Jul 17

Letter:The People’s Republic of China team boycotts opening ceremony of the Kaohsiung World Games

Written by guest on Friday, July 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Filed under:-mini-posts, General, politics |
Add comments

Given all the rhetoric about ‘not playing politics’ that was seen last year, and the fact that the Taiwanese team will be competing as Chinese Taipei, I was quite surprised to hear that the PRC team was boycotting today’s opening ceremony. Here’s how Richard Hazeldine of the Taipei Times saw it:

“Then it was time for the athletes to enter the stadium in ­alphabetical order, led by the Austrian ­contingent. But in its absence, the Chinese team was represented by what appeared to be a games staffer holding the Chinese national flag.

The 72-member Chinese team stayed away from the ceremony after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced he would attend in his capacity as head of state.

According to local media reports, the Chinese delegation did not attend the opening ceremony to avoid giving the impression that Beijing authorities recognize Ma’s status as president or Taiwan’s status as a sovereign state. A spokesman for the games said Chinese athletes would compete in the events.

Asked about her views on the reports, Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) said that she would respect the Chinese delegation’s decision.
the night was reserved for the 300-strong Taiwan team, who entered last.”

That is, the PRC flag was allowed to be displayed, but the simple fact that Ma would be there was enough to get the PRC team to cancel. When the mere appearance of only genuinely democratically elected leader on official Chinese soil is enough to cause a PRC boycott, what are the chances of there ever being a genuine reconciliation?

There are currently no comments highlighted.

108 Responses to “Letter:The People’s Republic of China team boycotts opening ceremony of the Kaohsiung World Games”

  1. huaren Says:

    Hi FOARP,

    Could you give some background on this “World Games”?

  2. MutantJedi Says:

    Seriously FOARP, you were “quite surprised?” You cannot be that oblivious to ROC/PRC politics?

    Ma was sitting as the head of state of China. There is no way the mainland could recognize that.

    You forgot to quote the relevant part of the article:

    In Taipei, commenting on the non-attendance of Chinese athletes at the opening ceremony, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) said that to the best of his knowledge, China’s decision was the result of a brainstorming session between the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and Chinese authorities.

    “The two sides discussed the issue frankly and sincerely before reaching that decision,” Wu said, adding that he fully supported the arrangement.

    “It’s a wise, goodwill decision that will contribute to harmony and the development of relations between our two sides,” he said.

    KMT Legislator Huang Chih-hsiung (黃志雄), a former Olympic medalist, meanwhile, dismissed the need to be concerned about the political implications behind the delegation’s absence.

  3. Charles Liu Says:

    “Taiwanese team will be competing as Chinese Taipei”

    Um, some facts? According to this report:

    – IWGA last minute allowed ROC president to open the game and ROC team to compete using its national flag.

    – PRC team is arriving on schedule according to IWGA rules. There are speculaton around late hotel check-in, but it far from proven.

    – Gaoshung organizer is allowing Tawan Independence, Tibet Independence, Falun Gong to protest outside the stadium – should this also be criticized as “playing politics”? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

  4. Nimrod Says:

    I haven’t looked at the details, but if I were to venture a guess, it sounds to me like Ma and the KMT worked out an arrangement with the mainland delegation, but the Kaohsiung locals (and the DPP there perhaps) are playing it up to jab both Ma and China. Sounds familiar.

  5. foobar Says:

    If only one can be surprised by his own blindness.

  6. Wukailong Says:

    @Charles Liu: “Gaoshung organizer is allowing Tawan Independence, Tibet Independence, Falun Gong to protest outside the stadium – should this also be criticized as “playing politics”? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?”

    Yeah, but wasn’t that exactly the problem when China held the Olympic Games, that they didn’t allow this and that? How about actually living up to this thing about sports not having anything to do with politics?

  7. Charles Liu Says:

    Wukailong, IWGA webisite has the following statement:

    “The IWGA accepts and recognizes the statutes and aims of the International Olympic Committee and the General Association of International Sports Federations. The general and fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter are applicable”

    So by allowing political protests on the venue, the host OC has violated IWGA’s principle.

  8. EugeneZ Says:


    “When the mere appearance of only genuinely democratically elected leader on official Chinese soil is enough to cause a PRC boycott, what are the chances of there ever being a genuine reconciliation?” is merely a rhetorical one. It serves no good purpose, and you probably have no intention of starting a meaningful discussion.

    Also, as MutantJedi pointed out, you purposefully left out a very relevant part of the newspaper article which would have been helpful to form a more balanced view point.

    My take on this: the boycott has nothing to do with the fact Ma is a democratically elected leader, it has everything to do with the desire to show good will between the two sides and at the same time avoiding the senstive political issues related to “One China”. It is a great move, and I can fully appriciate the efforts made by both sides.

    As a Chinese, I feel nothing but happiness regarding the new direction the cross strait relation has been taking on since Ma came to office. I do not expect you to feel the same kind of happiness as I do, but I do need to point out what I see in your question.

  9. FOARP Says:

    @EugeneZ – “it has everything to do with the desire to show good will between the two sides” I’m sorry man, but this is what it has precisely nothing to do with, if the very sight of the ROC president is too much, this has nothing to do with good will, only enmity. The section which MutantJedi quoted is merely what a KMT official said ‘to the best of his knowledge’, that is, the PRC team did not say it.

    I guess as someone who has lived in Taiwan and plans to return there this year, I have somewhat more interest in the place than a uninterested observer might, and I feel this is an entirely proper question to ask – where are these people who apparently love neither the Communists nor the Nationalist but only China? I do not see them.

    @Huaren – The World Games is essentially an Olympics for all the sports that are left out of the Olympics. This year it takes place in Kaohsiung (高雄)

    @Charles Liu – They are not ‘allowing’ anything, ROC citizens have the right to display whatever flags they like in public spaces, the organisers have no control over what people do outside the grounds.

  10. EugeneZ Says:


    “where are these people who apparently love neither the Communists nor the Nationalist but only China? I do not see them”

    Answer: I am one of those people. Of course, being in the virtual world of online blogging, you can not see me per se. But we are out there.

    By the way, I actually think that in the future “The Communists” and “The Nationalists” will be able to compete in a democratic China (including Taiwan of course). I may not see it in my lifetime, but who knows.

    One last thing, it would be more helpful if you quote my full sentence, and not to chop half of it. It can distort the original meaning quite a bit when you do that – unless that is what you intend to do in the first place.

  11. TonyP4 Says:


    What is it:

    Games of interest: roller skate (Taiwan got 2 golds), dragon boat race (Russia swept all golds)…

    Hong Kong tourist association sponsors dragon boat race all over N. America. With the wide participation, it should be considered as an Olmpics sport along with Martial Art.

    Can Taiwan be financially OK to support such a large sport event? The high speed train could be very beneficial to be a people mover.

    Here is sth I wrote about the last Olympics. Enjoy it with our shameless but rare nationalism:

  12. Will Says:


  13. chorasmian Says:


    “where are these people who apparently love neither the Communists nor the Nationalist but only China? I do not see them”

    You can count me one.

