engineering today. But later emperors of course became corrupt, and the Qing Dynasty, like all others, subsequently degenerated.

However, although life became better under the early Qing Dynasty than it had been during the end of the Ming Dynasty, there was another problem. That problem was that the Manchus, as foreigners, wished to enslave the Han people. All Han Chinese males were required to have their heads shaved as a sign of their status as slaves. In the early Qing Dynasty, official barbers toured the countryside shaving the heads of all the Han Chinese, and these barbers were given the power of life and death. If any Han Chinese man refused to let a barber shave his head, the barber had the legal right to execute him immediately without a trial.

Chinese people do not like to be humiliated in public. What would you feel like if some foreigners came into this conference today and insisted that you all had to have your heads shaved, and if you refused you would be killed? You would not be happy. Most of you would probably rather have your heads shaved than die, but you would then feel humiliated and you would be ashamed to look in the eyes of your friends. You would all have lost face to such an extreme degree that you would feel like suicide because the shame would be so great. What would your wives say when you went home, and what would your children say? The sign of your public humiliation would be visible for everyone to see, since your shaved head could not be concealed.

I suggest that the mass humiliation of the Han Chinese people in China during the four centuries of the Qing Dynasty, and their reduction to the status of slaves, produced such demoralization that it was impossible for them to find the energy or the self-confidence to create an Industrial Revolution.

Thus, from about 1580 until modern times, China was sabotaged from within and was unable to function normally. This can be seen if we look at the list of inventions and discoveries made by the Chinese. The last significant original invention in China was published in the year 1584 by a Ming prince named Zhu Zaiyu, who was 48 years old. It was the brilliant invention of the equal temperament system for music, which was subsequently adopted all over the Western world, and most Westerners think mistakenly that it was invented by the composer Johannes Sebastian Bach one and a half centuries later, but we know that Bach got this system from China either through the writings of a Dutch mathematician named Simon Stevin or a French scientist named Marin Mersenne. It is interesting that all the classical and romantic music for which the West is famous after Bach is based upon this Chinese invention, which made possible the modulation between keys. No piece of Western music today is based upon any other system than that invented by a Ming prince, so that all Western music could be described as Ming music. This was the last significant legacy which the Ming Dynasty ever gave to the world.

But it is no coincidence that the last major Chinese invention prior to modern times was made public in 1584, at the very same time that China was descending into chaos and anarchy, with a total economic and social collapse. For it was at the same time when we could say that native Chinese culture as a viable and freely functioning national entity in China effectively ceased to exist. A true Chinese culture free of foreign domination did not then reappear again until the time of Sun Yat-Sen.

It seems to me therefore that these large and obvious explanations for the Needham Puzzle have been for too long ignored. There is no need to postulate that there may be something wrong with Chinese society and culture apart from the facts I have just mentioned. From 1584 to 1911, social conditions made it impossible for China to create any kind of modern world, even if the Chinese had wanted to do so.

The modern world was therefore created elsewhere, in Europe in fact. But although the Chinese did not do this themselves, the technological elements out of which this modern world was created were more than 50% Chinese. But the Europeans who used those elements did not realize this. They thought they had invented most of them. For instance, the Europeans were completely ignorant of the fact that paper and printing, gunpowder, and the compass were Chinese inventions. They used guns and cannons and bombs and grenades without knowing that the Chinese invented all of them. Even today people all over the world speak of the revolution in communications made possible by the invention of moveable type for printing, which they all believe was invented by Johann Gutenberg in 1458. But Gutenberg did not invent moveable type. Moveable type was really invented by Bi Sheng between 1041 and 1048, four hundred years before Gutenberg. No modern world would have been possible without the widespread use of moveable type for printing in the alphabetic Western languages, but the Chinese origin of this invention is still largely unknown all over the world. And Gutenberg himself certainly did not tell people that he was not the real inventor, since he probably enjoyed being told he was a genius. But it was not Gutenberg who was the genius, it was Bi Sheng who was the genius.

Having explained why there could be no Industrial Revolution in China after 1580, we come to the question as to why there was no Industrial Revolution in China before 1580. After all, the Industrial Revolution was made possible in Europe by the preceding European Agricultural Revolution, which was brought about entirely by the importation of Chinese inventions and agricultural techniques and their dissemination by Jethro Tull and others. And this Agricultural Revolution, which everyone admits was a necessary precursor to the Industrial Revolution, had happened in China in its totality by the second century BC, in other words by the Early Han Dynasty, more than 1700 years prior to 1580. During all of those seventeen centuries, why did China not go ahead and have an Industrial Revolution? Perhaps this is the true Needham Puzzle.

Let us turn our attention first to economics for a possible or partial explanation. Today in China everyone is aware of the power of money. Money is everywhere, and the lack of it is also everywhere. Universities have to make money today to earn their operating budgets, research institutes have to make money in order to continue functioning, people are buying their own homes, which costs money. People are buying cars, which cost money. Everything is expensive. And in the cities, plenty of people are earning a lot of money, and they are all buying things in a big consumer boom, which keeps the economy of China growing. So everyone here today is very familiar with money, having it, lacking it, and its power. Therefore no one can be surprised to hear the statement, well known to everyone present, that science and technology cost money.

But what was the situation prior to 1580? Was there money available for science and technology? In those days there was no 863 Programme. Here we see part of the problem. Who was paying for the science and the technology? The country was controlled by an emperor and the officials. They were willing to pay for military inventions, when they were very much needed, so military inventions thrived from the tenth century onwards. Gunpowder had been discovered by mistake in the ninth century, by alchemists, but by 1040, gunpowder had been adopted as a true invention of war and its formula was published. From the tenth century to the sixteenth century, when there was so much fighting in China, we then saw the invention, dissemination and mass use of gunpowder, flame-throwers, flares, bombs, grenades, land mines, sea mines, rockets including multi-stage rockets, hand guns, large guns, cannons, and finally repeating guns. You can see many of these in the Weapons Museum in Xiamen and in other museums around the country. All of the weapons of war which I have just mentioned are Chinese inventions. None was a Western invention. Certainly in China military technology was massively funded by the government and was massively implemented and adopted. So as far as military technology is concerned, there was definitely an Industrial Revolution in China many centuries before the Industrial Revolution in the West, but it was restricted to the field of military technology only. And this also included techniques of mass production and factory assembly lines, which were not invented by Henry Ford in twentieth century America but were in fact invented in China for the production of weapons hundreds of years before he was born.

Why did this Military Industrial Revolution not extend into non-military areas? Because there was no money to fund it. The emperor was not interested. The officials were not interested. And there were no investment banks, no investors, no entrepreneurs, no stock markets, and no one of any social standing or prestige engaged in business activities. Merchants in China in the old days were looked down upon as socially inferior. They might be rich, but they were not scholars, and so they had no face. They could not advance in any careers other than the restricted scope of trading. They could never hope to be respected because they could not recite the Confucian texts or quote ancient poetry. They were social outcasts, lacking in dignity. Such people were not in a position to fund an Industrial Revolution. They may have had the money, but they did not have the position. And they simply did not make those kinds of investments. When merchants first created the salt industry in Sichuan, it was seized by the emperor during the Early Han Dynasty. The fermentation and brewing industries were seized from the merchants who developed them by the Emperor Wang Mang who reigned between the Early Han and the Later Han. During the Northern Wei Dynasty of the fourth and fifth centuries AD, the penalty for brewing your own beer at home was death. When distilled alcohol was invented, and the first brandy and whisky were made in China, the merchants were prohibited from selling it. Whenever merchants showed initiative in opening up a new technological area of activity which made money, the government took it away from them. There was no incentive to continue. Success was rewarded by seizure and penalty. No private person or business was allowed to make any money from technological innovation. Therefore, funding for technological innovation was not available except from the emperor or the officials. And as we all know, most of the emperors were very stupid, unimaginative men. Only once in a while did a clever emperor such as Kangxi appear, but as soon as he died, a stupid emperor would take his place. The system was rotten. And there was also massive corruption at all levels of the government for most of Chinese history.

We can see therefore that the economic climate for invention was very poor. But nevertheless, the clever Chinese went on inventing things anyway. What was lacking was an industrial deployment of all of this wonderful technology. Invention after invention appeared, in an endless series. The Chinese have a wonderful genius for invention, surpassing that of all other peoples. Perhaps this is because the Chinese are more intelligent than other peoples. Or it has been suggested that the difficult concentration in early youth needed to learn to read and write Chinese characters creates mental habits which are useful for the process of invention. I have read this in a modern book written by a Western sociologist about the Chinese. However, I do not believe it. If this were true, the Japanese should have invented lots of things as well, but apart from better swords for their Samurai warriors and the advances in metallurgy necessary to create them, I can think of not one Japanese invention before the twentieth century. Where are all the Japanese inventions of the past? There are none. And yet they concentrate hard on learning to write in characters as well. So I think that that theory is disproved. This leaves us with the theory that the Chinese are cleverer than other peoples. And personally I think this is true. But of course the Chinese are not allowed to say it, because it would be boastful. It is OK for a foreigner to say it, who is not part Chinese. So I say it.

