User:Babawushika/What the west must know about China

== Introduction ==

In April and May 2008, following the protests against China and the Olympic torch, the west was shocked and confused by the massive pro-China demonstrations around the world by overseas Chinese. These protesters were the best informed, educated and most westernised among all Chinese. Shouldn't they be on the west's side fighting for their own freedom? Most puzzled westerners hopped on to the next easy explanation: these Chinese are simply too brain-washed. They must be still under the secret spell of their evil party.

Well, these stubborn brain-washed Chinese include me, who took part actively in the 5000-people pro-China demonstration in Melbourne on April 13th. I migrated from Beijing to Melbourne ten years ago. My father had been persecuted in the “Great Cultural Revolution”. My mother introduced me to western democracy and Christianity when I was in college and she came back from the United States as a visiting scholar. I then studied the history of China, Egypt, Greek, Roman, Europe, Britain and America, fascinated by how history and constitutions evolved so differently. I had a bachelor’s degree in engineering in China and a master’s degree in IT in Australia. I have been such a fierce criticizer of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) ever since then, that, fearing being snatched off the plane by the police, we held off the celebration of the granting of our Australian visa until the flight to Sydney took off from Beijing airport.

Have I now lost favour in democracy? Not at all. After ten years of living and observing in Australia, I have a lot deeper understanding in democracy, and I truly believe democracy is the medicine to almost all major problems in today's China.

This article is an effort to show the westerners that although China behaves so different to them, so different that to some of them evil, there is an acceptable reason behind everything.

== China is so different from the west ==

A renowned French Expert on Chinese economics testified in the French congress seven years in a row that the Chinese economy was going to crash. These seven years happened to be when Chinese economy enjoyed strongest growth.

The west is losing their grip of reality in China. They have enjoyed a close-to-perfect democratic system for so many generations, that they forget that their ancestors also once enjoyed autocracy, and their struggle during the transition to democracy was so fierce, that both France and Britain had to chop off the heads of their once hailed kings to make way for democracy. Now the proud western perfectionists simply refuse to try to understand anything different from their "perfect" system, because they can’t see the need – anything away from perfection must be flawed; anything opposite holy must be evil.

In comparison to the two to three hundred years of rational democracy in the west, China overturned their emperor only on 1911. Had the ruling class not been a foreign nation (the Manchurians) who regarded the native Hans as slaves, the imperial system could have lasted a few decades longer – at that time the brewing and boiling sentiment was more of "Let's drive the alien slave masters out", then "We want our rights to decide our own fate". As a proof of this theory, four years later, the president of the new republic government crowned himself to be the next emperor.

Chinese has never experienced any successful democracy. After the last emperor, before CCP took control, a series of self-proclaimed republic and democratic governments came and went, including the one driven to Taiwan and survived to now who just won the last April election. All acquired and lost their power through bloody battles, all plagued with serious corruptions, and none ever delivered a single election.

The birth place of democracy the great Europe (including Britain) have close to fifty countries on the piece of land only slightly bigger than China, with nearly twenty different languages. The culture differences was big enough to prevent Alexander and Napoleon to unite them all in one country, and yet not big enough to prevent colourful and constant culture exchange. Determined by these characteristics, the evolvement of European history was destined to be dynamic, full of competitions, opportunities and freedom. It would be impossible for any government on this continent to enforce a strict control on its people.

This is why Europe became the birth place of democracy.

In comparison, for thousands of years, China had a much more advanced culture than its "barbarian" neighbours. Surrounding the vast plains of China were huge mountains, vast deserts, jungles and seas. All regions and tribes share the same written language. All these characteristics determined that China for most of the time in its history would have one stable and unchallenged central government, and under its iron fist people would have no choice but to accept whatever imposed on them.

Further more, the wisdom of Chinese scholars were leverage by the rulers to create the Confucianism to further strength their ruling, and it worked perfectly. At the centre of this doctrine was the unconditional loyalty and submission to one’s parents and the emperor. Even now virtually every Chinese knows the thousand-year doctrine: "When father tells son to die (with or without reason) he must go die. When emperor tells his officials to die he must obey." For thousands of years people were taught to put all their hope in the emperor and his government. Taking one's fate in his own hands was a bizarre and dangerous idea.

Confucianism is still in every Chinese's gene today.