  14. Steve Says:

    @ Charles Liu #7: Charles, were the protests on site property or outside site property? If on site property I agree with you; if outside site property, then I don’t think you can blame the World Games people since they would not have jurisdiction in that area.

  15. Charles Liu Says:

    Steve, the report said the protest occured outside the stadium. The Kaoshiung stadium sits on a large square. From the pictures I saw I would say the protests were held on the venue.

  16. Raj Says:

    Whether or not there was a deal behind the scenes, that China couldn’t bear to take part in the opening ceremony with Ma attending in any official position is highly childish.

    Whatever the Chinese propaganda over Sino-Taiwanese relations says, it is hard to see how China’s position over Taiwan is one of good-faith. Everything has to be politicised, even sporting events. That’s just so sad.

  17. Think Ming! Says:

    And lets not forget that just a year ago Chinese in various foreign countries were holding massive nationalistic political rallies at which they violently assaulted people while screaming “don’t politicize *our* Olympics”.

  18. Wukailong Says:

    I personally find it hard to understand that Ma Ying-jeou’s attendance is so hard for the PRC to accept now that they seem to be on so friendly terms, but I guess they want to talk to Wu Boxiong instead. Only the KMT chairman is good enough! No nationalization of the army or party-party relationships! 🙂

  19. Rhan Says:

    A big country with very small mind.

  20. Allen Says:

    @Rhan #19 – “A big country with very small mind.”

    @Wukailong #18 – “I personally find it hard to understand that Ma Ying-jeou’s attendance is so hard for the PRC to accept now that they seem to be on so friendly terms…”

    @Raj #16 – “Whether or not there was a deal behind the scenes, that China couldn’t bear to take part in the opening ceremony with Ma attending in any official position is highly childish.”

    I think many others have echoed along similar lines of reasoning – why is PRC so sensitive about “little things” like this.

    Personally, I think it is prudent to be sensitive. Diplomacy is about “symbolism” and “symbolism” can be interpreted to carry legal weight in future context.

    While I am happy about the improvement in cross-strait relations thus far, I also cannot write off the nightmarish scenario of another Chen somehow gaining power in the future.

    In the present context, it is important to keep the notion of “one China” formal and non-negotiable while still respecting realities on the ground (both ROC and PRC governments exist). What is happening in KaoShiong is here is a carefully scripted dance – to make sure there is no recognition of an “independent” “sovereign” entity in Taiwan while still allowing full pageantry to take place.

    As for separation of politics and sports – there are two sides to the coin here. If we are truly serious about that – then we would probably ask Ma not to attend as “President” of ROC (e.g. maybe we could have had KaoShiong attend, provided he himself doesn’t make a political statement…) – especially in the present context of cross-straight political environment. If Ma does not attend (or does not attend in that capacity), the mainland athletes would most probably not have had problems attending the opening ceremony.

  21. FOARP Says:

    @Allen – I personally don’t see a DPP victory in 2012 or 2016 as ‘nightmarish’. Even as someone from the pro-reunification camp, you have to admit that the past 12 years have not seen any major pro-independence moves, the biggest thing I can think of is the scrapping of the National Unification Office, not exactly Earth-shattering stuff. The largest waves of pro-independence opinion have all followed threats from the mainland, such as the military manoeuvres and missile tests in 1996. The very reason why in 2008 the mainland withheld from making the threats against Taiwan in ’96, 2000, and 2004 was because they did not wish for such threats to inspire support for the DPP.

    That said, I cannot understand what the excuse there is for the continuing marginalisation of Ma, political parties on Taiwan including the KMT, the Republic of China, and ROC officials. It seems entirely motivated by petty-minded attitudes, and motivated by a desire to destroy all that has been achieved on Taiwan. Why is it that when the DPP takes action against a symbol of the Chinese Republic the internet simply boils with Chinese nationalist sentiment, but that when the PRC does things far more damaging to existence of the KMT-governed ROC this is seen as combating Taiwanese independence?

    Likewise, there can be no doubt of what the response on this website would have been had the Chinese Taipei team boycotted the opening of the Beijing Olympics on exactly the same grounds as the PRC team boycotted last Friday’s events, or if they had insisted that Hu Jintao not attended the ceremony – so why attempt to justify the PRC actions?

  22. Charles Liu Says:

    If Beijing Olympics allowed Taiwan Aborigine Independence to protest against the Taiwanese team on the venue, I’d say they too have the right to boycott.

  23. neutrino Says:

    @21 FORAP,

    Well, I actually agree with you this time, mostly. That attending the opening ceremony by the Chinese athletes would somehow lead to some legal trouble in determining the status of Taiwan, is simply an excuse that is used to hide the inflexibility of the Chinese government, as well as the lack of wisdom. Let’s be honest, the future of Taiwan will be determined by the balance of power of the two sides across the strait, not this sort of potential “legal trouble”. Chinese goverment should have practiced what it preached: let politics stay out of sports.
    Although the whole incident is insignificant in actuality, it does reflect badly on the Chinese government. Seriously, what did the officials that made this call think they would have gained? For sure, they have lost a big chance of displaying good will.

  24. raventhorn4000 Says:

    How about Penghu Island Independence?

  25. Raj Says:

    Allen (20)

    I agree with FOARP. I can’t see what possible problem China could create by acting like a mature, self-confident country by interacting with Ma properly, instead of acting as if it were afraid of its own shadow. If symbolism is important, it works both ways.

    The DPP have never been a threat primarily to the CCP, it has always been a threat to the KMT. The problem is that the CCP has got itself so wound up about “independence movements” that it sometimes (and pardon the analogy) thinks with its genitals instead of its brain. One complaint you might hear over the current state of Sino-Taiwanese relations is that the CCP is manipulating things in Taiwan. Personally I think it’s the other way around.

    Ever since the KMT lost power in 2000 it has done everything it could to get back into office. One of its tactics was to shut down the former President’s policies whenever it could in a way that wouldn’t blow back on it too much, even if it was good for Taiwan. Contrary to nationalist propaganda, Chen’s position on independence was mostly for domestic show. His primary goal was not to establish Taiwan’s independence but break the KMT’s wider grip on Taiwanese society.

    He was also willing to build bridges with China and might have settled for a policy comprimise that China could have lived with. But the KMT saw the CCP as scared by the DPP’s victory and uninformed of the real state of Taiwanese politics. So it convinced Chinese politicians to isolate Chen, to help itself back into office. That set back the development of Sino-Taiwanese relations by years, so it didn’t benefit China. It obviously didn’t benefit the DPP. But it really helped the KMT.

    Now the KMT effectively has a monopoly on relations with China. If the DPP wins in 2012 or 2016, China has to back off for 4+ years, unless the CCP makes a policy U-turn and loses face. That’s more years of lost opportunities for China to build bridges and more difficult times for the DPP to convince voters it can take Taiwan forward. To the KMT, it’s just another brief moment in opposition for it to throw mud at the new government and have a good time laughing about it. If the CCP wants unification to get back on to track it will be so easy to force it to offer new opportunities for the KMT bigwigs who run the back-channel negotiations. Because whilst the CCP really wants unification and will do almost anything for it to happen, the people who run the KMT are only interested in themselves – and they’re not cheap.