What about psychological factors? Are there any of these involved in the Needham Puzzle? I believe that there are. Chinese people are much less inclined towards individualism than are Westerners. Chinese people care more about what other Chinese think of them. Westerners often do not care what anyone thinks of them. Anthropologists in the West often speak of the differences between shame cultures and guilt cultures. A shame culture is one where people are restrained by fears of shame. Chinese people are very restrained in this way. They dread being made to be ashamed in front of another Chinese person. Some Chinese friends of mine have spoken to me of their fears that if they did certain things they could not dare to show their face. Not daring to show one's face is a feeling of shame. Other people's opinions of you really matter, indeed they matter more sometimes than anything else. Knowing how sensitive Chinese people are to shame, that is why I earlier stressed the shaving of the heads under the Qing Dynasty, and the shame which it inflicted on millions of people. And shame was the greatest of all sufferings for them, for I do believe that many Chinese people would rather starve or die than to be deeply ashamed.

But the other kind of culture, the anthropologists say, is a guilt culture. Such a culture is completely different. In one of those cultures, which the Western cultures were until about fifty years ago, people are restrained by feelings of guilt, not by fear of shame. What other people think is not what is important. Instead the feeling is an inner fear of guilt or sin, or having broken rules which you know inside by your conscience, or which God will see because he sees everything, even more than neighbours can see. Because God can see into the secret recesses of the human heart, and knows everything. Therefore, when a Western person in the past did something wrong, he felt guilt rather than shame. He might feel shame also, but it was much less important. This was because until about fifty years ago, Western cultures had very strong religious traditions, both Christian and Jewish, and both of these taught the concept of guilt very strongly.

But today everything has changed in the West. Religion is no longer very strong except amongst a minority. Guilt has largely disappeared. But alas, there is no shame to take its place. We all know the name of a prominent person in America who had no shame at all. I do not need to name him. Although I believe that he was an extreme case, and had a deep personal psychological problem, he represented in an extreme way the problem with which the entire Western world is currently struggling: lack of reasons to behave well, and lack of reasons to restrain oneself. One could even say that what Westerners need today is a good dose of Chinese shame, to make them behave better.

But let us return to the problem of China before 1580. We see a China which was very much a shame culture, not a guilt culture. It had always been a shame culture, and I believe that it always will be a shame culture. That is the Chinese way. I only make an observation, not a criticism. But what are the consequences of a shame culture when one is considering technological advances? In a shame culture, there is plenty of incentive to invent things, because people will think highly of you. You will become famous amongst your friends for being clever and useful. So Chinese society has always encouraged that. To invent something in China, one feels the opposite of shame, one feels pride and joy. In the same way today, when a young person qualifies for entry into Tsinghua University, he feels such pride and joy, his parents are bursting with pride and joy, his friends are all impressed, he gets a high reputation. That is just the same social encouragement which has always existed in China for invention and discovery. If you invented something useful like the wheelbarrow, the chain drive, the belt drive, efficient horse harnesses, the crank handle, the segmental arch bridge, - and all of these were invented in China, - it was like getting into Tsinghua ten times. So great would your reputation be amongst your family and friends! Everyone would praise you, and your heart would be joyous.

But what about the widespread adoption and use of such technology? Here there was a problem. Chinese people do not like to have sole responsibility for decisions, because if anything goes wrong they will experience shame. So they need to take their decisions on a consensus basis in a group, and then no single Chinese person will get the shame if something goes wrong. Each individual is protected by the group. A group can survive shame, because the shame can be diffused. But an individual in China can never survive shame if he or she bears it alone.

But what groups were available to inventors in traditional China? Where could an inventor go to spread the risk of shame so that he would be safe? There were no High Tech Zones in those days. There were no research institutes. There were no technological universities. There were no technological ministries or bureaux. An inventor was on his own. Having received the praise from his family and friends for making the invention, he dare not risk the shame of attempting to deploy it on his own initiative. If friends wanted to copy the invention and use it and spread its use, that was OK. He would not be blamed if anything went wrong because he had not initiated anything. If he went to see a merchant to ask for some money to spread the use of his invention, no merchant would give him any money. There were no patents or intellectual property rights to protect his invention. If the merchant liked the invention he would just copy it for free and use it. But he would not be foolish enough to try to manufacture and sell it, because the merchant in the next town would just steal it and the merchant in the next town after that would just steal it again, and so on. So we see that the fear of shame and the lack of economic security join here, and make exploitation of inventions almost impossible in traditional China.

From time to time an emperor would take a fancy to some new invention, as happened with the first mechanical clocks. But then the mechanical clock was forgotten in China, and during the Ming Dynasty when the Westerners showed one to a Ming Emperor, he thought it was a Western invention, not realizing that the Chinese had invented it centuries earlier and then forgotten and lost it, and that the concept had spread to the West from China, although the precise mechanism differed.

There is another psychological difference between Chinese and Westerners which is more profound that the shame and guilt dichotomy, and goes back further in time. I refer to the extreme individualism which has been traditional in the West since the times of the ancient Greeks. There is no such tradition in China. Sometimes extreme individualism can be productive and can drive forward technological implementations, especially within a business context. However, extreme individualism has its disadvantages as well, just as anything which is extreme cannot be entirely good. Amongst the ancient Greeks, the most famous philosopher, Aristotle, agreed with the famous Chinese philosopher Kong Zi, in recommending restraint and moderation in all things. All deep thinkers in all cultures agree on that point. I think everyone here today probably shares that opinion. But the extremes of individualism should never be forgotten by the Chinese when trying to understand certain aspects of the West, both contemporary and historical. These psychological factors can be just as important as economic and social factors.

I think that we have examined enough of the aspects of the Needham Puzzle for now. In fact, I do not believe that Chinese people need to worry too much about the Needham Puzzle. It should not make them worried about their future. There is nothing wrong with the Chinese people that is any worse than all the things that are wrong with everybody else. Different peoples have different failings, and different strengths. It is part of the wonderful diversity of our planet. But surely if there were anything seriously wrong with the Chinese people, they would not have accomplished the greatest miracle of all: that they are still here, in China, with a thriving civilization and culture, thousands of years after they started. Where are the Egyptians? The Greeks? The Romans? The Babylonians? They disappeared. The people who live in those countries now do not have the same cultures, and often are not the same people. So many ancient empires have vanished. But the Chinese have survived. And because they have survived, they should be proud of their past achievements. But much more than the monuments of the past, the Chinese should be proud of the inventions and discoveries of the past. For these intellectual monuments are greater than the Great Wall, more spacious than the Forbidden City, more beautiful than the West Lake, more elegant than the gardens of Suzhou. And although physical monuments can be destroyed and taken away from you, as has often happened, intellectual monuments cannot, as long as memory of them survives. That is why the most important tradition of China is its scientific and technological tradition.

In closing, I want to list some of the Chinese inventions and discoveries, and give the periods of time which elapsed between the recorded invention or discovery in China and its adoption or recognition in the West:

The cultivation of crops in rows rather than at random. 2,200 years.
The iron plough. 2,200 years.
Trace harnesses for horses. 500 years.
Collar harnesses for horses. 1,000 years.
The rotary winnowing fan. Never adopted in the West.
The multi-tube modern seed drill. 1,800 years.
From these you can see that China was two millennia in advance of the West in agriculture.