Because of this ultra stableness, in the long history of China, the ruling classes often became extremely corruptive and oppressive. Normal people at the bottom had no choice but to endure. Consequently, Chinese tend to have lower expectations on their government than the westerners. They were satisfied if they can simply be left alone – they wouldn't mind if the emperor and his men would indulge themselves with all the luxuries behind their high walls, as long as they wouldn't break into to every household to take away the last cup of rice, or wage huge wars that could enrol and kill every adult man in a province – these things happened too often in history.

As long as they were left alone, not overly oppressed, Chinese will prosper. This is the number ONE character and strength of Chinese – they endured and survived such a long harsh history that they grew extremely resilient, tough, intelligent and hard-working.

This partly explains for the tolerance Chinese now have for their autocrat government – the government is not oppressing them so much that they run out of ways to prosper – in fact it is doing quite a good job in allowing and helping them to prosper. With their pockets swollen and life improving every year, why would they risk it for a lofty and remote concept called "democracy"?

== Western democracy is a remote concept in China ==

T une into China's scores of TV channels. Up to a few years ago (after which I stopped watching Chinese TV), at least half of the popular TV series were about the emperor's times, and many were centred on a wise and judicious emperor, to whom the weak looked upon, who punished the corrupted and revenged the bullied.

Democracy is the air to breath and daily bread to the westerners, but it is a remote and lofty word for the majority of Chinese, something they've never tasted, something a suspicious door-to-door sales man tries to convince them to buy. They look at their neighbour Russia for the consequence of a hasty embrace of the western democracy, after a failed military coupe on 1991. A series of chaotic transformations afterwards lead to a GDP slump for more than 50% and the big rouble crash in 1998, in which Russian currency depreciated one hundred and twelve thousand times. Million’s of Russians saw their life savings vaporized overnight. Russia regained its original strength only until last year – a sixteen-year round trip back to ground zero.

On the other side of the border, in the same sixteen years, China's GDP surged more than ten-fold, from US$300 billion in 1991 to US$3200 billion in 2007, three times higher than Russia.

Most ironic of all, sixteen years after Russia had embraced democracy, the west leaded by the US still treats Russia as a threat instead of a partner. NATO's deployment in Europe is still mostly centred against Russia.

There is nothing that can convince me that China should now pick up the track of its Russian neighbour.

== CCP still have its place in China ==

There are many hardliners in China, and time is needed for them to either gradually accept the truth or lose their influence. In terms of doing a transformation of the whole country inside out, keeping a dramatic growth rate so high and long that is unseen in modern civilization, and meantime still keeping the balance and stability of every sector of the society and military, CCP has done a work of art. Most Chinese appreciate this.

But let me take one step back. Let's assume that Russia's sixteen year of staggering is in fact an acceptable price for democracy and better than a ten-fold GDP growth in a long run. So what? China's situation is quite different from Russia.

CCP has a lot more loyal supporters than the Soviet Union. If the pace of changing is too quick, lots of people will stir, and military coupe will happen and succeed, and China will go backwards and probably into civil war. I still vividly remember a scene in the Tiananmen crisis after the shooting: heavy tanks deployed on a strategic bridge through which one of the main roads enters Beijing, and the guns pointing outwards, not inwards toward the "rebellions". Obviously they were watching out for another troop that may raid the capital uninvited! China went to the brink of civil war in 1989, and no Chinese on either side wants this to happen.

Russia's coupe failed at a key point when Russia's elite special force refused to shoot their way into Yeltsin's presidential palace. In comparison, a year or two after the Tiananmen blood shed (while I was still in China), I met a young army officer on the train, who was in China's West Point Academy at the time of the incident. He told me that he and his fellow students were so angry at the "rebellions" that when finally premier Li declared martial law in Beijing, the whole school burst into hail and joy.

My father-in-law was a very knowable aviation engineer. He devoted his whole life, nothing ever reserved, to his country and his two daughters. He was a CCP loyalist. When he visited us in Australia and stayed for nine months, the running debate in the household that often poisoned the family atmosphere was about whether CCP should be replaced. He had seen corruptions everywhere and he kept complaining about it, but he wouldn’t let us join the criticism. Because deep in his heart the warm feeling and affection was still there. He kept saying: "I have experience myself! How corrupted the nationalist (who fought with CCP in the civil war and were driven to Taiwan) were! How efficient, kind and helping CCP were!"

He told us following story of his own:

One day, when he was a primary school student, the Japanese army raided his county. People fled, the communist paramilitary stayed with them to protect. Pursuers closed in, for small kids can't run fast. They were all about to be caught and slaughtered, when the guerrilla's captain grabbed a light machine gun and ran backwards with one of his comrades to meet the pursuers. With machine guns roaring behind their backs, the whole school escaped safely. By night fall fighters carried back the body of their captain. Many children including him wept.