    FOARP is right about what the reaction here would be if Taiwanese athletes had boycotted the 2008 opening ceremony. Do you acknowledge that?

  26. FOARP Says:

    @Charles – The PRC team aren’t boycotting the games, just the opening ceremony, and that is just because Ma is there. Your argument makes no sense.

    @Neutrino – Maybe a PRC official was afraid that this decision might be used against them in the future? Was somebody simply unwilling to take even a slight risk? Was this a high-up decision or merely a low-down one? There is no way of knowing. Like you I think this is a minor thing, but it is very indicative of PRC policy towards Taiwan.

  27. Think Ming! Says:

    The only ‘nightmarish’ aspect of the Chen presidency was the childish refusal of both the CCP and KMT to cooperate with him on anything whatsoever, stifling his attempts to improve cross-strait links, build infrastructure in Taiwan, and do other basic and necessary jobs that are the stuff of good government.

    Blaming Chen for the ‘nightmare’ is kind of like blaming a woman standing in front of you with her face bashed in for ‘provoking’ her psychotic alcoholic husband.

    The bitch should have known better, right?

  28. raventhorn4000 Says:


    there are 3 possible scenarios for this:

    (1) China sends Hu Jintao, (or perhaps Wen Jiabao). There would innuendos of “China recognizing Taiwan as equal status”.

    (2) China sends low ranking officials. There would be suggestions that China treats Taiwan like a “province”.

    (3) China sends nobody (for the opening). Well, that’s where we are.

    Really, I think Hu and others have much more important things to do than to indulge in the lesser of the 3 bad outcomes.

  29. FOARP Says:

    @Raj – I managed to make myself less than popular amongst Taiwan expat bloggers by saying that the constant dissing of and conspiracy theorising about the KMT, often without any concrete evidence, was getting more than just a bit tedious and counter-productive. I don’t love the KMT, but they are an elected government, Ma is an elected president, they deserve some respect for this – both from the DPP and the CCP.

    I’m not going to say much about the Chen years, except to say than in as much as anything, the CCP helped Chen get elected through their attempts to marginalise the ROC. If they really want peaceful reunification, backing off and allowing greater unofficial relations (and there is nothing official about attending an opening ceremony) so as to allow greater legitimacy for the ROC is the way to eventually achieve it. This is, after all, how German reunification – the only successful and truly peaceful reunification I can think of – was achieved.

    @Raventhorn4000 – The only people who need attend an opening ceremony are the sportsmen themselves. Neither Ma nor any other ROC government functionary attended the Beijing opening ceremony in their official capacity.

  30. Charles Liu Says:

    Foarp, can you prove your “just because Ma is there” claim? I’ve yet to see any reports proving this allegation.

    The protests were also there that day, what’s to say it’s not because of that? According to the report I cited the PRC team was late to check in, and boycott is only conjecture.

  31. Wahaha Says:

    Raj, FOARP and SKC

    (this one is not about this topic.)

    As you three have complained about the censorship in China for long time, I like you three do us a favor :

    Please post the following link :


    onto Wall street Journal digital network :


    I tried twice, failed. Now to prove your point, how about you ttree give a try ?

    We will greatly appreciate if you can post it onto BBC network and Major Canada media website,

    Please let us when you try or tell us that you have no intention to try (if so, then why?)

  32. Steve Says:

    @ Wahaha: Weren’t the photos of the guy who’s back was hacked from another event and not the Urumqi riots? I thought someone had talked about that in an earlier post, but I’m going on memory. If so, that might be why the link wasn’t accepted.

  33. FOARP Says:

    @Wahahaha – As someone who has long resisted thread-jacking, I would like to ask you what you think of Yao Ming’s injury saga

  34. Steve Says:

    @ Wahaha: FOARP is right. That post belongs on the open thread so I’m collapsing it along with my response.

  35. Wahaha Says:

    Steve, are you censoring my post ?

  36. Wahaha Says:


    Will you start a thread for me ? I dont know how.

  37. Wahaha Says:


    I dont know how YaoMing injured. I havent watched much basketball since Jordan retired. I am a big fan of American football, my favorite player is Tom Brady.

    give me a link and I will tell you.

    BTW, if steve starts a thread for me, are you gonna try ?

    BTW, the link is from anti-CCP (not anti-CNN) website.

  38. Rhan Says:


    If your argument on another “Chen” could help make PRC rigid policy sound sensible, then don’t expect the Taiwanese to see the difference between any “Ma” or “Chen”.

  39. Steve Says:

    @ Wahaha: It doesn’t really fit into a new thread since it’s a request, so probably best to put it on the Open Thread section unless you want to flesh it out. If so, just put it in the Letters section where you can write it up yourself.

    I didn’t censor your comment, I collapsed it. If I censored it, it would have been deleted with a reason. Anyone can read it with on click, but since it’s way off topic it doesn’t fit the rest of the comments.

    Oh, I just checked and Charles posted it on the Open Thread for you.

  40. Wukailong Says:

    @Allen (#20): I agree with several of your points – diplomacy is often about symbolism, and if it had been Chen Shuibian in the arena I wouldn’t have given any extra thoughts to the reaction of the Chinese (PRC) government. However, there is a difference now that Ma Ying-jeou is involved. Mainland media shows him in a very favorable light and any bad press that comes out from Taiwan is about Chen’s incarceration and subsequent trial. For all these overt shows of friendship, one would imagine that Ma’s appearance wouldn’t be that much of a deal.

    Meetings between mainland and Taiwanese officials are almost exclusively on a party level, perhaps because it needs to look as if there aren’t two states involved. But what would happen if Ma Ying-jeou also became the chairman of the KMT? Would it be possible for him to meet with Hu Jintao even if it was strictly presented as a meeting between party chairmen?

    I can accept the argument of symbolism and the need to show that the One China policy is preserved, though it seems we disagree on how much of the realities on the ground are really respected.

  41. --'o..[^--^]..o'- Says:

    I think it’s retarded to boycott it. Although I’m sure both sides have their own little political games. But I always thought Taiwan should just be Taiwain and whatever the people want and China should stop “bullying” or “tripping.” But it’s not that simple, I guess.

  42. Steve Says:

    There’s something I never understood about the whole China/Taiwan relationship. Why doesn’t China let Taiwan call itself the Republic of China at sporting events rather than “Chinese Taipei”? To me, the ROC implies there is one China with two governments and points to eventual reunification, while “Chinese Taipei” makes no sense and the “Chinese” part of it makes Taiwan no different from Singapore, which is also Chinese though not a part of China. And since Taipei is only one city on the island, why use that name? Does that mean the rest of the island is separate? It just seems to me to go against China’s eventual goal of reunification.

    I’m sure there’s some reason my idea can’t work and was wondering if anyone could fill me in on the political reason to keep doing it this way.

  43. raventhorn4000 Says:

    It’s compromise of names.

    “Taiwan” by itself would suggest too much independence. So attaching it to any other word would be also suggesting similar meaning.