Quantitative cartography. 1,300 years.
The so-called Mercator Map Projection. 600 years.
Mounted equatorial astronomical instruments. 600 years.
Cast iron. 1,700 years.
The crank handle. 1,100 years.
The so-called Bessemer steel process. 2,000 years.
The so-called Siemens steel process. 1,300 years.
Deep drilling for natural gas. 1,900 years.
The belt drive or driving-belt. 1,800 years.
The chain pump. 1,400 years.
The suspension bridge. Between 1,800 and 2,200 years.
The first cybernetic machine. 1,600 years but possibly 3,000 years.
Essentials of the steam engine. 1,200 years.
The segmental arch bridge. 500 years.
The chain-drive. 800 years.
The first plastic, namely lacquer. 3,200 years.
Petroleum and natural gas as fuel. 2,300 years.
Paper. 1,400 years.
The wheelbarrow. 1,300 years.
Sliding callipers. 1,700 years.
The fishing reel. 1,400 years.
The stirrup. 300 years.
Porcelain. 1,700 years.
Biological pest control. 1,600 years.
The umbrella. 1,200 years.
Matches. 1,000 years.
Brandy and whisky. 500 years.
The mechanical clock. 585 years.
Block printing. 700 years.
Printing with moveable type. 400 years.
Playing-cards. 500 years.
Paper money. 850 years.
The spinning-wheel. 200 years.
Circulation of the blood recognised. 1,800 years.
Circadian rhythms in the human body recognised. 2,150 years.
The science of endocrinology. 2,100 years.
Deficiency diseases recognised. 1,600 years.
Diabetes discovered by urine analysis. 1,000 years.
Use of thyroid hormone. 1,250 years.
Inoculation (against smallpox). 800 years.
The decimal system in mathematics. 2,300 years.
A place for zero in arithmetic. 1,400 years.
Negative numbers. 1,700 years.
Extraction of higher roots and solutions of higher numerical equations. 600 years.
Decimal fractions. 1,600 years.
Using algebra in geometry. 1,000 years.
The so-called Pascal's Triangle of binomial coefficients. 427 years.
The magnetic compass. 1,500 years.
Dial and pointer devices. 1,200 years.
Magnetic declination of the Earth's magnetic field recognised. 600 years.
Magnetic remanence and magnetic induction. 600 years.
Geobotanical prospecting. 2,100 years.
The First Law of Motion (so-called Newton's). 1,300 years, but 2,000 years before Newton.
The hexagonal structure of snowflakes. 1,800 years.
The seismograph. 1,400 years.
Spontaneous combustion. 1,500 years.
So-called Huttonian (modern) geology. 1,500 years.
Phosphorescent paint. 700 years.
The kite. 2,000 years.
The first manned flight. 1,650 years.
Relief maps. 1,600 years.
Contour transport canals. 1,900 years.
The parachute. 2,000 years.
Miniature hot-air balloons. 1,400 years.
The rudder. 1,100 years.
Batten sails and staggered masts. Never adopted in West.
Multiple masts and Fore-and-Aft Rigs. 1,200 years.
Leeboards. 800 years.
Watertight compartments (bulkhead construction) in ships. 1,700 years.
The helicopter rotor and the propeller. 1,500 years.
The paddle-wheel boat. 1,000 years.
The canal pound-lock. 400 years.
The large tuned bell. 2,500 years.
Tuned drums. Unknown in West.
Hermetically sealed research laboratories. 2,000 years.
Musical timbre understood. 1,600 years.
Equal temperament in music. 50 years.
Chemical warfare/ poison gas, tear gas/ smoke bombs. 2,300 years.
The crossbow. 200 years.
Gunpowder. 300 years.
The flame-thrower. 1,000 years.
Flares and fireworks. 250 years.
Soft bombs and grenades. 400 years.
Metal-cased bombs. 246 years.
Land mines. 126 years.
Sea mines. 200 years.
The rocket. 200 years.
Multi-stage rocket. 600 years.
Early guns, cannons, mortars. 450 years.
The true gun. 50 years.

I have not listed everything. Some things such as land sailing I left out because they were not very important, but some things such as cupro-nickel alloy I have left out because more research needs to be done on it. So although the above list is not complete, I have used it to take an average of the time-delay for the adoption of a Chinese invention or discovery in the West. There are 96 listings above, even though they sometimes represent more than one invention per listing, of which three were never adopted in the West and 93 were. If using only the conservative time figures we add up all the time delays (113,734 years) and divide that figure by 93, we get the average time delay of 1,223 years for a transmission time of a Chinese invention to the West. That figure gives some rough indication of the order of magnitude by which China was temporally ahead of the West. But we must not forget that this average time-lag was not between an invention in China and its re-invention in the West. What we are talking about are merely delays in transmission and adoption. Few if any of these Chinese inventions and discoveries can be said to have had any independent invention or discovery in the West. They were all transmitted either by direct diffusion, such as physical objects actually being transported, or by what Joseph Needham (Li Yuese) called stimulus diffusion, where a description alone and not an object was transmitted, as happened with the mechanical clock.

I cannot go into any more details of the history of Chinese science and technology now, nor can I explain in any greater detail its adoption in the West. The above list will have to suffice as an indication of the fantastic extent to which China contributed to the critical mass of fundamental inventions and discoveries which led to the creation of the modern world. It is immediately obvious to anyone that the contribution was overwhelming, like a tidal wave of genius which engulfed the West. And during the years after 1580, when China was unable to create the world which we now call modern, the Westerners went ahead and did it, using Chinese ingredients as well as Western ones. But I believe we can safely say that more than half of the ingredients were Chinese in origin. Imagine a large international building built of bricks of two colours: red and blue. The red are Chinese, the blue are Western. If we imagine the modern world as being such a building, then more than one side is red, and less than one side is blue. But neither can stand without the other, for there is no building at all unless it is both red and blue.

This is the world of today. This is the world in which we all live. Let us all, whether we are red or we are blue, whether we are yellow or we are white, see clearly that there is only one way ahead: a multi-coloured way. And as we go ahead together, the Chinese can be proud of their contributions so far, and of those many wonderful contributions yet to come.

Thursday, September 27, 2001

Backtalk! Reap the Whirlwind

Backtalk! Reap the Whirlwind
September 26, 2001

From Albert C., regarding The Strait Scoop
January 23, 2003

I usually enjoy your columns which are insightful and witty. But I have to admit I was disappointed with the one you wrote after 9/11. I do believe America may have made mistakes in dealing with Yugoslavia, North Korea, Iraq, and Palestine as you have said. But the way you wrote about the issues was so one sided and biased against the US You seem to be forgetting the huge roles that Slobodan Milosevic, Kim Il Jung, Saddam Hussein, and Yasser Arafat played in each of these trouble spots. I thought this was unfair. But the real reason I wanted to write to you was that do you agree with China's newfound position on world issues that line up with America's. The Chinese seem to be backing the US hard-line opinion on Iraq and is helping to resolve the crisis on the Korean peninsula by pressuring the North Koreans to stop misbehaving (It is alleged that both Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao loathe Kim IL Jung almost as much as George W. Bush does). Do you agree with China's new pragmatic foreign policy which has replaced its original foreign policy that supported Third World revolutionary movements and governments by aligning itself more closely to the United States?

Bevin Chu replies:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Although we disagree, I am happy to see that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

You wrote: "You seem to be forgetting the huge roles that Slobodan Milosevic, Kim IL Jung, Saddam Hussein, and Yasser Arafat played in each of these trouble spots. I thought this was unfair."

Antiwar.com's many other contributors have covered the Balkans and the Middle East in far greater detail than I have. In any given week, one need only browse through the dozens of articles posted under Viewpoints to get the real story "Behind the Headlines". I don't think I really need to get into this one.

Beijing's "new" foreign policy is anything but new. It is old. It is only "new" to the western media establishment, which has clung to long obsolete impressions formed during the early days of the Cold War. Western analysts agree in retrospect that Beijing's alleged Cold War era "aggression" was never all that energetic, that Moscow was the real offender when it came to fomenting global Marxist Leninist insurgency. Besides Beijing's foreign and domestic economic policies were completely overhauled when Deng Xiaoping took over. This is old news. Very old news.

Beijing is not really endorsing Bush's unwarranted aggression against Iraq, it is merely not actively opposing it. The Bush administration knows this. The reason should be obvious. Prior to 9-11 China was being set up by Washington as the the greatest threat to America's future in the post Cold War world. Now that the muzzle of Dubya's gun is pointed at somebody else's head, Beijing is understandably not eager to attract attention back to itself. That hardly constitutes endorsement of Bush's megalomaniacal policies.

Wednesday, September 26, 2001

Reap the Whirlwind

Reap the Whirlwind
Bevin Chu
September 25, 2001

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."
-- Hosea 8:7

Executive Summary: When our Washington elites funded and trained Afghanistan's Mujahadeen "freedom fighters" to harass the Soviet Union, America sowed the wind. On September 11, 2001, if our talking heads are to be believed, Osama bin Laden, one of numerous Dogs of War unleashed upon the world by our CIA, took a bite out of his former master. Like the ancient Israelites who ignored their prophet Hosea, Americans ignored our prophets George Washington and John Quincy Adams, and are now reaping the whirlwind.

Divine Wind

"For Israel has forgotten his Maker, and built palaces; and Judah has multiplied fortified cities; but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour his strongholds."
-- Hosea 8:14


The World Trade Center on Fire

The terrorists struck on Tuesday September 11, on a clear Manhattan morning. Two hijacked civilian airliners, one plane for each of the twin 110 story towers, were aimed directly at New York's World Trade Center towers, and flown into them head on, "kamikaze" style.

An hour or so later, the two burning towers crumbled and disintegrated, one after the other, in agonizing slow motion, collapsing into roiling clouds of dust and debris before our very eyes.

The date the terrorists chose to launch their highly-coordinated surprise attack was no accident. It was not the result of tossing a dart at a calendar while blindfolded. September 11 is 9/11 or 911, the number the terrorists knew their shocked and disoriented victims would be dialing, begging emergency personnel to "Please, help me!"

Like criminal masterminds depicted in Hollywood thrillers like "Se7en" (1995, directed by David Fincher, written by Andrew Kevin Walker) or "The Bone Collector," (1999, directed by Phillip Noyce, written by Jeffery Deaver and Jeremy Iacone) the terrorists were taunting us, anticipating each of our reactions in advance like an evil chessmaster. Even the names of the airlines targeted, "American" and "United," were likely intended as cruel irony.

Fortified Cities

When the World Trade Center towers were first topped off in the early 70s, I was an apprentice at I.M. Pei and Partners uptown at Fifth and Madison. Even then, from a purely aesthetic perspective, I never cared for the WTC. They were featureless, scaleless white prisms with closely spaced thin vertical lines on all four elevations, and little else. Mies van der Rohe's masterpiece Seagram's Building is simple, elegant. The WTC towers were merely plain, boring. Nevertheless like millions of others, architects and laymen alike, I had gotten used to seeing them, and could no longer imagine "Noo Yawk Ciddy" without them.