There were lots of such positive stories told by westerners about CCP. Before the 1960s when the internal power struggle poisoned the party, CCP members, which were our parent generation, lots of whom I know well, truly believed that they were there to serve and sacrifice. Many of them voluntarily gave up their city life and went to the most desolated regions to help the poor. In those days normal people trusted looked up to their party, just like their ancestors looked up to their emperor. Until today, when most of Chinese have totally lost hope in communist, they still can not think of CCP as an evil monster. They regard communist as a failed impractical idealism. The warm feeling still lingers deep within.

My best mate, now thirty-nine years old, who also university education, the most warm-hearted and kind person I have ever seen, is a CCP loyalist. We spent countless sleepless nights engaged in heated debates on communist vs. democracy. My ex-colleague and subordinate, a senior engineer in a factory of a world leader in telecommunications industry, and now the engineering department manager of the whole factory, a lovely and happy family man, was a loyalist. He protested several times when I was openly criticizing CCP. On one company lunch he said openly he was a CCP loyalist. Our westerner boss asked him: "Are you a party member, then?" He answered proudly: "No, because I am not good enough."

Yes, strangely it may seem to the westerners, in many Chinese's mind, a CCP party member is meant to be GOOD. Lots of them are corrupted, but they are still meant to be good, just like Christians are meant to be good, although lots of them are not. Call it loyalty or brain wash. This is just fact in China.

In CCP's time Chinese have seen their country, bullied and insulted for hundreds of years by every big power in the world, stood up as a giant whom all the big bullies had to respect. She defeated an ally of several worlds' top powers in Korea. She fought on two sides – the west and Russia, and survived. Now lots of us are questioning whether it was right to fight the bloody war to support the evil regime of North Korea, but you can hardly find any Chinese who is not proud of their new history.

CCP still have its place in China, and the strong economic growth, the huge prosperity brought into every household, the latest two wise and hard-working leaders – Hu and Wen, and the massive efficient and heart-moving rescue operation organized by CCP and their army in the recent earth quake, helped to better CCP's position, even with the explosion of accessible information from the west and Hollywood's cultural invasion.

Those westerners that think that Chinese only knows what the party wants them to know are so out of touch from reality. Nowadays even in the most remote small towns Internet coffees are more popular then Melbourne – that is in many places dominantly the single biggest fun of the young generations. CCP does block lots of web sites, but that are only a drop of water in the sea. Apart from the Internet, almost every family in medium and large cities have relatives or close friends who have been abroad. People talk through cheap international phones. They bring back home truck loads of stories and strange new concepts. Party loyalist had long been regarded as dumb and old-fashioned. Exposing and complaining about the corruptions of the government is a fashion and the most popular topic in friend's get-togethers. Ironically, before the earth quake which further united Chinese around their government, it was only because of the protests against China's proud – the Olympic torch, pro-government slogans suddenly went into fashion.

== The human right condition in China ==

Regarding China's human right issues, the west fails to understand something basic and practical: the right to do something that one has no intention to do is irrelevant to a Chinese, be it granted or deprived. As the whole article is trying to demonstrate, the majority of Chinese, from my retired parents and in-laws in their 70s, to my ex-classmates in their 40s, down to the younger generations in their 20s and 30s, all I have known, are generally comfortable with their current government, and have no intention to oppose it. So the fact that the right to oppose the government is deprived doesn't really hurt the majority of Chinese much at the moment. Chinese does not fight for a right just because it is wrong to deprive them of this right.

CCP draws a clear line: as long as you are not regularly opposing the government in an organized way – you can be shouting swear words against the party leader on a busy street, you have you freedom. In fact you have more freedom then the westerners, for rules and legislations in China are not as complete as the developed countries. Because of the economical success and the slow but steady improvement of human right, only a tiny percentage of people are singled out as threats to the government, so tiny that statistically insignificantly and the rest of the population are unaffected.

China's human right and democracy keeps getting better. It is not because CCP wants to, but because of the economic growth. When people have nothing and are hungry, they care nothing, and three meals a day can get them to do or bear a lot. But when they have a huge interest in the world around them, such as properties and investments, they will naturally demand a say on how things are run, and such people's demands carries a weight that no government could ignore. It is the constant pressure from the growing-rich Chinese that are driving the democratic progress in China, not those ignorant people on the streets and in French parliament house who were throwing groundless insults on China's face. What they are doing is pushing things toward exactly the opposite direction – after their wave of insult on the Olympic torch the world suddenly sees a billion and half Chinese many times more united around CCP – those who used to stand on the opposite side now stopped criticizing and rallied under it. History repeats itself. In 1961, CIA organized the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, on the false belief that the majority of Cubans were suffering from communist and would raise to welcome their liberators. Thousands of lives on both sides were lost, including four American pilots. Che Guevara later sent a thank-you note to Kennedy: "Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it's stronger than ever".

== Finally – Tibet ==

There is no racial discrimination in Tibet. If there is, it is what is called "positive discrimination". We know it from our own experience. Almost every friend of mine can tell you that in the cities we lived like Beijing, Chengdu and Xian, Tibetans and Ugrians are special-privileged people above Hans. They need lower marks to get into the top elite schools. They can have as many children as they want, while Hans can only have one. They get so much more social welfare than Han to keep them happy that they can basically stay home doing nothing. They are allowed to carry knifes, and they walk the street like gangsters because they do not hesitate in using them. If you are beaten up or stabbed by them the police fearing to stimulate racial conflict will simply let them go. You – no matter Han or Tibetan, only go into the dark side when you start regularly engaging in anti-government activities.

The claims that China is systematically murdering or extinguishing Tibetans as a race or culture are worthless nonsense. If the government is indeed doing this, then it must be doing it so secretly that everything including the effects of such doings are hidden. In China rumors spread faster than Internet. My wife was from Sichuan, the neighbor province of Tibet. People have all sorts of business in Tibet or with Tibetans. Yet we have never heard of anything even close.

CCP is sincerely trying to improve the living standard in Tibet, and it is doing a good job – Tibetan's average income enjoyed an annual increase of more than ten percent seven years in a row. CCP was also drawing the same line in Tibet to single out threats as it draws in main land China. There are human right issues in Tibet. This I have no intention to deny. What is different in Tibet from mainland is that a lot more people appear on the other side of the line, and the sensitive racial factor involved, the international publicity of Tibet altogether made things many times worse than in main land.

The cold-war style control shrouded in mystery and secrecy that CCP adopts in both mainland and Tibet is the most stupid beyond any reason. In a world thoroughly and instantly connected through land lines, mobile phone networks and Internet, this idiotic policy never managed to seclude any negative news about the government from the world. All it managed to do is to totally discredit its own account of any story. Hardly anyone in the world would trust anything that China's state-run media says about Tibet. The anti-China and free-Tibet movements then get to safely tell whatever story they want to tell, and whatever they say are readily embraced by the western public, who have been soaked up for decades in the fear and antipathy against communist and autocracy. By all means, how can it be wrong to throw dirty on evil?

So the problem in Tibet is no different from main land – it is about democracy versus autocracy, about thousands of years of centralized authorities against individual's rights. It is not about China versus Tibet, or Hans versus Tibetans.

Therefore, for those who really wants to see things getting better in Tibet, who sees the fact that Tibet had always been part of China since 1720, when Tibetan government begged China to save itself from the Junggar Mongols who invaded Lhasa and slain its king, my suggestion is: with China's current strength, resolution and legality to defend its territorial integrity over Tibet, the practical approach that the west should adopt which carries a hope of making any difference is to push for human right improvement in Tibet, not independence. The most effective strategy would be to push China to open Tibet to international media. This request is a lot less alarming and offensive to the stubborn and rigid brains of the CCP hardliners than a request for democracy, and yet an effective international scrutiny would lead to a stream of changes in Tibet that the world would want to see. In fact such scrutiny is even good for CCP, because its officers will be forced to learn how to achieve the same whatever goal in a wiser and more acceptable way.

The west must realize that Tibet has a vital geographical importance to China, many times more important than Taiwan. China has implied through the mouth of one of its top generals that China is ready to go an all-out nuclear war with the United States over Taiwan. How much resolution do you think China has to defend Tibet?

Westerners must realize that ultimately the fate of Tibet lies in the hands of the 1.3 billion Chinese. If the Tibetan's demand for human rights and democracy resonates with those of the Chinese, then Tibetan's situation will improve together with that of the Chinese, which is improving probably as quickly as practically possible. While if confrontation and racial hatred brews, then Tibetans has no hope.

So I beg you, the westerners, to look at the facts, and ask yourself this most important question: Do China and Tibet have to be engaged in a win-lose battle? Can't they both win?