    “Republic of China” is too suggestive of legitimacy for that Government as a National “sovereign”.

    “Chinese Taipei” is somewhere in the middle, suggesting that the team merely represents Taiwan, hence, like a provincial capital city team.

  44. Allen Says:

    @Steve #42,

    I’m with you on this one. I personally think ROC is fine and having the name “China” in the name (as opposed to just “Taiwan”) points to eventual reunification, too.

    Last year at the SF torch relay, I thought about showing up with both my PRC and ROC flags to cheer the torch runners in support of the Olympics and China. But I thought twice about it. Too many people would interpret my carrying the ROC flag to mean something else… So I eventually brought only my PRC flag.

  45. raventhorn4000 Says:


    It’s a diplomatic solution agreed upon by many international bodies as the most neutral nonpolitical term.

    It’s not supposed to be perfect. Somebody some where would find any of the terms objectionable.

  46. Wukailong Says:

    I think raventhorn’s description is very close to how the Chinese leadership views these things. However, personally, I agree more with Steve and Allen on this one. The situation as it is now is very strange – somehow you have to pretend that the country is already unified, while at the same time talk of reunification in the future. If people on both sides had been less stubborn, this conflict might have been easier to solve. Though now that China have had its united and confederate states coexisting for almost 60 years, I believe it will just continue to play out like this for many more decades.

    In the case of Germany, both sides eventually accepted and recognized each other, though their reunification was basically one side being absorbed into the other.

  47. Charles Liu Says:

    I really wonder why Native Nation, having supposed sovereignty, can’t compete in the Olympics under their own team, but have to compete under team USA?

    Why can’t they have their own team like Chinese Taipei with names like “Native Cherokee Americans”. But then again team USA might boycott.

    There a lot of parallels like this (China blocking Taiwan UN bid, US blocking Cherokee UN bid) that goes to show China isn’t all that different.

  48. Allen Says:

    DPP not my nightmarish scenario? Of course it is…

    Check out this recent Reuters video on the aftermath of the Xinjiang riots.


    Expressing sympathy for the Uyghur rioters and attacking China for lack of “freedom” in the aftermath of the Uyghur riots?

    How disgusting is the DPP?

    And about this church – is this religion or politics?

    Shaking my head in disgust…

  49. Steve Says:


  50. LoKi Says:

    Yeah Charles, you are way off there.

    How much land did the Americans steal from the Natives and how much land did the Chinese steal from Taiwan?

    Can’t believe you made that comparison.

  51. miaka9383 Says:

    I wonder what do you know about Native Americans besides from the textbooks and going to the reservations to buy fireworks?

    Do you know why you can buy illegal fireworks on reservations?
    Do you know that by the time civil rights movement, the natives are qualified under federal law as United States Citizens but can have their own tribal government? Hence they have soverignty just like a state power.
    Do you know that each tribe is a different nation? It is not just Native Americans as a group. Hence their yearly gathering here in NM is called the Gathering of Nations.
    You keep on wanting proof, but all of the proofs that I or Steve has is probably from personal experience and from talking to these Americans we know. My Cousin in law is a full blown Navajo and he owns his own architectural firm and he can work on and off of the navajo reservations. He is a highly successful architect and during the Olympics he was rooting for the U.S team? Why? Because he thinks of himself as an American…

    All of this mention of Native Americans is all irrelevant to this, Xingjiang and anything else. If you think we are judging China on a different standard, we are not. Just because U.S did something hundreds of years ago, does not mean China needs to do it now. Plus, whatever U.S did in the past is no justification of how China treats their own people… It is extremely irrelevant….

  52. Bob Says:

    @Steve #49,

    Maybe the Native Nations can’t be allowed to have state-to-state relationships with legitimate UN countries? I don’t get how you can be offended by Charles’s post unless you have some unspoken chip on your shoulder. By the way, the ad hominem attack on Charles Liu violated the code of conduct to post on this site.

    Also, I don’t know why you are a moderator of this forum. Last I checked, this is still called Blog for China. Most neutral observers would agree what you have done is largely blogging Against China or blogging on behalf of China antagonists.

    Admin, please consider removing Steve from his moderator’s role.

  53. miaka9383 Says:

    They have long advocated under federal law to be allowed that. So far no success, but they are not dissatisfied with U.S government enough to start an riot.

    Last time I check this is a Blog ABOUT China so why bring American issues into it? Please read the blog description before commenting. Admin’s intentions are for different exchanges of ideas. If you don’t have anything of value to contribute please don’t say anything at all and be a silent observer.

  54. raventhorn4000 Says:

    “All of this mention of Native Americans is all irrelevant to this, Xingjiang and anything else. If you think we are judging China on a different standard, we are not. Just because U.S did something hundreds of years ago, does not mean China needs to do it now. Plus, whatever U.S did in the past is no justification of how China treats their own people… It is extremely irrelevant…”

    Actually, it’s more about what US is doing currently in the world that mirrors what it did in the last 200 years or so, Patronizing the “natives” of the world on what it thinks is best for them.

    Patronize the Native Americans if you wish, but Chinese consider such patronizing “criticism” as humiliation.

    Especially patronizing condescending criticisms from nations with long history of “patronizing” their natives to near extinctions.

  55. Bob Says:


  56. miaka9383 Says:

    Grow up. Now you are just speculating without proof. They are continuing advocating for that, and they don’t like the bureau of indian affairs. But they are happy dealing with them and receiving federal support.

    Near extinction? Are you serious? Come on… U.S has at least 500 federally recognized tribal governments (per wiki per usinfo.stat.gov citation 69 from Native American in U.S wiki) Because of current events, there are many people with Native Blood mixed in them. In fact, I just asked my co worker, he is half navajo and half korean… does this disqualify for him to be a navajo??? But R4k you know being a lawyer you know about balance of power between a state and federal government. I am sure you also know that tribal governments makes their own law independent of state and besides not being able to communicate through UN as an independent nation, they have sovereignty over their own land in every sense. Also these Native Americans recognized themselves as Americans by working in American companies, going to the uni, and also in WWII you know about the Navajo code talkers.

    Also, Steve and I never said U.S wasn’t patronizing…. but if you hold China to the same pedastal, Xingjiang would be a self governing “reservation” and the minorities that lives in Xingjiang all have their own governments and China would view them as Chinese and not have refused them employment and look down on them because of their race and religion.

  57. raventhorn4000 Says:


    The very notion of “Sovereignty within a sovereignty” is against international law.

    And yes, “near extinction”, as compared to where the Native Americans started, and counting how much they have lost in terms of people and culture, in the process of being “assimilated”.

    (That is the “assimilation” standard that you wanted to use for China, isn’t it?)

  58. Bob Says:


    Don’t be so self-fulfilling. The issue still revolves around the degree of “independence”. The Natives have been dispensed into pockets of land. Come back to me when the sovereignty of these pockets, individually or collectively, is allowed to be recognized by any non-U.S. country.

  59. raventhorn4000 Says:

    Lakota Nation has recently sought to reclaim their land from US government, and seek to declare its own independence.