Part of me said the images I was watching live on CNN weren't real. What I was watching was CGI. Computer generated images. Special effects. Trailers from the latest big budget Hollywood blockbuster. "Independence Day," "Armageddon," "Deep Impact."

Part of me however, knew better.

"So it finally happened," I muttered to myself.

"Now do you get it? Finally? Now do you understand why libertarians have insisted the World's Only Remaining Superpower could not get away with dispatching carrier task forces and stealth bombers all over the world, casually inflicting "collateral damage" from 15,000 ft. on anyone we labeled "evil," blithely assuming the American public would remain safe and snug, immune from deadly retaliation?"

Our Founding Fathers' Foreign Policy, A Strange Thing

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
-- George Washington's Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

"[America] does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
-- John Quincy Adams
Secretary of State to James Monroe and author of the Monroe Doctrine, 1821

"I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing."
-- Hosea 8:12

Anti-interventionists get no satisfaction out of saying "We told you so!" The disaster is too horrific to permit gloating. But the fact is we did tell you so. We at antiwar.com, lewrockwell.com, fff.org, among others, warned there would be hell to pay for our uninvited, unwelcome global meddling, but neither wing of our One Party political establishment paid us the slightest attention.

Instead Benevolent Global Hegemonists on the right and Humanitarian Interventionists on the left portrayed themselves as sophisticated practioners of realpolitik, and dismissed libertarian anti-interventionists who quoted George Washington and John Quincy Adams chapter and verse as quaintly irrelevant ivory tower utopians.

Until a "nameless, faceless enemy" struck a crippling blow against America's financial and political nerve centers.

Plant Melons, Get Melons

"You have plowed iniquity, you have reaped injustice, you have eaten the fruit of lies."
-- Hosea 10:13

"Plant melons, get melons. Plant beans, get beans."
-- Chinese Folk Expression

Why did terrorists hijack Boeing 757s and 767s belonging to American Airlines and United Airlines and conspire to crash them into the White House, the Capitol Building and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.?

Why didn't they hijack airliners belonging to Air Canada and crash them into Canada's Parliament buildings overlooking the Ottawa River? Why didn't they hijack airliners belonging to Aero Mexico and crash them into the Palacio Nacional in Mexico City's Zocalo?

Why didn't they attack Bern and Stockholm, European capitols geographically far more accessible from terrorist bases in the Middle East?

Plant Beans, Get Beans

"Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of steadfast love..."
-- Hosea 10:12

The terrorists attacked America and not America's neighbors Canada and Mexico, because Canada and Mexico, whatever their other faults, mind their own damned business. Canada and Mexico don't hold guns to the heads of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Muslim states, demanding that they obey Washington's high handed dictates, "or else."

The terrorists attacked America, not Switzerland and Sweden because Switzerland and Sweden are politically neutral nations which have wisely rejected foreign military adventurism.

This is not rocket science. Even Bubbya ought to be able to understand this without "Diplomacy for Dummies" Cliff's Notes thoughtfully provided by Condoleeza Rice.

Political neutrality, by the way, is not "isolationism." As anyone who has ever heard of Credit Suisse and Ericsson knows, Switzerland and Sweden couldn't be any more thoroughly integrated into the European and world communities.

The economic success of these highly civilized European powerhouses demonstrates there is nothing "unrealistic" or "utopian" about advanced nations maintaining scrupulously anti-interventionist foreign policies.

The political viability of these neutral nation states puts the lie to preposterous Blue Team assertions that "America has no alternative but to be an imperialist hegemon, because it's still a dangerous world out there."

Know the Enemy and Know Yourself

"Because you have trusted in your chariots and in the multitude of your warriors, therefore the tumult of war shall arise among your people, and all your fortresses shall be destroyed..."
-- Hosea 10:13-14

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
-- Sun Tzu on the Art of War

The Bush administration never saw it coming. Golden Girl Sovietologist Condoleeza Rice, "veteran" Cold Warriors Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, even bonafide Desert Storm hero Colin Powell, failed utterly to anticipate the terrorists' "asymmetrical response."

Chalmers Johnson, Charley Reese, Joseph Sobran saw it coming, a mile away. So did we at antiwar.com and numerous other libertarian and anti-interventionist websites.

Why didn't they?

Bubbya's "expert team of seasoned foreign policy veterans" never saw it coming because they didn't know the enemy. They didn't know the enemy because they refused to understand the enemy. They refused to understand the enemy because they were attached to their own narcissistic, self-serving, sophomoric answer to the rhetorical question "Why do they hate us?"

Their answer, in case you went to the refrigerator during Bubbya's speech before Congress is, "They hate our freedoms."

Right.

The real answer, as libertarians know, is the Islamic world hates us because our government has been waging undeclared war against them, directly or indirectly, ever since the end of WWII and the establishment of the Israeli state.

The Bush administration never saw it coming because they reduced the enemy to a "nameless, faceless evil," to "Nintendo villains" to be dealt with from 15,000 feet using F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters and B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, or Donald "Darth" Rumsfeld's trillion dollar TMD/NMD "Star Wars" Death Star.

Bubbya's "expert team of seasoned foreign policy veterans" never saw it coming because as much as they might despise the enemy, he was nevertheless an intelligent human being, eminently capable of highly creative "lateral thinking" in his relentless search for ways around the American Empire's overwhelming superiority in military hardware.

Bubbya, Meet Osama. You Have a Lot in Common

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
-- Pogo the Possum, by Walt Kelly

With the World Trade Center tragedy Americans can no longer evade the knowledge that Osama bin Laden is America. Today's America, that is. Not the vital American republic of our visionary Founding Father George Washington, but the decadent American Empire of George W. Bush, the latest in a tiresome secession of myopic buffoons to occupy the Oval Office.

Osama bin Laden is none other than Tyler Durden, the dangerously unpredictable, violence prone anarchist so deftly portrayed by Brad Pitt in the slyly subversive, mind-bending black comedy "Fight Club." (1999, directed by David Fincher and written by Chuck Palahniuk and Jim Uhls)

See:
A Film Review by James Berardinelli

We Americans are none other than "Ikea Boy," the materialistic, conformist Nerd without a Name played to perfection by Edward Norton, who belatedly awakens to the fact that he suffers from schizophrenia or "multiple personality disorder," and that Tyler Durden, the charismatic terrorist blowing up office towers in the city's financial district is in fact himself.

Osama bin Laden is us, in every conceivable sense. We supplied him with training, we supplied him with weapons, we supplied him with funds, we supplied him with media coverage, we even supplied him with an enemy to hate -- ourselves. And on one fateful Tuesday in September, we supplied our Victor Frankenstein monster with everything he needed, from jet airliners to towering skyscrapers, to wreak vengeance upon his creator.

The Lesson of History is... Nobody Ever Learns a Damned Thing from History

"In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels... I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression... or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations... that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism"
-- George Washington's Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Our self-appointed World Policemen now have two choices.

They can insist that "We" have a Manifest Destiny to rid the world of "Them." They can denounce fellow Americans who reject war hysteria as "unpatriotic." They can bomb the "camel jockeys" and "ragheads" back into the stone age -- as if they weren't there already. They can replicate the Russians' mistakes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and make new ones in the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea.

Or, they can admit that the post Cold War world contains exactly zero strategic threats to the World's Only Remaining Superpower. They can admit their "bipartisan" policy of making endless enemies abroad has now cost thousands of fellow Americans their precious lives. And they can "Come home, America."

Do Good Ol' Boys George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Armitage and Paul Wolfowitz, Good Ol' Boy wannabe Condoleeza Rice and Odd Man Out Colin Powell understand the only way we can destroy the Osama bin Ladens of the world, is to stop creating them in the first place?

Libertarians desperately hope so.

But like George Washington, can libertarians, the intellectual heirs of our Founding Fathers, be blamed for entertaining grave doubts?

Appendix: Letter to the Arab American Institute

The following is a letter sent to the Arab American Institute following the WTC attack, slightly edited for style and emphasis.

To: Arab American Institute
From: Bevin Chu

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a first generation naturalized Chinese American, permit me to express my heartfelt sympathy for the plight of Arab Americans at this moment in time. I hope you believe me when I declare "I feel your pain."

For decades Hollywood thrillers such as "True Lies" lazily and callously stereotyped Arabs as terrorists and nothing else. More recently the collapse of the former Soviet Union has prompted a search for a new Evil Empire. The leading candidates for this unwelcome typecasting have been the Arab world and mainland China. Neo-Cold War thrillers such as Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon" now depict China and the Chinese as an implacable "Yellow Peril."

The powerful Taiwan Lobby, parenthetically, wields the same degree of influence over our media opinion makers and government policy makers as the powerful Israeli Lobby.

The recent EP-3 spyplane crisis in the South China Sea prompted numerous radio talk show hosts and a notorious National Review columnist, who is not even a American citizen, but an Englishman, to demand the herding of American citizens of Chinese descent into WWII Manzanar style concentration camps, without prior evidence of criminal wrongdoing, purely on the basis of their ethnic origin.

Demands that Arab Americans be subjected to similar treatment were chillingly depicted in the controversial Ed Zwick political thriller, "The Siege."

If America stands for anything at all, it stands for respect for the individual, for individual rights, individual freedom, individual liberty. America's philosophy of individualism means that assignment of both merit and blame must be made on an individual, not collective basis. A person is guilty only if he commits an evil act. A person is not guilty merely because he resembles another person who committed an evil act. Truck driver Reginald Denny was not guilty of what four white LAPD officers did to black motorist Rodney King merely because he was white.

Americans of all ethnic backgrounds must flatly reject the indiscriminate lumping of human beings, both fellow Americans and foreigners into crude categories, and tarring them with the same broad brush of unearned collective guilt. To do so is the diametric opposite of everything that made America a great nation.

Americans must not in our rush to "Defend American values!" trample roughshod over the most hallowed American value of all -- a deep and abiding respect for the Rights of the Sovereign Individual.

Sincerely,

Bevin Chu
Taipei, Taiwan, China

Wednesday, May 23, 2001

Backtalk! The Real China Threat

Backtalk! The Real China Threat
May 22, 2001


From Brian, regarding "The Real China Threat"
May 22, 2001

Brian: I agreed with Mr. Chu's point that the U.S. should avoid entangling itself in an Asian war over Taiwan.

Bevin Chu: Since Brian agrees with me on this crucial point, I am frankly delighted and could simply stop right here, as I have little more to say to him. Antiwar.com is an anti-interventionist website. Anti-intervention is its reason for being, its be all and end all. Antiwar.com is not Amnesty International. Antiwar.com is not Human Rights Watch.

Brian: Mr. Chu does rather adroitly avoid acknowledging that a majority of Taiwanese have no desire to reunify with mainland China as it currently exists.

Bevin Chu: "As it currently exists." The overwhelming majority demands eventual reunification when the time and conditions are ripe, and furthermore they are dead set against independence. I have been living here in Taipei since 1992, and I know exactly how people here feel. See my earlier pieces on Taiwan independence.

Brian: I also think he whitewashes the P.R.C.'s atrocious human rights record, an odd thing for a libertarian to do. China still routinely imprisons dissidents, religious leaders, scholars, and accused "spies".

Bevin Chu: I have aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews on the mainland. I dare say I care more about their well-being than William Kristol and Robert Kagan. With Cheney, Rumsfeld, Armitage and Wolfowitz in power I'm a damned sight more concerned about 17,000 to 21,000 US nukes raining down on their heads if Dubya does "whatever it takes" than I am about any of them getting arrested for political or religious dissent.

Brian: I congratulate China on its economic reforms which many of us would not have believed possible. It's great that the tax rate is so low but it doesn't do you much good if you're sitting in jail for daring to read something from the Internet that the authorities deem "anti-state". Political reform is not something to be sneered at. China may never be a western style democracy but its abuse of human freedom should be acknowledged and condemned.

Bevin Chu: China is China. America is America. Americans should condemn the American government's abuses. Chinese should condemn the Chinese government's abuses. Each nation's citizens are responsible for their own government's wrongdoing, not for foreign governments' wrongdoing.

Brian: I'm all for avoiding war and passionately opposed to covering up obvious truths. It seems to me that a true libertarian who opposes violations of freedom on American soil would hold other nations to the same standard. No war, no intervention, but tell the damn truth!

Bevin Chu: I typically refuse to discuss China's internal affairs with other Americans. To even broach the subject implies in principle that distant foreigners are somehow obligated to conform to arrogant and presumptuous Beltway interventionist expectations of what is "acceptable behavior." Chinese don't need or want Americans to "bear the white man's burden." They know from historical experience that to do so amounts to an invitation to foreign political elites posturing as altruist do-gooders to abuse the rights of Chinese in their own land. As long as China doesn't commit aggression against American sovereignty and territory, e.g., launch an invasion of Pearl Harbor, what happens inside China is none of America's business. China is 5,000 years old. The Chinese overthrew dozens of "unacceptable" regimes long before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, long before Columbus even landed in the Caribbean. If the Chinese don't like the government they have in Beijing, they will do something about it when and if they see fit.

Saturday, May 12, 2001

Falungong blasts the Author of The China Desk

Falungong blasts the Author of The China Desk
Bevin Chu
May 12, 2001



Epoch Times: Why do the Sons of High Ranking KMT Officials run to the US and argue on behalf of the Chinese Communists?

Comment: The Epoch Times is the official mouthpiece of Falungong. Falungong meanwhile, is almost certainly a CIA front, pretending to represent domestic Chinese dissent against the Beijing authorities.

As a free market anarchist who opposes all monopolistic governments, I have no desire to champion any political regime.

But as an anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist, I have a powerful desire to expose neocolonialism and neoimperialism against the Chinese people, and for that matter, any people.

The Chinese people must not be equated with any political authority, either the KMT or the CCP, just as the American people must not be equated with the Republican or Democratic Parties. A political authority is not a country. A country is not a political authority. As I noted in an article years ago: "China is not Beijing. America is not Washington."

The Epoch Times probably understands these distinctions. But the Epoch Times being what it is, a mouthpiece for neocolonialism and neoimperialism, pretends that it believes individuals such as myself and George Koo are "Running Dogs for Beijing."

I consider the Epoch Times' character attacks against me a form of unintentional praise. In fact, I consider them a badge of honor.

-- Bevin Chu

为什么国民党的高干子弟跑到美国为中共粉饰、辩护?
(http://www.epochtimes.com)

【大纪元5月12日讯】 一个有趣的现象是:一方面,在中国大陆,专政机器正在严密监视、无情打击那些同台湾有著“说不清”关系的海外华人,这些人或多或少出身干部家庭,知道共产党一些秘密,在干部队伍中有人脉,一旦访问台湾,容易被特务机关吸收。高瞻、李少民、覃光广、徐泽荣、吴建民等被捕的海外人士,都撇不清这方面的嫌疑。问题是:他们怎么会轻易干这个呢?发人深思。

另一方面,台湾背景的一些国民党高干子弟,自七十年代台湾被踢出联合国以来,移民来到美国之后,却在为中共粉饰、辩护。他们所作所爲比大陆移民还左,比如纽约有个花俊雄,台湾人,简直就是共产党原教旨主义发言人,用各种场合为共产党张目,乐此不疲。加州有个George Koo,经常在网上爲中共罪大恶极的罪行(比如六四屠杀)进行辩护。“百人会”中也有一些亲共商人,吃完台湾,吃中国,还念念不忘打入美国政界,谋个一官半职。

老一辈的如杨振宁,拿著中华民国的钱出来留学,自己的岳父是共产党的战犯,却在美国为毛泽东的文革和邓小平的六四屠杀进行辩护。

下面的文章,信口雌黄地说“中国不是共产党国家,美国跟本没有受到任何威胁”,根据的是不知什么僞学者炮制的报告,说咱中国人只把收入的11%拿来缴税,而美国人缴30%多,北欧国家缴40-50%多,由此断言,中国比欧美更资本主义。读到此,差点把俺乐死。这位老兄跟本不懂共产党垄断政治资源的经济利益是多大。文章作者是一个台湾前外交官(由此推测是国民党的高官)的儿子,在Texas的建筑师,叫Bevin Chu.

CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST. THERE IS NO "CHINA THREAT
"http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c050901.html

Wednesday, May 09, 2001

The Real China Threat is China Threat Theorists

The Real China Threat is China Threat Theorists
Bevin Chu
May 08, 2001

"There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it ever come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence."
-- Daniel Webster

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-- James Madison

Executive Summary: Our American way of life is under threat. Not from PLA F-8 interceptors in the South China Sea, but from China Threat Theorists on Capitol Hill. These Blue Team Sinophobes demand the domestic adoption of right wing socialism, better known as fascism, in order to combat a nonexistent foreign threat of left wing socialism, better known as communism. Unless Real Patriots expose these China Threat Theorists' "impostures of pretended patriotism," the great republic bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers is at serious risk of being transformed into a Warfare State waging "perpetual war for perpetual peace." Ordinary Americans' lives, liberty and property will be sacrificed on the Altar of the Almighty State, long before any foreign threat appears on the horizon.

Collision Course

"Moral judgments must be "universalizable." This notion owed something to the ancient Golden Rule... anyone who uses such terms as right and ought is logically committed to universalizability. To say that a moral judgment must be universalizable means... if I judge a particular action... to be wrong, I must also judge any relevantly similar action to be wrong. The same judgment must be made in all conceivable cases... the same prescription has to be made in all hypothetically, as well as actually, similar cases."
-- Britannica.com
Ethics / 20th-century Western ethics / Metaethics / Universal prescriptivism

On April Fools Day, 2001, a US Navy EP-3 Aries engaged in "routine" spying on highly sensitive military installations on China's Hainan Island, collided with a Chinese F-8 interceptor. A Chinese "surveillance aircraft" did not collide with a US Navy F-14 while "routinely" spying on southern California's San Diego Naval Base.