    They have asked Venezuela (and other nations) to recognize their sovereignty.

    Now, what would US say if Venezuela did recognize Lakota independence?


    The key distinction between a “sovereign” and “non-sovereign” is the ability to conduct its own foreign affairs. While some regions, like Taiwan, have sometimes called “de facto sovereignty”, they are not full “sovereigns” because they do not have “de jure sovereignty”.

    Needless to say, Native American Tribes have not even the slightest “de facto sovereignty”. Their “sovereign within a sovereign” status are legal nullities.

    (Just because US calls them “nations”, doesn’t actually mean that they have any real authority of “nations”, which as I said, requires the authority to conduct their own foreign affairs.)

  60. miaka9383 Says:

    Isn’t that what China is trying to do but FAILED!
    Look, Native American culture is still around and active. I see it all around me and my cousin in law is living proof that it hasn’t been dissimated. Ughers on the other hand can’t survive and they are at the mercy of the Han Chinese who refuse to do business with them or give employment to them. Their population are actually growing and they rarely allow non Native Americans onto their land and open up shop there. That is what the Han Chinese Government is doing to the Ughers.

    I would like to see the international law clause where it says that Native Americans cannot have their own tribal government and make their own laws. This sovereignty that they have falls under federal power and operate as equals as state power. You know that. So if one tribal nation petitions to not be under federal power, they can. Just like Vermont went through a vote to secede from U.S ….

    Are you aware how big this pockets of land are? Are you aware there are many many functional Native Americans that no longer live on that Pocket of land and live somewhere else? Come back to me when you actually know something about Native Americans and their culture or at least understand how the tribal government works.

  61. raventhorn4000 Says:


    “Isn’t that what China is trying to do but FAILED!”

    You are assuming that based upon what? China “FAILED” to assimilate? Or rather China had no intention of “assimilating”? Or rather “assimilation” is just a natural process that happened in Chinese history over the past 4000 years?

    Unlike US, China has had recognized minority protected status since PRC founding in 1949. And the minorities already have quota protections and special privileges.

    “I would like to see the international law clause where it says that Native Americans cannot have their own tribal government and make their own laws. This sovereignty that they have falls under federal power and operate as equals as state power. You know that. So if one tribal nation petitions to not be under federal power, they can. Just like Vermont went through a vote to secede from U.S ….”

    The very fact that “tribal nation” has to “petition” to “not be under federal power”, means that they are NOT “sovereigns”, but rather another “state” entity like Vermont.

    That is not “sovereignty”, that is US colonization. Tribal governments have no authority to levy taxes on income or real estate property. They don’t even have the same authority on par with a State government.

  62. Allen Says:

    I don’t understand why the big fuss about Native Americans. I don’t think anyone can argue that Native Americans – while enjoying some amount of self rule – is subject to U.S. laws and sovereign jurisdiction. Either by law or constrained by realities on the ground, Native Americans are U.S. citizens and not citizens of some third party states under International Law. (If Indian Reservations are third party states, the Soviet Union would have tried to negotiate with Native Americans to build a military base on various Indian Reservation during the Cold War…)

    As for state secession within the context of the U.S.? No states can unilaterally secede. The Civil War settled that legal argument some time ago.

    Here is a helpful link if anyone wants to learn more on legal context of state secessions: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html.

  63. raventhorn4000 Says:

    Property tax is another real key for Tribes.

    All Tribal lands are held in trust by US federal Government. Tribal Governments have no authority to levy taxes on real property.

    This is actually very big deal, considering how much of State budget comes from Real property taxes.

    Now, if the Tribes have any real authority, they should be given their own land, and have authority to impose taxes on property and income.

    Then, they might not have to rely on other revenues.

    *Otherwise, they don’t even have their own land to tax, what kind of “sovereign” are they?

  64. Allen Says:

    @raventhorn4000 #63,

    You forgot to mention McCulloch v. Maryland – where it is pronounced that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” where Maryland was prohibited from taxing Second Bank of the United States, an agent of the Federal government – the Fed being the supreme sovereign.

    To decide whether an entity is a true “sovereign” – follow the money and power. How does the entity raise money? Is it restricted by others? Can the entity have power to create and control over a legitimate military force?

  65. Allen Says:

    Just so I am clear – I see no “injustice” with Native Americans being full American citizens today.

    Yes – the history of America is not something I am proud of, but the nonexistence of a legitimate Native American state does not per se for me mean there is continued subjugation of the Native Americans.

    I tend to believe that Native Americans should be encouraged to intermingle with the broader American society today (as many have). Yes – there are many peoples in America, each with its own unique history getting here. Yes – throughout history, some of the peoples in America have preyed on other peoples in America. That does not mean that we must segregate people. This is America. There is one America.

    Just my two cents…

  66. raventhorn4000 Says:

    Sometimes, Western history provides a completely negative connotation of “assimilation”.

    In fact, if a world is completely peaceful, its diverse populations would naturally “assimilate” themselves over the course of 1000’s of years, to eventually become a group of people who can claim right to all the heritages without the necessity of “bloodline” argument.

    Of course, the Western historical experience is one of particularly intrusive form of “assimilation”, or “1 way assimilation”.

    the problem with “assimilation” is the “1 way assimilations”, where 1 group views its own culture as inviolable.

    Another problem is that dominant groups have an inherent advantage of shear numbers and resources.

    But we don’t see Chinese claiming being “assimilated” by Western cultures, while being blasted around the clock by Western Media.

    Western nations on the other hand, is more fearful of influence of China and its perspectives of Human Rights, Laws, and Culture.

    Doesn’t that just go right back to historical fear of non-Western Cultures, and the claim of right of “1 way assimilation”?!

    *what we see today even, is the classic pattern of Western nations trying to assimilate non-Western nations with the Western cultural constructs, while fearing the reverse influence.

  67. Steve Says:

    @ Steve #49: I deleted your post for your ad hominum attack on Charles. I thought about it after I left the blog and realized it was ad hominum and against the rules. Bob also saw it and commented, and he was correct.

    @ Bob #55: I deleted your post for your ad hominum attack on miaka.

  68. Steve Says:

    @ Bob #52: Bob, why don’t you learn something about Native Americans before commenting, ok?

    I’m an editor on this blog at the discretion of the administration. Most would not consider me always anti-Chinese government but also most would not consider me always pro-Chinese government. When I think the pro-Chinese government side has a good point, then I’m pro-Chinese government. When I think the anti-Chinese government side has a good point, then I’ll back them. Last I checked, this wasn’t called the Blog for Bob. It wasn’t a Blog for Native Americans either. If you read ALL my posts, you’d see I am not on one side or the other. But you obviously never bothered to do so.

  69. Allen Says:


    About “blogging” for China – I definitely would consider yourself to be blogging for China even though I know we probably disagree many times also…

    In my books, blogging for China does not mean megaphoning or being a mouth piece for the gov’t of China (although some may accuse me to doing that some times) … but speaking frankly about the issues affecting all of the people of China.

    I hope people who blog for China care genuinely about the long term prospect all of the people of China also … but that’s probably secondary. Some here remember myself calling myself an ultra Chinese nationalist. It is in this way that I am an “ultra Chinese nationalist.”

  70. raventhorn4000 Says:

    If the Native American history or any Native history teach us anything, it should be that there are certain WRONG ways of “assimilation”.

    But does not mean that all “assimilations” are inherently wrong.

    1st some basic generalizations:

    (1) NOT all “assimilations” are wrong.

    (2) NOT all “voluntary assimilations” are good.

    *To elaborate (2), SOME “voluntary assimilation” would be akin to “brainwashing”, or convincing someone to commit “cultural suicide”. (since we were on the “Cultural Genocide” bit).

    In my personal opinion, the ONLY good type of “assimilation” must be a 2 way assimilation, and where the individual is not giving up 1 culture for another, but rather incorporating BOTH into himself.

  71. Bob Says:


    Bob, using an exclamation point still breaks the blog rules. I’m sure you can post again using a more appropriate word.

  72. Bob Says:

    @Steve #68,

    If I remember correctly, Bloging FOR China was born in the aftermath of the March 14th Lhasa riot. I believe CLC had it enough with China bashing from Western media and many other expatriates’ blogs and thus created the site to shed lights into the situation and to counter the everyday BS typically seen in the main stream media. The opinions you expressed and stance you took with regard to the recent Xinjiang riots go very much against the original purpose of the Blog4China. CLC may have somewhat changed his mind during the course, but as an avid reader and occasional commenter of this blog I would like to remind him 友邦惊诧论. I don’t see why this site cannot survive with you being relegated to the likes of Raj and FOARP.

  73. Allen Says:

    @Bob #72,

    CLC did create this website as a balance against the huge sea of (politically motivated?) bias and misinformation about China here in the West.

    To the best of my knowledge, that is still the purpose of this site. And that is the reason why I am here.

    However, a second and equally important purpose of this site is to build a dialogue between China and the West. If the only opinions expressed here are “Chinese perspectives” (however defined) – this second goal cannot be achieved.

    I think Steve’s perspectives still represent a “Western perspective” (as are definitely FOARP and Raj’s, and others). But if we cannot get through with Steve, or FOARP, or Raj – or the many Tibetan exiles who I know are lurking – then we can never get to many of the people we hope we can get to after the March riots of last year…

    In the mean time, this site will always make a space for those who want to express and articulate the Chinese perspective. We need all the help we can get! 🙂

  74. barny chan Says:

    Bob, don’t lose hope.

    The way things are going here you can be fairly optimistic that anybody who doesn’t define themselves as a Chinese ultra-nationalist will soon stop contributing. The combination of direct abuse, tedious faux-legalistic pedantry, and downright weird sidetracking that awaits those who harbor even minor criticisms of China ensures that they have little motivation to hang around.

    The administrators, if they genuinely wish for intelligent dialogue rather than flag waving, should seriously consider the currently prevailing unpleasant atmosphere.

  75. FOARP Says:

    @Bob – This is the very first piece I’ve done on this website, so it’s hardly part of a pattern. If you do not like the story, I would like to know on what grounds you would say that this is not a story ‘for’ China? If I question anything in it, it is the relation between what are both officially Chinese governments, and as you can see from the above, opinion is in fact divided as to whether the boycott was a good idea.

  76. Charles Liu Says:

    Miaka, “U.S did in the past”

    Your ignorance really shines thru here. We are still doing it to the Native Americans TODAY. All the broken treaties are still on the books, stuck in whiteman’s court.

    This is precisely the kind of hypocrisy I’m talking about – rationalize our own transgression while holding China to a different standard.

  77. FOARP Says:

    @Charlie . . . . which, ironically, is exactly what you do when you attempt to excuse a professional team of sportsmen and women being made to miss the opening ceremony of an event which for many is the culmination of a lifetime’s work as the result of a ‘late check-in’. Oh, and why are you even talking about the US on a thread that is entirely about the relations between the two sides of the Taiwan straits and where the majority of people discussing the issue are not Americans?

  78. miaka9383 Says:

    Are you aware of the vermont independence movement? This actually sets precedent in U.S of a state set out a public vote to secede from the union.
    Bob, tell me, what do you know about Native American history except from the text books and from online resources? Have you lived on a reservation? Do you talk to Native Americans daily? Do you interact with them on daily basis? If so do you believe that the movement has not succeed is because U.S is “oppressing” their opinions or many Native Nations do not wish to break way to U.S

    The reason this Native American subject came up is because Charles and R4K accused of U.S judging China on a different standard. But in fact the Americans on this forum judges China on an equal pedastal of if U.S can do it why can’t China?
    Did China failed assimilating their minorities? Yes. Why? Because the ethnic policies by no means are fair to any one. By U.S Standards, China should be able to keep minority cultures alive but keeping them happy?? but why not? Because they mass migrate Han Chinese into these areas but the inherent racism/stereotypes keeps these minorities from finding a job. Even if the ethnic policies on the surface is favoring the minorities but how many minorities benefit from these policies? Does adding an additional score encourages minorities to challenge themselves or does it enable them to be lazy? Does having different set of criminal laws enable minority criminals to commit crimes?
    Or an alternative, they can make Xingjian as a special “reservation” and let the people govern themselves with a Chinese Federal power over them like the U.S (same standard why not?) They can make their own rules based on their beliefs and remove and Han Chinese officials(may or may not be corrupt) out of that area. But give them the option of assimilating into Chinese society.

  79. Allen Says:

    @miaka9383 #78,

    OK – now I see how this thing about Native Americans may have started…

    In any case, about stopping Hans population movement, I still don’t agree with you.

    Why cannot Hans live side by side with Uyghurs?

    Let’s assume that Uighur today are disadvantaged because they need to learn speak mandarin. Well if Xinjiang becomes independent / autonomous (whatever) and now speaks the Uighur language, then wouldn’t the other minorities that live in Xinjiang be disadvantaged now? If we go by our original premise on language, wouldn’t all non-Uighurs be disadvantaged now since the Uighur language was not their original tongue? If we believe this language hypothesis, must non-Uighurs move out of Xinjiang? Must Xinjiang be further carved up, where people move to their respective ethnic/linguistic/religious enclave?

    I believe in multi-cultralism – I believe Hans and Uighurs can prosper and live side by side. I also believe ethnicities need not be broken up into enclaves to survive.

    Anyways – my response here is way off topic here on the Kaohsiung thread. I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to pick up our discussion in other threads…

  80. miaka9383 Says:

    I responded to you in the ethnic fault line thread.

  81. miaka9383 Says:

    I meant the Ethnic relations thread

  82. raventhorn4000 Says:

    Segregation is not the answer to “assimilation”.

  83. Steve Says:

    @ Allen #79: I agree with your opinion. The only real solution in Xinjiang is eventually racial integration. Going to a reservation system would be like shutting the barn door after the horse has left. It’s too late in the process for that to be viable. Isn’t the real question whether integration is possible between the two societies? I hope it is, and I think the best way to achieve it is through economic growth that lifts up both Han and Uyghur. I’ve noticed that economically successful people want to preserve the status quo and judge others more by their position in life than their race or religion.

  84. raventhorn4000 Says:


    Every integration has benefits to some people of each ethnic groups, and there would also be some who are not happy with it.

    Urumqi has a class of well established and better off Uighurs. Urumqi, in all probability, is 1 of more integrated cities in Xinjiang, and also economically more successful.

    Afterall, even Western reports say that poor Uighurs from surrounding areas go to Urumqi to look for jobs.

    If there are no jobs for the poor Uighurs, what would be the point?? Why would they go there, if the ethnic divide is so wide that “discrimination” is so obvious??


  85. Steve Says:

    @ R4K #84: You said that Urumqi was one of the more integrated cities in Xinjiang. I thought I had read somewhere that the neighborhoods are not integrated but that Han live in certain neighborhoods and Uyghur live in their own neighborhoods. Is that true or did I hear it incorrectly or read an article that was not factual or deliberately misleading? I’ve never been to that city so I don’t have real experience with the situation there.

  86. raventhorn4000 Says:


    I think you read only part of it, the generalization part.

    There were many reports of Uighurs and Hans sheltering each other in neighborhoods.

    There are also many old neighborhoods in Urumqi, where they are predominantly Uighurs.

    *The degree of integration in Urumqi is as can be hoped. (Obviously, we are not going to forcibly evict Uighurs or Hans to integrate.)

  87. Charles Liu Says:

    Raven, as with all dissidents in every country, they are minority and often do not represent the mainstream view. Sure I can find Hawaiian and Native American soverignty/independence advocates, but I know they do not represent majority of Hawaiian or Native Americans.

    Same applies to Kadeer and WUC, but the difference is while the Chinese government has better things to do than inciting violence in America, my government goes out of its way to pay for and twist, amplify minority dissident voices into something that toe our “official narrative/party line” about China, and influce American public opinion with it.

    I’m not suprised Uyghurs and Hans helped eachother. After all out of 10 million Uyghurs, only a tiny fraction of criminals commited the violent crimes. And we in the West are falling for propaganda that convinces us somehow they are freedom fighters with legitmate grievances that are representative, or their violence can somehow be rationalized by demonizing China.

    That’s the crux of the problem – somehow under the outdated, static “evil Red China” view, and strident American Exceptonalism, we insists few rioters with mechetes represents 10 million Uyghurs.

  88. FOARP Says:

    @Charles Liu . . . . . . whilst you assume that a few apparatchiks represent 1.3 billion people.

  89. raventhorn4000 Says:

    “strident American Exceptonalism, we insists few rioters with mechetes represents 10 million Uyghurs.”

    Or rather, the Mechetes, is somehow distorted. From the evidence of the bearer’s crimes, twisted into the excuse for attacking the victims.

    Why see the existence of the Mechete, and yet see it as opposite of Truth?

    It’s the rather silly argument of “Yes, I kill that man, so you can see how he has driven me to kill him.”

  90. raventhorn4000 Says:

    “whilst you assume that a few apparatchiks represent 1.3 billion people.”

    No, only if you assume “representation” must come from “elections”.

  91. Charles Liu Says:

    Gee Foarp, how many people pay taxes to Kadeer? As far as I know only Unlcle Sam.

    Also please look into the fact district level people’s congress are now openly nominated and competitvely elected, and they in term elect the NPC.

  92. Steve Says:

    @ Charles Liu #87: Charles, I completely agree with you. I think it’s ridiculous that we give money to the WUC through NED. I can think of much better uses for our tax dollars than that. I only hope this new administration cuts the funds to NED (actually, I’d like to see NED disappear) or at least replaces the leadership in the organization.

    @ R4K and Allen: What are the constitutional ramifications of having the government so closely entwined with an organization like NED? It almost seems like a slush fund to me.

  93. raventhorn4000 Says:


    It is like a slush fund, but legalized by an act of Congress.

    There is very little legal grounds to challenge such a Congressional grant to an “NGO”. Congress can give money to any number of “NGO’s” for any purposes, as long as the NGO is technically not violating any laws, and Congress remain eyes wide shut for any questionable purposes.

    I would have thought that Bush’s “Faith-based” grant programs could have been challenged based upon “Establishment” of Religion clause, but apparently not.

    Technically, there is still an argument that public money cannot be used by NGO to help establish religions abroad either, but that’s too much of a stretch.

    (that’s definitely 1 problem with US Constitution: It doesn’t allow Congress to establish a state religion in US, but it has no problems with Congress spending money to help establish religion in other countries.)

    By implication, both WUC and Tibetan Government in Exile are quasi-religious organizations. Congressional funding indirectly for these groups should be considered violation of the Establishment clause.

    (Another problem is the Incorporation-self dealing problem. DC is currently having this problem, City councilman Barry had incorporated several companies under his own office, and used them to receive municipal contracts. NED, similarly, has many board members who are Congressmen. Technically, that should run foul of Conflict of Interest, but because the Congressmen have no ownership of NED, that becomes legal. But same could be said of Barry in DC.)

    Inherently, the practice of Congressmen “moonlighting” as directors or employees of an NGO that receives grant from Congress is Corrupt, even if not technically illegal.

  94. raventhorn4000 Says:

    I have to wonder the appropriateness of the trend of Congress giving money to all these NGO’s.

    Constitutionally, Congress can delegate duties to private groups, under Commerce Clause to make and enter contract for services.

    But I wonder if there should not be some essential and clear line on what should never be delegated to non-government groups.

    With all the rage before about “privatizing health care”, “privatizing education”, etc., I think US government has already privatized too much.

    Why is it giving away so much money in idiotic grants that shows no tangible benefits for the tax payers?

    (NPR had a story about the waste of money in National Science foundation grants to catalog ladybugs, for apparently no stated reasons!)

    Seriously, what’s next? Congress privatizing the military, so that companies like Haliburton will go contract a bunch of mercs to fight wars for US? Or privatizing the intelligence service, so that NED can just have its secret wars and coups?

    If you ask me, the genuine argument of Constitutionality of all this is Congressional Dereliction of Duty, and collusion with private parties to avoid due process.

    When Congress delegates too much of its duties of oversight, then it has violated its own duties.

    Unfortunately, under the US legal system, Congress is the “sovereign representative of the People”. And if they want to be negligent with their own powers, Judicial branch cannot force them to perform their own duties.

    But then again, this is how all “democracies” fall, when the People steps side for the tyrants to take over.

  95. CLC Says:

    @Bob #72,

    Thank you for being an avid reader and occasional commenter of this blog. Although I am the founder of FM, my contribution to this site is minimal. Speaking as a fellow reader, I have learned tremendously from the information and insights provided by our writers and commentators. Personally, I think a blog that encourages the expression of different opinions and perspectives shows its strength, not weakness.

    As I wrote recently, “from the beginning, this blog was meant to cultivate dialogue, not to create confrontation.” We are here to present Chinese perspectives, but we also welcome people to scrutinize and challenge these perspectives. As Allen said, anyone who speaks frankly about the issues affecting all of the people of China is blogging for China.

    Finally, we invited Steve as an editor not because I always agree with him but because I think he is a fair and open-minded person. He is a living example that a westerner and a Chinese can have a genuine dialog, strive to find a common ground, and yes, blog for China together. 🙂 Of course, if you think his moderation is inappropriate, you are more than welcome to email me your feedback.

  96. FOARP Says:

    This whole thing got started with Charlie’s pointless thread-jack about native Americans not forming their own team for the Olympics. Quite why he thought this was germane I have no idea, I cannot think of any incident where native Americans have applied to the IOC or any other sporting organisation to form a separate team. If they did though, I don’t know why Charles assumes that they wouldn’t be able to do so – the fact that the New Zealand Maoris form their own teams for many sports, the pre-independence Irish teams, the Hong Kong and Macao teams, and of course the separate Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish teams, all show that such an arrangement would be quite possible.

    Charles operates on a very simple principle – that every incident which makes China look bad has its counterpart in US history, and therefore all critics of China (including non-Americans) are hypocrites. The fact that he yet again references the NED on a thread which is entirely unrelated to the US just goes to show how much of an obsession this is for him.

  97. raventhorn4000 Says:


    I thought we were all engaging in friendly “criticisms”.


  98. FOARP Says:

    @Raventhorn – I’m not criticising the guy’s actual opinions (at least, I’m not doing that here) – if he wants to believe that the NED, CIA, western media etc. are all part of some vast conspiracy to undermine China, that is his right. What I don’t get is why he thinks it’s relevant to talk about them ON EVERY THREAD, even when the main subject has nothing to do with the US.

  99. raventhorn4000 Says:

    If the conspiracy is wide as claimed, then it would be in many subjects.

  100. Steve Says:

    @ R4K #93: Thanks for that detailed explanation.

    “Inherently, the practice of Congressmen “moonlighting” as directors or employees of an NGO that receives grant from Congress is Corrupt, even if not technically illegal.”

    I think it should be technically illegal since for me it’s a conflict of interest. I’m not a lawyer but it just seems like common sense that if you’re spending money running an organization that you also granted that same money to as a Congressman, you’re in a conflict of interest.

    Don’t board members also draw salaries? Or do they appoint their wives or family members as board members?

    Per your #99: If the conspiracy didn’t exist, wasn’t as wide as claimed or had virtually no influence on actual events, then it would also be irrelevant to many subjects. It’s not the claim of conspiracy that’s the problem, it’s the assumption that the conspiracy widely exists and that everyone else has to buy in to that same theory, get questioned on all their comments in relation to this conspiracy and then are belittled if they don’t believe in the conspiracy.

    It’s impossible to argue against a conspiracy theory; just look at the one concerning Obama’s birth certificate. Regardless of the ‘proof’ that’s offered, the conspiracy theorists just keep repeating the same things over and over again. No ‘proof’ will ever convince them since their minds are already made up.

    I don’t like NED, don’t think they should exist and certainly don’t think they should be contributing money to the WUC who to me is run by an opportunist/populist. That doesn’t mean I believe NED are behind every bad thing that happens in China. Can I prove they are NOT behind every bad thing that happens in China? Of course not; no one can prove a negative since it’s always theoretically possible, just as it’s theoretically possible that the universe is contained in a piece of dust on a giant’s mantelpiece. It’s one of the first things you learn in logic class.

    Here’s something different: The Onion has become a subsidiary of a Chinese corporation. 😛

  101. raventhorn4000 Says:

    NGO’s do pay their directors salaries, “within reasonable bounds”.

    Again, technically, because the directors do not OWN any part of NED, in forms of stocks or dividends, then it’s legal. (And that NED does not distribute profits.)

    I don’t believe NED is behind every “bad thing” happens in China.

    But (1) NED does fund WUC and Kadeer, (2) Kadeer does have coincidental knowledge of riot in China, and (3) NED actively trains WUC personnel on anti-China propaganda (on WUC’s own website, NED presentation to WUC on “60 years of Oppression in Xinjiang”).

    Hey, I follow the money trail.

    And for NED’s money, it’s got a lot of tendrils everywhere.

    That’s not so much Conspiracy theory, that’s just what happens when NED has a money trail leading to “bad things”.

    I certainly don’t blame NED for the decline of my Chinese stocks. (unless I see an NED presentation to stock analysts, predicting doom and gloom of Chinese stock market.)

  102. Wukailong Says:

    @Steve: That Onion link is amazing. I like this one too:


    Everything’s in there, even the constant mentioning of Confucianism these days.

  103. Steve Says:

    @ Wukailong: Finally, a media source that’s accurate, objective and really digs up the facts! They’ve sure improved since Yu Wan Mei bought them out. I’d say they’re much better than the WSJ, NYT and WP combined, certainly the first place to go when I want to discover the unvarnished truth.

  104. Wukailong Says:

    Quoting myself above: “But what would happen if Ma Ying-jeou also became the chairman of the KMT? Would it be possible for him to meet with Hu Jintao even if it was strictly presented as a meeting between party chairmen?”

    Now that has happened – Ma is also party chairman.

  105. foobar Says:

    YuWanMei.com, featuring this board of directors:

    Vice President of Re-Acquisitions
    Vice President of Quality Control & Persuasion
    Division 7 Solutions Officer
    Regional Scapegoat
    International Fish Liaison
    Director of Marketing, Sales, Extraction & Extermination

    Regional Scapegoat. Which is also appropriately translated as 地区替罪羊 in the Chinese version. 😀

  106. foobar Says:

    #104 WKL,

    Hu Jintao sends congratulatory message to new KMT leader

  107. Wukailong Says:

    @foobar (#106): Of course, relationships have officially been friendly ever since Ma was elected. I think Ma’s election is a blessing and a curse for both sides. For Ma, on the one hand, he can influence KMT policies better, but on the other hand he will have to lie low to avoid criticism that he’s selling out Taiwan (from what I’ve heard). Hu can now meet Ma directly, and policywise this is probably only good news, but when he finally meets Ma he will be the first mainland official to meet a Taiwanese president, even though it will probably officially be on a party-party basis.

  108. Steve Says:

    @ Wukailong & foobar: I also read that article today about Ma’s accession as party chairman though it was just a formality. I agree with WKL that Ma will have to lie low, but I’m guessing that Ma and Hu will meet within the next two years as party to party representatives. I think that’s a good thing. The one trap Ma needs to avoid with the Taiwan people is that he is negotiating with China as a representative of the KMT only, rather than as president of Taiwan. For the sake of this meeting he can use the party to party reason, but not for the sake of treaties. His popularity right now isn’t too great and he’ll be up for re-election in the coming years so he’ll have to tiptoe through that minefield.

    What do you guys think of Chen Chu? I was impressed with the way she handled her visit to China and how her city ran the World Games. She seems more pragmatic than most of the DPP politicians but that might have something to do with her being a mayor rather than Congressman. I still don’t know much about her so that’s only an impression and not really an opinion.

Leave a Reply

301 Moved Permanently

Moved Permanently

The document has moved here.