China, in marked contrast with the World's Self-appointed Policeman, does not routinely dispatch Chinese warplanes 8,000 miles across the Pacific to spy, or in Pentagon spinmeister Craig Quigley's coy formulation, conduct "overt, routine surveillance and reconnaissance" of US military bases in Washington, Oregon, and California.

Amid the claims and counterclaims over "who swerved into whom," and who was "flying straight and level," this fact is undisputed. It is undisputed by President George W. Bush, by Vice President Dick Cheney, by Secretary of State Colin Powell, by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

And this fact represents everything wrong with our post Cold War China policy.

See:
Media Beat, U.S.-China Dispute: From Other Side of Media Window

The Cold War is over. There is no "Communist Threat"

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-- Thomas Paine

"Without a Golden Rule at the heart of our relationship, we are left with what our hawks define as the Moral Equivalence doctrine. We are more "moral" than the People's Republic of China... we are able to hold the PRC to higher standards... we must be permitted to fly along their coastline, giving them only a 12-mile cushion, but if they come within 200 miles of our coastline, we won't simply harass them, we will shoot them down. Our hawks carry this Moral Equivalence doctrine into every corner of our relationship with China... "
-- Jude Wanniski

See:
Moral Equivalance or Golden Rule?

The only moral use of force is in self defense. Any non-defensive use of force is initiation of force, i.e., aggression, and untenable by any code of morality one cares to invoke.

Marxism-Leninism was a messianic revolutionary movement with no regard for national sovereignty, dedicated to the violent overthrow of capitalism the world over. Marxism-Leninism respected no borders, therefore the Cold War against international communism could logically be considered defensive. I myself subscribed to this reasoning during the Cold War. I myself was among the coldest of Cold Warriors, and considered Richard Nixon "soft on communism."

But the Cold War is Over

The Cold War with the Soviet Union ended in 1989, when Mikhail Gorbachev in effect acceded to Ronald Reagan's ringing demand, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

The Cold War with "Red" China ended even earlier, in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping, whom Mao Zedong denounced as "Number Two Capitalist Roader," turned his back on Marxism-Leninism, declared that "To get rich is glorious!" and led China down the path to free market capitalism.

With the ideological demise of doctrinaire communism, Taiwan's capitalism was no longer under threat from mainland communism, and the conflict between Beijing and Taipei reverted to the status of a non-ideological Chinese Civil War within the confines of China's borders.

With the end of the Cold War the issue of America's self defense had been removed from the Chinese equation. America no longer had any dog in China's fight.

China is not Communist. There is no "China Threat"

"According to OECD Survey figures published in Economic Outlook (June 1998), the "Marxist" Chinese government collects under 11 percent of Chinese GDP, unlike most Western democracies that swallow up between 30 and 51 percent of the yearly wealth generated in their countries."
-- Paul Gottfried

See:
Buckleyite Warmongers

Mainland China has not been communist for 23 years, the "anti-communist" New Republic and Weekly Standard to the contrary notwithstanding. Unfortunately millions of ordinary Americans aren't aware of this fact.

How many Americans know for example that mainland Chinese pay less in taxes than Americans? Not just slightly less than Americans, but up to two-thirds less than Americans? Mainland Chinese pay less than 11% in taxes, 6% less than the 17% China demonizer Steve Forbes proposed Americans pay under his highly touted flat tax scheme.

China's public sector today comprises a mere 30% of China's GDP. It is smaller even than the public sectors of France and Germany, and smaller still than those of Denmark and Sweden.

If this is what the Blue Team insists on referring to as "Communism," then I say let's have more of it! It probably never occurred to Forbes that one reason he couldn't reduce taxes on Americans any lower than 17% was that he and other alleged "fiscal conservatives" refuse to stop buying all those $36 million EP-3s they keep sending across the Pacific to spy on China.

Mainland China's phenomenal transformation from a totalitarian collectivist dictatorship under Mao Zedong during the 50s, 60s and 70s, to economically liberal free market capitalism under Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin during the 80s and 90s, is the best kept secret in the world.

See:
Asian of the Century, Asiaweek magazine
China is Communist in Name Only -- How come the Americans can't see the country is changing?, Asiaweek magazine

China's Quiet Revolution, the Establishment Media's Open Secret

Why doesn't the American public know this?

They don't know this because Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin's post-Cold War transformation of mainland China, in contrast with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin's post-Cold War transformation of Russia, emphasized economic substance rather than political appearance.

They don't know this because even though mainland China radically restructured her economic system, and substantially liberalized her political system as well, she never underwent the high profile, media-genic "official makeover" of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries.

Mainland China never altered her official name from the "Peoples' Republic of China," never redesigned her national flag, never commissioned a new national anthem, and perhaps most important of all symbolically speaking, never ripped down the portrait of Mao Zedong above Tiananmen Square.

The bitter irony is that mainland China's gradualist, dare I say "conservative" reform strategy has worked against China's reformers image-wise. Because mainland China's post Cold War transformation stressed economics rather than politics, our own Political Class, which considers Politics their reason for living and Democracy their secular religion, demeaned China's quiet revolution, unprecedented in human history, as "mere economics," and heaped adulation on Russia's political reforms instead.

Hundreds of thousands of American expatriates living on the Chinese mainland however know better. These adventurous Yankee traders in Beijing and Shanghai know China is a free market capitalist economy which has neither any intention nor any desire to commit aggression against America.

The China Threat Theorists' Big Lie

The Blue Team of course also knows this. The Blue Team only pretends not to know. The Blue Team maintains its pretense of ignorance because it is determined to exploit "anti-communism" as a pretext for initiating force against China.

And if China refuses to wear the black hat, declines to be cast in the role of heavy in the Blue Team's smug "America Good, China Evil" morality play? No problem. The Blue Team will simply aid and abet Taiwan's separatist elite until China lashes out in frustration. At which point the Blue Team will triumphantly proclaim, "See, we told you the Chinese were belligerent! We told you the Chinese were a threat!"

The Blue Team reminds me of the wolf in the Aesop's Fable who petulantly accuses a lamb of muddying his drinking water. When the lamb protests "But I'm drinking downstream from you." the wolf promptly devours him. The wolf was never the slightest bit concerned with facts, logic, fair play, or "rights." The wolf merely needed the flimsiest of pretexts to do what he fully intended to do all along, prey on the weak.

This is the pseudo-logic behind the patently absurd "China is a bully, America is the champion of the underdog" drivel anti-interventionists have had to endure since the Straits Crisis of 1996, when Taiwan independence Quisling Lee Teng-hui attempted to incite a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to justify US superpower intervention.

Has anyone ever met a weak bully? I haven't, and I've met my share. Bullies are invariably strong. Our Pentagon, as the Colonel Blimps at the Weekly Standard never tire of reminding the world, is unchallenged in its military might. China's PLA is, relatively speaking, a 98 lb. weakling next to America's Charles Atlas. No other nation on the planet besides America meets the objective requirements required to be a bully. Only the Teddy Roosevelt Roughrider wannabes in Dubya's White House and a GOP Congress have both the means and the motive to be bullies. And "nobody does it better."

The Taiwan Relations Act, Pretext for Neocolonialist, Neo-imperialist Intervention

Congressional Blue Team members ritually invoke the Taiwan Relations Act as justification for US superpower meddling. They mindlessly parrot the catechism,

"The Taiwan Relations Act means America has a legal and moral obligation to defend Taiwan."

This is unmitigated, undiluted, unadulterated nonsense.

The Taiwan Relations Act, United States Code Title 22 Chapter 48, enacted 10 April 1979, was an Act of Congress. It was domestic US law. It was not an international treaty. In case you're wondering how the hell domestic US legislation, passed without the participation or consent of an independent foreign nation, can possibly overrule a foreign nation's political sovereignty and territorial integrity, the answer is, it can't and it doesn't.

Could China have unilaterally issued a "Confederate Relations Act" in 1861 and cited it as authority to dispatch Chinese warships to Charleston to prevent Lincoln from suppressing southern secession?

Of course not.

In fact the Taiwan Relations Act does not even authorize active US military assistance to Taipei, merely the sale of weapons, and only defensive weapons at that.

The merits or demerits of southern secession are not at issue here. The issue is who gets to make such decisions. The issue of resurgent southern secession must be decided by "The Several States" to the north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line, not by China, a foreign nation. Whether there is to be a future Confederate States of America, or for that matter, a Republic of Alaska, a Republic of Hawaii and a Republic of Texas, is up to Americans to decide, either through negotiation or armed conflict. Foreign political struggles which don't violate China's sovereignty are none of Beijing's concern.

By the exact same token the issue of Taiwan secession must be decided by the mainland and offshore regions of China to the east and west of the Taiwan Straits, not by America. Whether there is to be a "Republic of Taiwan" is up to the Chinese to decide, either through negotiation or armed conflict. Foreign political struggles which don't violate America's sovereignty are none of Washington's concern.

With the end of the Cold War the Taiwan Relations Act and the "Taiwan Security Enhancement Act" (Don't you just love Blue Team Orwellian Newspeak?) are nothing more than the flimsiest of pretexts for neocolonialist, neo-imperialist meddling in China's internal affairs.

The Taiwan Relations Act was passed unilaterally by Congress. It can be repealed unilaterally by Congress. It's high time Americans demanded its swift elimination as an obsolete relic of the Cold War.

What Lies Beneath

The Twilight Zone
"Four O'Clock" Episode 94, April 6, 1962
by Rod Serling, story by Price Day

Summary: Moralist zealot Oliver Crangle (Theodore Bikel) has single-mindedly dedicated himself to the punishment of ubiquitous evil in the world. He devises an elaborate scheme to shrink all those whom he has meticulously catalogued as evil down to two feet tall at four o'clock. His perfect plan backfires however when to his horror and bewilderment he finds himself shrunken down to size when the fateful hour rolls around.

U.S. Is Voted Off Rights Panel of the U.N. for the First Time
Washington Angry Over Losing Rights Seat
By Barbara Crossette, The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, May 3, 2001 -- In a move that reflected a growing frustration with America's attitude toward international organizations and treaties, the United States was voted off the United Nations Human Rights Commission today for the first time since the panel's founding under American leadership in 1947. The ouster of the United States from the commission... was apparently supported even by some friends of the United States. "It couldn't be worse, all the conservatives in the administration will see this as proof that we are in an organization full of enemies."

Have you ever wondered just exactly what motivates our Benevolent Global Hegemonists' China policy?

I'm not talking about what they claim motivates their China policy. I'm not talking about their manifestly phony, thoroughly repugnant expressions of "heartfelt concern for human rights victims in China" splashed across the editorial pages of the National Review, the Washington Times, FreeRepublic.com, Townhall.com, and WorldNetDaily. I'm talking about what actually motivates their China policy.

As the deadly sieges of Ruby Ridge and Waco by federal storm troopers demonstrated, neither Slick Willy's Humanitarian Interventionists nor George Dubya's Benevolent Global Hegemonists gave a damn about the First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights of white European Americans Randy Weaver and David Koresh in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

As the racially motivated Donorgate spy hunt and Lee Wenho witch trial demonstrated, the "bipartisan leadership" of the Democratic and Republican parties didn't give a damn about presumption of innocence, Habeas Corpus, and due process for American citizens of Chinese descent in Los Angeles and Los Alamos.

So why would they give a damn about the individual rights of espionage suspect Gao Zhan, detained Falungong members, Chinese Catholics, expectant Chinese mothers, or millions of other nameless, faceless "gooks," none of whom are even American citizens?

They wouldn't, and they don't. Anyone who imagines otherwise is a Wei Jingshen, Harry Wu style dupe and political naif, pathetically clueless about the dark side of the human psyche.

A handful of rabble-rousing radio talk show hosts and a rabidly Sinophobic editor for the National Review have openly urged herding Americans of Chinese descent into WWII style concentration camps, without prior evidence of individual criminal culpability, purely on the basis of ethnic origin. And these self-styled "patriots" have the chutzpah, the colossal effrontery, to equate free market capitalist China with Nazi Germany?

The clearest evidence of the Malevolent Global Hegemonists' primitive bigotry, and the Inhumanitarian Interventionists' hollow sanctimony is their "bipartisan" eagerness to declare war on China, so they can get on with the fun part -- dropping next generation smart munitions on the very same Chinese civilians they made such a conspicuous show of empathizing with as human rights victims, right along with the Chinese officials they denounced as human rights violators.

See:
Globocops with Guillotines

What actually motivates Benevolent Global Hegemonists and Humanitarian Interventionists is what motivated Tomas de Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor for Ferdinand and Isabella's Spanish Inquisition, and what motivated Oliver Crangle in Rod Serling's classic Twilight Zone episode, "Four O'Clock," a neurotic, nay, psycho pathological obsession with "being right" and with "punishing evil-doers."

The Real China Threat, or Lew Rockwell is Right

"Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
-- George Washington

"The main problem with the Blue Team is that its efforts will promote the very threat it warns against. More that one analyst has written that treating a country as an enemy guarantees that the country will become an enemy. Threats beget threats. Hostile words elicit hostile words. In effect, the Blue Team is taking Taiwan's side and has become a lobby for Taipei."
-- Nicholas Berry, Senior Analyst, Center for Defense Information

See:
We Don't Need a Blue Team, Or a Red Team, Taking Sides on China-Taiwan Relations

When we examine a Donald Rumsfeld or a Richard Armitage under the evolutionary microscope, what we are in fact looking at is the catastrophic consequence of human technological progress running far ahead of human moral and spiritual development. Blue Team Holy Warriors such as Republican congressman Chris Cox are unevolved primitives who have had space age weaponry dropped in their laps by their intellectual betters, ironically by men such as scapegoated American weapons scientist Lee Wenho.

The China Threat Theorists' fingers might be poised over the consoles of high tech smart weapons, but their Neanderthal craniums can barely contain their reptilian consciousness. The last time such an anomalous state of affairs prevailed in a technogically advanced nation was in Germany circa 1933 and in Japan circa 1931.

Unrelenting demonization of China by Blue Team zealots, followed by precipitous, escalating military confrontation, constitutes a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of ordinary Americans who want merely to mind their own business and live their own lives. This constant threat to ordinary Americans' lives, liberty and property emanates not from China, but from China Threat Theorists.

When George Washington referred to "Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious" he was talking about scrupulously consistent libertarians such as Lew Rockwell, Karen de Coster, Justin Raimondo and others who refuse to betray their deeply held ethical and political principles selectively on the basis of race.

See:
China is Right
Dance of the Warmongers
Are the Chinese Nazis?

When George Washington referred to "tools and dupes [who] usurp the applause and confidence of the people," he was talking about Lew Rockwell's critics on the Warfare Statist right. As Rockwell noted in his unflinching op ed piece "China is Right":

"There is only one evil empire alive in the world today, and it is not China."

The Blue Team's naked gunboat diplomacy not only will not hasten the introduction, or rather, reintroduction of pre-communist political liberty in China, it is certain to further obliterate what scant traces of individual liberty remain in America. Anyone who doubts this proposition need only answer the following questions.

Which government poses the greatest threat to American lives?

Is it more likely you will lose your life because Jiang Zemin orders wave upon wave of PLA Marines 8,000 miles east across the Pacific to stage an amphibious landing on Venice Beach, California? Or because our foreign policy geniuses in Washington order you 8,000 miles west across the Pacific to fight in yet another Asian civil war, on the side of god knows who and for god knows what?

Which government poses the greatest threat to American liberty?

Is it more likely you will lose your liberty because China invades and conquers the World's Only Remaining Superpower? Or because "National Greatness Conservatives" who demand "energetic government" impose draconian legal constraints on their fellow Americans in the name of "National Security" and "A Clear and Present Danger?"

Which government poses the greatest threat to American property?

Is more likely you will lose your hard earned wealth because "Red" or "Communist" China overruns the World's Only Remaining Superpower and nationalizes the assets of the Fortune 500 companies? Or because homegrown Warfare Statists tax you into the poorhouse footing the bill for Tomahawk cruise missiles at US $1,500,000 a pop? "Peace Dividend," anyone?

If you know the answers to these questions, you already know which government poses the greatest threat to American lives, liberty and property, and therefore which government represents the real "China Threat." As Daniel Webster noted, "There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it ever come at all, will be from another quarter."

Absolute Power

"Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant... Waco... Ruby Ridge... What kind of mentality does that? Those in power get jaded, deluded, and seduced by power itself. The hunger for absolute power and, more to the point, the abuse of power, are part of human nature."
-- Clint Eastwood

See:
Eastwood on Government, Parade Magazine, January 12, 1997

Power Corrupts

"A person who wants to exercise political power over his fellow man...asks himself: "How can I 'do good' for the people if I just leave them alone?" [non-intervention]

... he does not want to pass into history as a "do nothing" leader who ends up as a footnote somewhere. So he begins to... force all other persons to conform to his ideas of what is good for them. If there is opposition, an emergency is declared or created to justify these actions. [The "China Threat"]

If the benevolent ruler stays in power long enough, he eventually concludes that power and wisdom are the same thing. And as he possesses power, he must also possess wisdom. ["The World's Only Remaining Superpower," hence "The World's Champion of Human Rights," by default]

He becomes converted to the seductive thesis that election to public office endows the official with both power and wisdom. ["The Leader of the Free World" or "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body"]

At this point, he begins to lose his ability to distinguish between what is morally right and what is politically expedient." [Insert name of any modern era American "leader" one cares to mention.]
-- Admiral Ben Moreell
Chief of US Navy Seabees during WWII

See:
Power Corrupts

Corrupted Absolutely

"If we have to use force it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future."
-- Madeleine Albright
NBC TV's Today, February 19, 1998

Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."
-- Punishing Saddam
60 Minutes, May 12, 1996

It never ceases to amaze me how little genuine wisdom our seemingly intelligent political leaders in fact possess. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows that in interpersonal relationships the only truly effective way to influence another human being is through the power of example, not coercion. Yet the Rhodes Scholars and MacArthur Fellows inside our Beltway can't seem to absorb this elementary lesson of human psychology, let alone apply it to their foreign policy decision-making processes.

The lesson is clear, our federal Leviathan in Washington is no friend of human rights, either at home or abroad. Big Government is a Victor Frankenstein creation which, unless a nation's citizens remain eternally vigilant, will turn even on those who "democratically" voted it in.

The solution?

The citizens of each nation must reduce the size of their own governments, and relate to each other more as private individuals, as trading partners, as fellow human beings, not as uncritical, chauvinistic subjects of mutually hostile political collectives. If ordinary citizens within the nearly 300 nations on the planet were simply to engage in peaceful commerce with each other, and ignore the xenophobic exhortations of their "leaders'" to wage Holy Wars against their neighbors, mankind would be halfway there. Ordinary human beings already do this with fellow human beings living across town. There is no intrinsic reason why they can't do this with fellow human beings living across oceans.

The challenge for human beings living in an economically (not politically) globalized world, is to draw on the best that each culture has to offer in order to build a better common future for mankind. Most people want at some level to be constructive participants in such an endeavor, which paradoxically does not call for "heroic sacrifices to a greater cause," but merely for each individual to live as ethical a life as possible, and to refuse to condone their own government's abuse of power, both at home and abroad.

The Destiny of Nations

"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
-- the Rev. Martin Niemoeller
German Lutheran pastor imprisoned in Dachau by the Gestapo in 1938

In my very first op ed piece for Antiwar.com, "American Values in Dire Straits," I wrote:

"As a first generation naturalized American I am all too aware that my patriotism is presumed suspect by many China-haters in Congress simply by virtue of my race and my national origin... I know by advocating policies which may appear "soft on communism" red flags will go up in the fevered minds of China Threat theorists... I could keep my mouth shut and my head down. But genuine patriotism demands that Americans defend the ideals of our Founding Fathers, and speak up for what is authentically American, and not meekly acquiesce, like "good Germans" or "good Japanese" in the 1930's, to the mainstream consensus while our nation continues its downward slide into imperial decadence."

My concerns back then are even more warranted today. Manzanar style concentration camps, this time for Americans of Chinese rather than Japanese descent are no longer "unthinkable." It can happen here. The sight of nonconformist political dissidents such as myself behind barbed wire ought to do wonders convincing the rest of the world they should emulate our political system.

Real Patriots must "moderate the fury of party spirit... warn against the mischiefs of foreign Intrigue... guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism." Real Patriots must do so to "prevent our Nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the Destiny of Nations," namely the exhilarating, intoxicating, meteoric rise to Charles Krauthammer's vainglorious "Unipolar Moment," followed by the inevitable, sickening descent into oblivion, from which precious few nations in history have ever recovered.

Many Americans ignorant of history naively see our own American experiment as a permanent success story immune to historical cycles. They are looking but not seeing. America has undergone a major transformation in her brief history, and not for the better. In a relatively short span of time, far shorter than merely one many of China's many dynasties, America has degenerated from a vital republic into a decadent empire. America, as neocon triumphalist Krauthammer boasts, is now at its zenith. What Krauthammer doesn't seem to grasp is that this means America has nowhere to go but down.

China has demonstrated an uncanny ability to survive these long cycles, and to survive them repeatedly. Few other civilizations have been able to do so. India is another. Most other civilizations rise and fall, but never rise again. They far outnumber China and India.

America has yet to demonstrate this ability. Will America be a Periclean Golden Age comet which burns ever so brightly, ever so briefly, before winking out for eternity? The jury is still out. It is currently 2001. For the answer, check back in 3001, then again in 4001.

The prospect of eventual American decline resulting from imperial overreach is deeply discouraging. If America's modern "leadership" had the slightest vestige of reverence for the wisdom of our anti-imperialist Founding Fathers, this depressing scenario would not be unfolding. Objectively speaking it is totally unnecessary, a tragic waste.

China Threat Theorists need to get a grip. International free trade is not roulette or blackjack. Global commerce is not a zero sum game. Just as it is not necessary for China to lose for America to win, it is not necessary for America to lose for China to win. As Guy Kawasaki, Apple's old evangelist and CEO of Garage.com put it:

"Never think of the world as a zero-sum game. Don't think that someone else's good luck will take luck away from you. There is infinite good luck in the world."

Brute force by the World's Only Remaining Superpower may inspire fear and loathing, but not respect, much less friendship. The Blue Team loves climbing on its high horse about "America's solemn commitments to her friends and allies in Asia." That's a laugh. As the humiliating United Nations Human Rights Commission vote makes clear, Uncle Sammy has no friends, in Asia or anywhere else. Only resentful populations under US military occupation such as the Okinawans, or obsequious clients under US military "protection" such as Taiwan's Quisling elite.

What America needs but desperately lacks is visionary leaders who would transform America into a giant version of neutral Switzerland, a nation modestly minding her own business, aggressing against no one. What America needs today is the reincarnation of George Washington or John Quincy Adams. Unfortunately it is the last thing America is likely to get.

For the record, if Republicans had their heads screwed on properly, another Texan, libertarian GOP congressman Ron Paul, and not Dim Bulb Dubya with his room temperature IQ, would be America's president.

Indeed, if the venom spewed at Lew Rockwell recently is any indication, even self-styled "libertarians" are testing positive for War Fever and Acute Sinophobia. Dissuading our interventionist nomenklatura from ordering the US Navy across the Pacific in a replay of Apocalypse Now in today's political climate may be hopeless. As hopeless as dissuading Bruce Ismay of the White Star Line from ordering Captain Edward Smith to set a transatlantic speed record amid drifting icebergs.

But then what is our alternative?

Appendix A: The Founding Fathers' Foreign Policy

"The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns... Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice? Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World..."
-- George Washington
Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

"Indulging no passions which trespass on the rights or the repose of other nations, it has been the true glory of the United States... to entitle themselves to the respect of the nations at war by fulfilling their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality... peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions... sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations... to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities... to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own... "
-- James Madison
First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809

"Independence... made us a nation, this sets our compass and points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of time opening on us. Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. America, North and South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should therefore have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe.
-- Thomas Jefferson
to President James Monroe, October 24, 1823

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assumed the colors and usurped the standards of freedom... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."
-- John Quincy Adams
Secretary of State to James Monroe and author of the Monroe Doctrine, July 4, 1821

"By the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington... we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness... Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning on this western shore amid the ruins of a fallen and falling republics in Europe.
-- Henry Clay
to Hungarian patriot Louis Kossuth, explaining America's "ancient policy of amity and nonintervention" and why America refused to rescue Hungary

"The American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of government, forbearing at all times and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."
-- William Seward
Secretary of State to Abraham Lincoln, explaining to the French Emperor America's "policy of nonintervention - straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations," and why America refused to aid France,1863

Appendix B: Of EP-3s and SOP

The April 1 collision rekindled memories of mid-air interceptions of US Navy spy planes by ROC Air Force pilots in the skies over Taiwan. According to an April 8 article in the Chinese language United Daily News (Lianhe Ribao), US Navy EP-3 spyplanes routinely violated Chinese airspace controlled by Taipei as well as by Beijing.

The ROC Air Force initially dispatched single-seat fighters to chase away the EP-3s, but was later forced to send twin-seat fighters instead, according to one retired military pilot. The EP-3s would play cat and mouse games with the pilots of single-seat fighters, whose attention would be concentrated on photographing the intruders. They would slow suddenly by shutting off two of their four turboprop engines. Jet fighters tailing the EP-3s risked stalling their engines if they abruptly reduced their speed in response.

Another EP-3 trick was to suddenly execute a sharp turn. "Perhaps the American pilots thought the [ROC] interceptors would immediately fly away when the EP-3s made a sharp turn, so time and again they played these tricks." He said the ill-fated PRC F-8 pilot who died on April 1 might have failed to notice a sharp turn by the EP-3, collided with the US aircraft, and crashed into the sea.

Wednesday, April 04, 2001

Is It Really Any Wonder That the Chinese Are Sore Over Spy Plane?

Is It Really Any Wonder That the Chinese Are Sore Over Spy Plane?
Bevin Chu
April 03, 2001

TIME Letters Editor

Dear Sir/Madam,

Tony Karon's excellent article "Is It Really Any Wonder That the Chinese Are Sore Over Spy Plane?" was so unexpected, so fair-minded, and unfortunately so exceptional, it qualified as news itself, a rare case of "man bites dog."

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,104718,00.html

When was the last time our mainstream American media applied the Golden Rule to US-China relations? When was the last time our Beltway elites asked themselves "What if the shoe were on the other foot, and China was doing to America what America is doing to China?"

Karon and TIME are to be applauded for upholding standards of fairness and objectivity the profession of journalism constantly preaches but seldom practices. If journalistic integrity were the rule rather than the exception, readers at home and abroad might have to revise their current low opinion of the Fourth Estate.

Now wouldn't that be newsworthy?

Sincerely,

Bevin Chu
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC