Aug 27

In Glorious China We Trust?

Written by Allen on Thursday, August 27th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Filed under:-mini-posts, Analysis, General, politics | Tags:,
Add comments

We’ve had many discussions here on Chinese Nationalism. Last year, Chinese nationalism was stoked in the aftermath of the West’s response to the riots in Tibet and in the lead up to the Olympics. Many in the West chided China on a host of issues – from domestic human rights abuses to China’s policies in Africa. Many viewed with wary eyes the rise of Chinese nationalism, with some depicting Chinese nationalism as a force for instability in the world – some going as fars as comparing Chinese Nationalism to Hitler’s Naziism. Many painted the notion of Chinese Exceptionism (the vague idea that China occupies a special place in history and has a special role to play in the world) in dark, ominous terms.

My personal belief is of course very different. I believe Chinese nationalism is a force for good – not evil. I believe that the best chance for China to realize her utmost potential – a world in which every citizen, regardless of class, ethnicity, or religion, is liberated from poverty and ignorance, where all individual are empowered to lead meaningful and purposeful lives as members of a peaceful and prosperous society – is by uniting behind a strong nation.

My point here is not necessarily to argue one side or the other in this debate, but to point out that there is a healthy discussion within China on what it means to be nationalistic within China. What does China wants to be as it “grows up”? How will China view its rising strength and status?  What additional burdens and responsibilities – both domestically as well as abroad – should China take on as it becomes more developed? What role does China want to play in International Affairs as it becomes stronger?

Here is one voice (albeit still incomplete) in that discussion – translated courtesy of China News Wrap:

People’s Daily: “China cannot long for the revival of past imperial glory”

The People’s Daily website has a headline opinion piece warning against the perils of aspiring to restore China’s prior imperial glory in the future.

The opinion piece was originally published by “Global Times (”环球时报”).

“The current financial crisis has triggered heated discussion about how the global power structure will be reconstituted. Will the world political strucuture be reformulated? Will power shift from the old colonial nations to newly-emerging powers? Will rapidly-ascending nations like China regain immense influence over the world? All of these questions have triggered a new wave of ethnic nationalism, with hopes that China will find atonement for the century of shame, and that the dream of a thousand years will be realized. This is a longing for empire – the hope that China will again become the centre of the world, and that past imperial glory will be restored. The problem, however, lies in the fact that longing for China’s traditional imperium is accompanied by the ideological model of the power politics of Western international relations theory.”

“Interpreted from the perspective of realpolitik, the development of emerging countries is necessarily in conflict with the current system, triggering a shift and exchange in power, thus bringing an end to great nation politics. Seen from the perspective of international political cooperation, however, the development of emerging countries not only means a change and transfer in power relations, but also means that the international community will to a significant extent change the previous disparity between the North and the South, and make internatioal development more balanced, thus creating an overall development model which is of even greater benefit to the international community, causing the current order to become even more rational, without any replacement in relationships.”

“Additionally, humanity has entered the nuclear age, and attitudes towards warfare, and the concept of warfare in which there are clear victors and losers, has changed. There are no longer winners and losers in warfare, but only loss and destruction on both sides. The concept of pacificism is becoming more and more widespread amongst humanity. This is one of the reasons for overall stability in great nation politics following the two world wars of the 20th century. Additionally, it is now very unlikely that warfare will lead to major shifts or transfers in power.”

“For this reason, new perspectives are needed to deal with changes in the international community. Firstly, the relative nature of power is becoming more and more obvioius. For example, since the conclusion of the Cold War, the overall power of the United States has not declined, but the U.S. has encountered an increase in opposition towards it, and has had no choice but to deal with challenges from all sides. The U.S. uses its advantageous position to deal with these problems, but this leads to a dispersal of its power, and thus a relative weakening. In definite terms, the U.S. has not declined, but the power of other global forces has strengthened. The U.S. has not failed to develop, but the pace at which other countries are ascending is increasing.”

“Secondly, the international system is more stable than it was in the past, and the effect of changes in individual countries upon the international system has diminished. The ability of an individual country to change the international order has declined. Regardless of whether it’s the decline of the U.S. or the ascent of China, their significance is not comparable to similar events in the past. The United States accounted for 27% of global GDP in 1978 and 26.7% in 2008, a fall of only 0.3%. However, its ability to influence the world has declined considerably, Factors which serve to stabilize the international order cannot be overlooked. For example, the contraints of the system itself, the objective constraint of the nuclear balance of terror, the spread of Western social values, as well as the expansion of the internet, all exceed and constrain the spill-over effects of the rise or decline of a single nation.”

“Thirdly, a situation of complete balance and equality cannot bring about genuine stability. For example, the nuclear arms race brought a military balance, but this balance was never a stable one. Because of the profound effects of power politics, people always wish to use force as a means of constraining others, or employ a balance of power as a means of preserving stability. In reality, however, imbalances are not always without benefit, and although balances are sometimes of benefit to stability, they do not always bring benefit to development. In the future, global imbalance will not necessarily be a bad thing.”

“For this reason, we should not consider national ascendance to be a cause of excess elation, and cannot consider the decline of other nations to be the price for ensuring our own rise. In today’s world, there are perhaps some people who in theory accept the concept of a ‘common fate’, but in actuality attempt to flee from this idea. In truth, however, the fact remains that ‘when one wins, we all win, when one is harmed, we are all harmed’ is the reality that humanity confronts, as well as the reality that nations themselves confront.”

“Following the increase in the number of challenges which confront all of humanity, the limitations of individual nation-states are even more apparent. Solely relying upon cooperation between countries will also make it difficult to deal with these problems. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed upon the use of higher-level international organizations. Looking at human society overall, aside from national cohesiveness, it is global cohesiveness which will decide the future fate of humankind. A major measure for determining future trends and changes will be the cohesiveness of humankind, rather than the cohesiveness of individual nation-states alone. National cohesiveness alone will be far from adequate.”

“In future, China will make an even greater contribution to humanity, and will become a great nation with global influence. Yet it cannot tread upon the path of imperialist development again. In today’s world, China is still very backwards – it is not possible for a country which is in a state of nascent modernization to lead or influence post-industrial nation-states. China is far from being able to exert radical influence. Although China is definitely becoming a nation of global influence, its ability and methods for exerting global influence must also be distinct from the great powers of past history. China must create a new model of the great nation, and must engage in greater investigation into this area. There are some people who suffer from a ‘weak nation complex’, yet who in their bones are unable to abandon the idea of imperial ascendence. Humanity, however, has already entered the 21st century, and in actuality the objectives of development for great nations in the future will not be those of the United States, nor those of the China empire for the past several thousand years. They can only be those of a new model of great nation.”

Title of original news story in Chinese: “中国恢复昔日帝国荣光之思要不得”

Do you think a strong and prosperous China is good or bad for the world? If good – what in your view (ideally) should  a strong and prosperous China look like?

There are currently 1 comments highlighted: 46715.

189 Responses to “In Glorious China We Trust?”

  1. AndyR Says:

    “a world in which every citizen, regardless of class, ethnicity, or religion, is liberated from poverty and ignorance, where all individual are empowered to lead meaningful and purposeful lives as members of a peaceful and prosperous society”

    All well and good, but conspicuously absent is the right to self determination. If I read this right, to you “liberation” of the individual is led and DEFINED by the nation-state, not achieved by an individual according to his or her own wants and needs with the SUPPORT of the state. If that is the case, I strongly disagree with this vision…

    People who put too much faith in government or “the nation” are bound to be disappointed, so this whole idea of a “utopia” coming to fruition through the establishment of a “strong China” is a dangerous fantasy-one that unfortunately has been played out in the past in almost every country to disastrous consequences.

    What I’m seeing in China now is the proto-development of the same type of blind conceit and exceptionalism that plagues all “strong nations” (i.e. the US). There have been a few articles recently like the one above that seek to temper this sentiment with a “you’re mortal” sort of mantra being whispered to counter the sudden (and too early) praise for China’s economic recovery efforts. But to pick one article, and exaggerate it as a “healthy public debate” on nationalism is suspect.

    Further, I don’t understand how anyone in their right mind thinks “nationalism” in any form is a good thing. I guess if it’s your country, and your one of the people cheering on the State it feels pretty good. But these same people who laud Chinese nationalism would be the first to point the “angry” finger at the US when we on one of our nationalist streaks (i.e. post-911).

    The only good thing that could come from Chinese nationalism is if it successfully dislodges the historical conflation of party/state/country in China, with the result that this “nationalist” sentiment is re-directed toward the injustices of the current system, rather than wasted on pissing contests with “the West”.

  2. wuming Says:

    Viewing China from outside, I am continuously awed by its extreme dynamism. The moment we think we started to understand something about China, it already moved onto another phase in its relentless quest. The moment we think we have acquired terms to describe what we saw, they are already obsolete.

    The case and point is Global Times, if you read its English website with any regularity, you will be constantly shocked to find articles that, according to campaigners of all sorts, simply shouldn’t be able to see the light of day in China, let alone be published by a branch of People’s Daily. If you don’t believe me, just try to scan the headlines everyday for a week.

    Only thing that consistently depresses me about China is the lack of blue sky. Without exception those supposedly inspiring events (such as the construction of high speed rail network) all occur under the yellowish gray sky.

  3. Shane9219 Says:

    @AndyR #1

    >> “absent is the right to self determination”

    You may wish to know “the right to self determination” is NOT a fundamental right, but can only be decided under specific circumstance on case-by-case basis, otherwise the world will end up a bunch of small nations probably in thousands.

    The circumstance of Hawaii deserved a self-determination. But in 1959, voters there were NOT given such option. The huge influx of white and Japanese settlers then over-run the place as well as destroyed its original culture.

    “Hawaii plans quiet, sobering 50th anniversary”

    On the other hand, some in the West refuse to recognize the historical fact that Tibet region had been under China’s dynastic control for centuries. Moreover, Tibetan people NOW are prosperous while its original culture are also well preserved. Yet, they went out their way to push for so-called “self-determination” for Tibet.

    What a bunch of hypocrite and ideological animals !

  4. Wukailong Says:

    @Allen: Nice piece. I guess I should add that there were also counter forces in the West positive to the Olympic games and more understanding of China in general. I remember a case of a Swedish journalist very negative to China who changed his mind after about a week’s stay in the capital during the games, and I don’t think he’s an isolated case. Though of course this doesn’t change the general assessment that there was a very negative attitude from the US and Europe in general.

    I believe nationalism, or at least patriotism, can be a force either for good or evil. It’s a bit like self-interest – is it enlightened or destructive? I would say some of the nationalism I see here is definitely not healthy. The same sort of neo-conservatism and militarism some Americans espouse also have their representatives here, notably Wang Xiaodong with his idea of “doing business while holding the sword” (持劍經商).

    My answer to the question is that, yes, a strong and prosperous China is good for the world in many ways. Though as the quoted article states, I hope the model of a great nation will be one different from the US. I can understand China wants to study the US in all kinds of ways, but does it really want to behave in the same way when it comes to military matters?

    @AndyR: I too think there is, on the whole, a healthy debate on nationalism in China. The article above is not the only one, and the recent response to the book “Unhappy China” showed that public opinion now is more complex than back in 1996 when “China can say no” went to the shelves. It might have sold well, but I have yet to find one who takes it seriously and thinks it represents a viable alternative to official policy.

  5. Wukailong Says:

    @wuming: “Only thing that consistently depresses me about China is the lack of blue sky. Without exception those supposedly inspiring events (such as the construction of high speed rail network) all occur under the yellowish gray sky.”

    Not any more! 🙂 The sky is blue quite often in Beijing now, and it’s a change that became more and more obvious in 2008. Even back in 2006, I was worried about how much my life would be shortened by living in the smog and wanted to move back to Europe, but all that has changed. I still think it’s moderately unhealthy from time to time, but there has been a remarkable improvement. Of course the sky is still yellow in large parts of the country.

  6. hzzz Says:

    Western nation’s attitude towards China has always been contradictory. In the turn of the last century when Western nations were dividing up China via sphere of influence, the Western nations mocked Chinese culture as inferior and Chinese people as “loose sand” because they cannot be united towards a common cause. Now that Chinese all over the world are becoming more appreciative of their Chinese heritage as China’s status rises, Western nations now fear that Chinese people are becoming too united.

    Patriotism and nationalism are different sides of the same coin, with the former being more progressive and open to changes. Too many people in West are brainwashed into thinking that the average Chinese people are unhappy with the government and thus are quick to point to “nationalism” when they see Chinese people defend China. Looking at the progress which China has made in a mere two decades, the average standards of living, literacy rates, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc. it should not be difficult at all to see why so many Chinese people are both proud of they had accomplished and at the same time resist against Western nation’s suggestions as to what China should be.

    Personally I think the concept of Nationalists vs Patriots is a lot like conservative vs liberals. Nationalists are conservatives who are proud of their country but want to keep the way things are. Liberals are people who are proud of their country but want to change. If most of the people in a nation are seeing progress and approve of the direction the country is heading towards, then of course you will get more Nationalists. When China’s economy sours then you will see tons of Patriots criticizing the government.

  7. Shane9219 Says:

    @hzzz #6

    Excellent points. Two-thumb up!

    The western nation’s attitude towards China is partially due to their stereotypes, and partially due to their arrogance.

  8. barny chan Says:

    hzzz: “Now that Chinese all over the world are becoming more appreciative of their Chinese heritage as China’s status rises, Western nations now fear that Chinese people are becoming too united…”

    How are you defining “Chinese all over the world”? What’s the key to being Chinese? Race or culture? Or a combination of the two?

  9. Allen Says:

    @Wukailong #4,

    You wrote:

    I believe nationalism, or at least patriotism, can be a force either for good or evil. It’s a bit like self-interest – is it enlightened or destructive?

    Yes – that’s an interesting point. The reason I argue that nationalism can be a force for good is akin to the concept of divided we fall, united we stand. We know individual people’s standard of life is greatly correlated with what country you live in. If you live in a poor country, the odds are that you are going to have a poor quality of life. If you live in a strong country, the odds are that you are going to have a much more decent quality of life. Since people’s living conditions are so well correlated with the state of the nation they live, I vouch for ideologies that make the country strong.

    Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic. But it under girth my belief that nationalism – properly channeled for nation building – can be a force for good.

  10. Allen Says:

    @hzzz #6,

    You wrote:

    Looking at the progress which China has made in a mere two decades, the average standards of living, literacy rates, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc. it should not be difficult at all to see why so many Chinese people are both proud of they had accomplished and at the same time resist against Western nation’s suggestions as to what China should be.

    I don’t know if I love China only because it is prosperous or would love China less if became were to become less prosperous.

    I think I’ve always loved China, but circumstances do dictate how that’s expressed. When China was poor, we in Taiwan believed it was our duty to fight back and retake the Mainland. That was how we expressed our love for China.

    Of course, now things are different, patriot like me express our love for China differently. Instead of being anti CCP, we cheer on the CCP to do well. I think most Chinese nationalists have a loyalty to a China beyond just the CCP or KMT – but some bigger idea…

  11. FOARP Says:

    The creation of a strong, prosperous, peaceful, and free China is in everyone’s interests. This, however, will not be brought about by a nationalism which is opposed to freedom and antagonistic towards other countries, and which will waste China’s strength in conflict and hamstring prosperity through brainwashing and thought-control.

  12. Michael Says:

    Two things I don’t understand. What is this ‘century of shame’? It sounds like ethnic self pity, a common denominator in nationalistic regimes like Yugoslavia. India had more than two centuries as part of the British Raj but modern Indians don’t feel shame.

    Secondly, what exactly does China stand for? America, for all its faults offered the best and worst aspects of freedom, free enterprise and Hollywood. China has lost touch with its own traditional confucian culture and manners, so what does it offer a developing country like Algeria or Trinidad apart from soft loans and cheap labour to build sports stadiums? America opened its doors to millions of students (including many Chinese), many of whom who returned home with skills and a positive attitude to the US. Will a graduate degree from Wuhan have the same effect on students from Nepal or Norway?

    American at the height of its power assumed that everyone else in the world wanted to be part of the American Dream, whether it was Berlin, Santiago or Saigon. Russia flew the flag for the working man. Chinese nationalism is inward looking and based on self pity/self aggrandisement. How does it exert a greater influence on the non-Chinese of the world, other than “money talks”?

  13. pug_ster Says:

    FOARP Says: The creation of a strong, prosperous, peaceful, and free China is in everyone’s interests. This, however, will not be brought about by a nationalism which is opposed to freedom and antagonistic towards other countries, and which will waste China’s strength in conflict and hamstring prosperity through brainwashing and thought-control.

    What you said is orwellian in nature and doesn’t apply in the real world. If nationalists are opposed to freedom and antagonists in nature then why Western patriots are usually in some foreign country to ‘liberate’ others who don’t want to be liberated? In this article, I think Ron Paul says it best “The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions.” This in turn, has degenerated to a form of nationalism.


    Patriotism should have the ‘lead by example’ mentality and not ‘follow my lead.’ Yet many Western Countries are bad examples of patriotism and China’s respect of sovereignty of foreign countries does not have all the ‘follow my lead’ mentality.

  14. Shane9219 Says:

    @Michael #12

    Sorry for your half-baked argument 🙂 Your moral high horse had long fallen down to the death valley below, I wonder why you still wanted to play the role of Don Quixote.

    From one simple aspect, China stands for tolerance and peaceful co-existence, while US and West stand for dominance and exploitation with blood and war, arrogance and deceit with self-centered narrow interest.

    On one side, China nowadays may exhibit a degree of self-confidence and a brand of patriotism of her own (which root deeply in her culture and history). But people can not discount that there is always a warm, calm and rational thinking with long view and resolution on the other.

    Your short-slightness is similar to that of George Bush in 2000, when reporters interviewed him about US relation with China. His reply was “nothing”. Yet 8 years later, he had to send his treasure Sec to China, crying aloud for help.

    We can draw fruit of wisdom from our history long before you came up A-B-C.

  15. pug_ster Says:


    The ‘century of shame’ is considered part of history of China. It was when the Qing Dynasty gotten fat, lazy, and greedy and in turn caused such instability within China. Much like the cultural revolution is written off as something negative from China, I think people who learns Chinese history to not repeat the same mistakes as it has in the past.

    Second, China hasn’t lost touch with its Confucian culture as you did not explain why. Many Chinese students go to US for education for their own benefit, and not because US is a great country blah blah blah.

    When you say “American at the height of its power assumed that everyone else in the world wanted to be part of the American Dream,” sounds more like American Nationalism.

  16. Charles Liu Says:

    One man’s patriotism is another man’s nationalism, well said #6.

  17. Raj Says:

    It is somewhat unfortunate that in defending Chinese nationalism/patriotism, someone always seems to need to wag a finger at foreigners. hzzz, I don’t know if you see the irony in that your vague and overly generalised comment helps support the views of people that say Chinese nationalism is unhealthy. Most non-Chinese would want Chinese people to be happy.

    You talked about people fearing Chinese unity. Are you suggesting that citizens of other countries with Han ethnicity will become unified in a way that will affect their loyalty towards their own countries? Or that non-Chinese would believe that might happen? I don’t think that would happen. As for people enjoying having Chinese heritage, they’ve done that for as long as I can remember by continuing to speak Chinese dialects, reading Chinese literature, building/visiting Chinatowns, etc. It’s not a new thing. No one that I’ve met sees such interest in another culture as bad, and most think it’s great as they get to experience something that otherwise would be too far away for them to experience.

    I think that nationalism is rarely good – patriotism can be healthier, though can be taken to extremes too. When people criticise Chinese nationalism, they’re normally focusing on those individuals who, as FOARP suggested, denounce “foreign” concepts of human rights, freedom, etc, express their support for wars of aggression to resolve territorial disputes and the like. Chinese people celebrating good things about their country or wanting to better their society are at the least fine and at most should be supported. Chinese people wanting to deny rights to others because they’re “foreign” or “dangerous” ideas, because the people that would have them must “submit to the majority”, etc is hardly patrotic yet is a common attribute of the most aggressive form of Chinese nationalism.

  18. huaren Says:

    Hi Allen,

    Good article.

    I think the last few decades our world has been lead by the West. A lot of people bash the U.N., but it has been a tremendous organization to help stabilize this planet and for member nations to air their differences and come together to resolve problems.

    A rising China will bring out new ideas into world institutions to better the world. I agree with the opinion piece that the world will be less susceptible to the whims of any one powerful nation.

  19. huaren Says:

    I should also add – after the Cold War, the U.S. had a huge tendency towards unilateralism and tried its best to undermine the U.N.. That was very undemocratic, wasn’t it?

    So, for all hoping for a strong China, I hope they heed the call of this opinion piece:

    “China must create a new model of the great nation, and must engage in greater investigation into this area.”

  20. Jason Says:

    @Raj: When people criticise Chinese nationalism, they’re normally focusing on those individuals who, as FOARP suggested, denounce “foreign” concepts of human rights, freedom, etc, express their support for wars of aggression to resolve territorial disputes and the like.

    Do you know why this exists?

    This exists because of NED (National Endowment of Democracy).

    Ron Paul (R-TX) explains The National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad.

    Ron Paul also asked a great question: “How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China?”

    When Dalai Lama and many Tibetan organizations, Friends of Falun Gong, World Uyghur Congress, Hu Jia, Mothers of Tiananamen, many Chinese dissidents return the money that NED gave them and the halt of taxpayer’s money to NED, then will talk about the credibility of these people’s real intentions of making China the best there is.

    This is a violation of NED’s Democracy mantra. I always thought their mantra of human rights and Democracy is pathetic. I thought they believe in capitalism…what’s socialism doing there?

  21. Otto Kerner Says:


    China receives over a billion dollars in aid from the U.S. government each. Should the PRC also return these funds in order to prove its good intentions?

  22. Jason Says:

    @Otto Kerner

    Stop comparing apples and oranges.

    The one you are talking about is economically and I’m talking about political aid from other government.

  23. neutrino Says:

    @AndyR #1

    >> “absent is the right to self determination”

    Is the right of self-determination another form of nationalism?

    I find it simplistic to argue nationalism to be just evil or good. It obviously can be both, as shown by countless examples in history.

    In the case of Chinese nationalism, it has served a vital role in the rejuvenation of the country, culture, or economy wise. In the era of “Washington consensus” being obsolete, the Chinese model (and nationalism is an important part of it) can be duplicated in many other underdeveloped countries. And nationalism, by uniting the people and boosting the confidence of the nation, can be a constructive force. The numerous tribal wars, civil wars going on right now on the African continent are clear examples of how the lack of national identity can mire the nation in wars til eternity. My Indian roommate attribute the sense of “Indian identiy” to be the most significant and positive legacy of the British Empire colonization.

    Without a proper dose of nationalism, it is not inconceivable to see China disintegrate and become trapped in civil wars, resulting millions of deaths, and destablizing the whole world.

    The key, of course, is we only need a “PROPER” dose of nationalism. In the age of internet, such dose becomes increasing correlated to how the rest of the world views China. Ironically, those who view Chinese nationalism in mostly negative light would most likely increase the dose, and if they become the dominant voice, then they might just realize a very unpleasant self-fulfilling prophecy. It would also be true the other way around, the extremist in China, even if they are actually in the minority, might just provide more fuel to the critics since they are more willing to make loud noises.

    So, are we in a dilemma? I guess that’s where Fool’s Mountain comes into play: to provide, hopefully, balanced platform where people engage with each other, not shouting names. 🙂

  24. Otto Kerner Says:


    The current Chinese government’s popular is based largely on the country’s economic success. To provide economic aid is to cause a political effect.

  25. Jason Says:

    @Otto Kerner


  26. FOARP Says:

    Guys, this is typical of Fool’s mountain – I don’t think I said anything out of line or actually that controversial, yet my comment gets treated as though I had personally insulted someone.

    @Pugster –

    “If nationalists are opposed to freedom and antagonists in nature then why Western patriots are usually in some foreign country to ‘liberate’ others who don’t want to be liberated?”

    Non-sequitur at all? It seems you are trying to say that Chinese nationalists are not aggressive because their western counter-parts are? If you look at the evidence, you will see that nationalists and ultra-nationalists of all nationalities are aggressive towards other countries – what you say proves my point, not yours.

    @Shane –

    “China stands for tolerance and peaceful co-existence”

    The evidence for this is totally lacking. If you wish to frame your world view so as to ignore and discount all the good that the west does, and all the bad that China does, then you will arrive at the conclusion that the west is bad and that China is good – but by doing so you will have proved nothing.

    @Charles Liu – Most people are patriotic, few are nationalists. To be a nationalist, you have – in the words of Wang Xiaodong – “to make yourself and your country one and the same”.

    I might also ask whether you would call someone who approvingly posts comments labelling the people who drafted Charter 08 ‘traitors’ and calling for their execution a nationalist?

    Whenever this subject comes up I always return to George Orwell’s essay on the topic. It’s a good one, it describes nationalism as a force which can be adopted by even those outside the country in question, those were neither born nor raised in that country – in fact it is easier for them as they are not confronted day-in day-out with evidence contradicting their slavish devotion to what they see as that country’s cause.

    @Allen –

    “When China was poor, we in Taiwan believed it was our duty to fight back and retake the Mainland.

    Or, rather, the incredibly small minority of us who were naive enough to believe this possible did. With the removal of the KMT dictatorship, empty talk of ‘counter-attacking the mainland’ dissolved like the morning mist. The majority of Taiwanese believe that Taiwan’s armed forces exist to defend the island against communist dictatorship, and they are not wrong.

    @neutrino –

    “that’s where Fool’s Mountain comes into play: to provide, hopefully, balanced platform where people engage with each other, not shouting names.”

    This is why Fool’s Mountain was set up, but I’m afraid that it is no longer capable of doing this. Read down this thread for an example of what it has become.

  27. Otto Kerner Says:

    By providing money to the state authorities in China, the U.S. government enhances their political position.

  28. Jason Says:


    Isn’t China giving US money not the other way around so US can avoid inflation to their stimulus recovery act?

    As far as China exports…China receives less money for cheap products as US manufacturers gets more.

  29. Otto Kerner Says:

    Well, I never said that the relationship isn’t mutually beneficial. My point is that everybody takes money when it’s offered.

  30. pug_ster Says:


    Non-sequitur at all? It seems you are trying to say that Chinese nationalists are not aggressive because their western counter-parts are? If you look at the evidence, you will see that nationalists and ultra-nationalists of all nationalities are aggressive towards other countries – what you say proves my point, not yours.

    What evidence?

    The founding fathers of the US says that war should be the last resort. All the wars that China was involved for the past 60 years was border related like Korea, India, Vietnam and such. What kind of wars that the UK and the US are involved in? Don’t tell me that Iraq and Afghanistan are their neighbors.

    I don’t think I said anything out of line or actually that controversial, yet my comment gets treated as though I had personally insulted someone.

    What you said is nonsense from the Western Propaganda playbook. If you are going to make some kind of blanket statement, please back up what you say. And no, I’m not insulted at what you said.

  31. Jason Says:

    I don’t understand your point here. You say two country’s economic relationship is similar to one country’s government at expense of taxpayer’s money given to a NGO or an individual residing in another country who is deemed friendly.

    How so?

  32. qwerty Says:

    “is liberated from poverty and ignorance” to be liberated from ignorance, Chinese will need to learn how to climb the wall… the great fire wall of china of course…

  33. qwerty Says:

    Communist ideology was a way keep china united. now that communist ideology is dead (only remain communist state control), thus Chinese gov use nationalism to try to keep people under control.. under the leadership of the party… thus Chinese gov usually put the hate into Japan, or USA, then sometime to france/netherland or else, and often to the bad people who just want to cut chinese in piece… the people who care about the view of the minorities….

  34. FOARP Says:

    @Pugster – Try again. ‘The evidence’ is your statement that nationalists in the west favour aggression – as far as I can see this is as true for China also.

    Look at statements made by nationalists on this very website – People hoping for the return of Mongolia, advocating military action against Taiwan, proposing the splitting up of India, accusing all human rights activists in China of being western stooges, pushing conspiracy theories, advocating the assassination of the Dalai Lama etc. etc.

  35. pug_ster Says:

    #34 FOARP,

    Look at statements made by nationalists on this very website – People hoping for the return of Mongolia, advocating military action against Taiwan, proposing the splitting up of India, accusing all human rights activists in China of being western stooges, pushing conspiracy theories, advocating the assassination of the Dalai Lama etc. etc.

    You seem think that all those ‘nationalists’ have a one track mind thinking all that stuff, do you? Now somewhere in this blog if you can find most of these ‘nationalists’ quoting up what you said above, maybe I would believe it, otherwise, what you said is just a blatant lie.

  36. Charles Liu Says:

    Foarp @ 34 “accusing all human rights activists in China of being western stooges”

    I only need one example to prove your “all” wrong – not all human rights activists mentioned in FM were accused of being western stooge.

    So what else are you wrong?

  37. Allen Says:

    Hmmm … a lot of people here seem to equate Chinese Nationalism with Anti-Westernism. Are you against China simply because it could be anti-Western at times? Because China has an independent political agenda which may require the West to accommodate sometimes? Or because you truly think that China is a force for destabilization for the world – and that the West is a force for stability and prosperity for the world?

  38. hzzz Says:

    Raj, I am not show how you can write “Most non-Chinese would want Chinese people to be happy.”, and then go on to say that I over-generalize. I happen to believe personally that most non-Chinese care about the Chinese people about as much as they care about those living in the lower ranks of the caste system in India as explored by Slumdog Millionaire, which isn’t much beyond lip service. But that’s beyond the point.

    “When people criticise Chinese nationalism, they’re normally focusing on those individuals who, as FOARP suggested, denounce “foreign” concepts of human rights, freedom, etc, express their support for wars of aggression to resolve territorial disputes and the like. Chinese people celebrating good things about their country or wanting to better their society are at the least fine and at most should be supported.”

    I don’t like the term “nationalist” because I think the term itself is a generalization, and is a label used mostly by the ever patronizing Western media towards mostly Asian nations. For one, I really don’t see how are the Chinese “nationalists” any worse than your average xenophobic, war mongering, ACLU hating conservatives in western nations, or the Zionists in Israel, or the militant Hindus in India who regularly kills Muslims and Christians (Raj should be familiar with this one). Compared with other groups, I would say that the Chinese “nationalists” are far more moderated. So why doesn’t the Western media apply the term “nationalist” to other entities?

    Also, the Chinese “nationalists” are hardly one dimensional, and just because they are hawkish on certain foreign policies does not mean they are not progressive on domestic issues. A perfect example of this was the hacker who hacked the Australian movie awards page last month because he thought the event politicized the Uighur movement. When some British paper (Independent or Guardian?) tracked him down and interviewed him he stated that he was against censorship and was afraid the government would go after him for what he did. Now, I would say most non-Chinese would label this guy as a “nationalist” but is he really anti-progress? Given his thoughts on freedom of speech and censorship he is likely to be a lot more progressive than the average citizen. I also think that most of the internet “nationalists” are in fact for freedom of speech, if not for their views on foreign policy western media would surely label them Patriots. To the Western audience however, Chinese nationalists are reserved specifically for those who are against Tibet/Xinjiang independence. This IMO is pure ignorance.

    And this leads up to my last point: the controversies regarding the Chinese territory. This is one single issue which tend to not only rile the domestic Chinese but also the sizable overseas Chinese community. When I wrote about fear of a unified Chinese people, this is what the Western communities fear the most. During the anti-China protests during the Olympics, the Western media is mystified and angered that so many people of Chinese descent, who are born and educated in the Western worlds free of Chinese propaganda, stand up against the breaking up of China. I am mystified that the Western media is mystified. After all, given Western powers’ history of trying to divide up China not that long ago and the consequences it’s only logical that the Chinese are resistant from especially foreign powers trying to force China to behave in a certain way. I find it ironic that while Western nations pride themselves in the concept of “melting pot”, the Western media thinks that segregation is the best way to go for Chinese minorities and that it would be the best to completely kick out one ethnicity in China in order to preserve another.

    One poster here wrote something about victim mentality, that maybe so for many Chinese people but rightfully so. Jews use the Holocaust whenever the issue of Palestine is brought up and IMO rightfully so as well.

  39. hzzz Says:

    “The creation of a strong, prosperous, peaceful, and free China is in everyone’s interests. This, however, will not be brought about by a nationalism which is opposed to freedom and antagonistic towards other countries, and which will waste China’s strength in conflict and hamstring prosperity through brainwashing and thought-control.”

    Hmm no. The first sentence is make belief ideology aimed to fool the naive. While I do believe in synergies, cooperation between nations and all that there are always conflict of interests. To the Chinese people, to have a strong China means for China to develop its military to defend its borders so its people can be protected. To be prosperous for the Chinese people is to continue manipulating its currencies so to keep up with the exports. To be peaceful at a foreign policy level means to avoid conflicts in national interests, which itself is impossible to avoid sometimes between even the closest allies. Are you sure that is what is best for China is what “everyone” wants? And lastly freedom, that’s funny because as a self-proclaimed Brit economist , do you know what England’s reasons were to justify pushing Opium into China during the 1800s? The Brits argued that Qing Dynasty’s banning of Opium was violating Chinese people’s freedom and that it was hindering China’s economic progress towards capitalism and free trade. After losing the Opium Wars, with Treaty of Nanking China granted England 5 additional trading ports, made England “most favored nation” in trade (England was to have any and all type of favorable treatments granted to any other nation), and made a rule where Chinese authorities do not have the right to arrest any Brits who have committed crimes on Chinese soil (kinda like what the US/Brits are doing in Iraq). In a matter of years the Opium trade doubled and China fell into further decline.

    “This, however, will not be brought about by a nationalism which is opposed to freedom and antagonistic towards other countries, and which will waste China’s strength in conflict and hamstring prosperity through brainwashing and thought-control.”

    If foreign nations’ interests in China conflict with those of Chinese living in China, just why shouldn’t the Chinese stand up for themselves? You don’t even need be brainwashed to conclude that Tibet/Xinjiang independence is bad for the Chinese people because the minute that happens you will have foreign military bases built in these regions with no other reason than to threaten China with an invasion. Although that is exactly what so many people in the west wants, just why should any sane Chinese person agree to that? You can call them Nationalists, right wingers, war mongers, or whatever you want but the reality is that when it comes to China, Chinese people knows a lot more about what’s good for them than non-Chinese know about what they think is good for China.

  40. hzzz Says:

    “Hmmm … a lot of people here seem to equate Chinese Nationalism with Anti-Westernism. ”

    Absolutely true. And the odd thing is that given all of this “anti-westernism”, “anti-japanese”, anti-whatever attitudes which so many Chinese people are accused to be, why is that so many of them also wear westernized cloths, give themselves westernized names, dream of driving foreign cars, listen to foreign music, marrying foreign people, watch foreign dramas/movies, etc. Compared to many countries which are said to be “pro-Western”, Chinese people are actually extremely pro-Western by all means.

    Another observation: Why is it that you always get the non-Chinese, European/American Caucasians types who have lived in the expat bubble in China for a few years who are trying to tell native Chinese people what is the best for them? Can you imaging some Chinese folks come to the US and scream at us Americans about how badly blacks and other minorities are being treated here, and suggest that blacks/muslims should be given their own land and country within the US. Not only that, but they then spend millions of dollars supporting groups like the Black Panthers in order liberate the blacks from the US government. That would not only be completely absurd but also insulting.

  41. FOARP Says:

    @Pugster – People on this blog have said all of these things. This blog is now an assertively Chinese nationalist blog, although it did not start out that way. Since these are the opinions that nationalists hold, how are we to judge them?

    @Charles Liu – Since you have previously approvingly re-posted comments calling for the execution of Liu Xiaobo and describing Charter 08 as a ‘plot to kill the ordinary people of China’, perhaps you might try being a bit more circumspect? Once again, having done this, how do you think it makes you look? How does it make other Chinese nationalists look? Oh, and please spare me any talk of not being a Chinese citizen, citizenship is not a requirement of nationalism.

    @Hzz – Since people who have never even been to the west do this on Chinese websites all the time I do not understand your point.

  42. barny chan Says:

    Fool’s Mountain needs to decide whether it seeks to amount to more than a celebration of Chinese ultra-nationalism.

    If it would like to be more than that, the administrators need to make this a slightly less hostile place to those whose views amount to slightly more than: China good, West bad; it also needs to drop absurdly loaded discussion titles like “Why is Western democracy fundamentally wrong?”. In the real world, many of the harshest critics of the regime in China are also deeply and vocally hostile to the recent aggressive imperialist adventures of the USA and the UK, while some of the biggest admirers of China’s state capitalist explosion are the very same neocons who cheered on the invasion of Iraq. Why not acknowledge this complexity?

  43. Wukailong Says:

    @barny chan: I dislike ultranationalism too (and claims that it doesn’t exist), but to be fair, this blog is a collaborative effort. Nothing stops you and others from publishing your own entries here, or responding when people make absurd claims.

    I tend not to bother too much with the “China good, West bad” crowd, but focus on people with whom I might have a decent discussion. Maybe that’s too conflict-avoiding, but it feels better for me at least. 😉

  44. barny chan Says:

    Wukailong, theoretically, nothing stops me responding to absurd claims on an Aryan Nations forum, but the deluge of simplistic and illogical hostility would make it a grim and pointless task. The response here to any criticism of the CCP is a tsunami of accusations along the lines of “How can you attack China while cheering on the West” when you’ve done no such thing. There are a number of the most prolific posters here whose motivation is to stifle rather than open debate.

  45. Raj Says:

    Allen (37)

    Hmmm … a lot of people here seem to equate Chinese Nationalism with Anti-Westernism. Are you against China simply because it could be anti-Western at times?

    Allen, that’s bad form. You’re accusing people here of being anti-Chinese, the usual tactic of rabid Chinese nationalists, without identifying them so that they can defend themselves.

    Xenophobia is one element of Chinese nationalism, but that’s nothing new for nationalism generally. But why does criticising Chinese nationalism make you “against China”? That seems a very authoritarian attitude – “you’re with me or against me”. I would argue that a fair number of Chinese nationalists are “against China” because their positions are not in the country’s best interests.

  46. Raj Says:

    Wukailong, barny and FOARP are right. This blog is not just pro-China, but highly Chinese nationalist and arguably pro-CCP. I am the token “other view”, and I know this because of an e-mail that was sent to me by accident from another contributor here.

    That doesn’t mean that the blog owner doesn’t want any other views, but that’s how it currently stands. Because of that it makes it harder for people like barny to put their views across. If you look at the nonsense article from wahaha that huaren posted on the front page, it gives you an idea of how skewed things are. I can’t promote letters myself, by the way. The “very pro-China” contributors, if you like, have also introduced similarly-minded people to contribute and become admins.

    So barny is right in many ways. It’s not enough to say “contribute if you like” because a lot of people will be turned off by the prevailing attitude, especially the disruptive commenting from various people that target anyone who doesn’t toe the super-pro-China line and divert/sabotage the conversation. The conduct rules should prohibit that, but the admins don’t really bother to enforce it. Indeed I’ve been criticised for doing so on my own threads.

    If the blog really wants to have a diversity of views, it will seek a number of people who think differently and encourage them to contribute. Otherwise it’s always up to someone like me to swim against the tide in the hope others will be encouraged to join.

    Of course I suggest that FOARP, barny and other people e-mail the admin to volunteer to become regular contributors. If we end up with a balanced “profile” of people who write blog entries then we will have a more interesting range of ideas put forward.

  47. barny chan Says:

    [Comment deleted for including personal slander against Allen]

  48. Raj Says:

    barny, I agree, I’m starting to see FM that way. I hope something changes my view, but I’m not banking on it.

  49. BMY Says:

    Is there any difference between one accuse the other as “anti-China” and the other accuse this one as “ultra nationalist” simply because different views?

  50. hzzz Says:

    “Wukailong, barny and FOARP are right. This blog is not just pro-China, but highly Chinese nationalist and arguably pro-CCP. I am the token “other view”, and I know this because of an e-mail that was sent to me by accident from another contributor here.”

    Sheesh, I guess I am one of the elements making this blog “highly Chinese nationalist and arguably pro-CCP”. Don’t forget that there are alot more of us Chinese (citizens or heritage) out in the world than any other group so don’t let the numbers get you down. Cheer up and realize that this is a good place to argue ideas. If everyone here thinks like I do why would I even bother to post.

  51. oiasunset Says:

    Laughable. FORAP recently on his blog named and accused Peking Duck’s Richard being a “stooge” of the Chinese government.

    Is this how he and his friends really think about “diverse opinion”?

    You liberals never cease to amaze me, truly!

  52. Raj Says:


    Is there any difference between one accuse the other as “anti-China” and the other accuse this one as “ultra nationalist” simply because different views?

    You’re missing the point. It isn’t that people hold “bad views”, it’s that the blog is skewed one way. That isn’t rocket-science – I’m suprised you don’t get that.


    Cheer up and realize that this is a good place to argue ideas.

    There are sometimes interesting discussions (arguments should not be the default setting, as they’re more controversial) here, but too often one is bombarded with nonsense “you hate China” or “the NED is sponsoring person x – he is evil” posts. It disrupts the conversation and is very boring.

    On the other hand when people like Allen get critical comments they’re more frequently intelligent and provide something worth replying to. On the other hand you can’t do a lot with “CIA is sponsoring unrest in China – everyone would be happy if stinky foreigners kept their noses out of our business”.

  53. oiasunset Says:


    Anti-China is fine and ultra nationalist is also fine, as long as they are opinions not some fabricated or distorted stories (or if their stories are so obviously absurd to anyone with a brain, that should be fine too)

    But what your friend FORAP did was, right before Peking Duck’s Richard was heading back to the US and in need of a job, posting out Richard’s real name and accusing him a stooge of the Chinese tyranny.

    I myself don’t like Richard’s liberal do-gooder, feel-gooder non-sense and I don’t like him deleting almost all my posts on his blog. But what your friend FORAP did to him was simply disgusting.

    Now it seems that he wants to do the same to Fool’s mountain. Are you with him?

  54. Raj Says:


    Anti-China is fine and ultra nationalist is also fine, as long as they are opinions not some fabricated or distorted stories.

    See my above message to hzzz. Whether it’s distortion, fabrication or something else, there’s plenty of disruption.

    But what your friend FORAP did was…..
    Now it seems that he wants to do the same to Fool’s mountain. Are you with him?

    Please don’t push a “you’re with him/me or against him/me” position. He is neither my friend nor my enemy.

    right before Peking Duck’s Richard was heading back to the US and in need of a job, posted out Richard’s real name

    Richard’s real name has been in the public domain ever since Mark Anthony Jones published it on the Chinadaily BBS. MAJ also refused to delete those details when asked by richard.

    As for any criticism FOARP makes of richard, really that’s between the two of them. I can’t find the comment in question, but I wouldn’t agree that richard is a stooge of Chinese tyranny.

  55. oiasunset Says:

    Too bad for Richard… he didn’t know there are people like FORAP on earth.

  56. Raj Says:


    To my knowledge FOARP has never exposed someone’s real identity on the internet when it was previously hidden. MAJ certainly has. So unless you have further information about another incident, you can’t compare the two of them in that respect.

  57. oiasunset Says:

    Oh really? Accusing someone with an exposed identity as a stooge of a foreign government?

    How about someone doing the same to you someday?

  58. oiasunset Says:


    On this matter FORAP is undefendable – you should know that. It is sick, period.

    Out of respect for your intellegence and integrity, I don’t want to keep explaining to you why it is sick.


  59. Raj Says:

    Accusing someone with an exposed identity as a stooge of a foreign government?

    Eh, so what? Richard has been accused of being a lot of things since he’s had a blog. He might not like it, but if that’s the case I doubt being called a “liberal do-gooder, feel-gooder” is something he’d enjoy either.

    If you’re implying FOARP’s comment would affect him in the real world, I can’t see how it would unless he’s travelled to the Soviety Union 60 years ago by accident.

    On this matter FORAP is undefendable – you should know that. It is sick, period.

    I’m not defending him – he shouldn’t have made a comment like that if he did. But I find it amusing that someone like yourself that has shown vitriol towards richard would get on his high-horse about a comment another person made.

  60. oiasunset Says:

    Sigh … are you for real? Or just pretending innocent or naive?


  61. Raj Says:

    oia, I could ask the same about you. Richard said on a comment on the very thread you complained on that his name was already in the public domain. Yet you still complained here that FOARP had mentioned his real name.

    Also I have now found FOARP’s comment. He asks a question – “are Western journalists working for oppressive regimes ‘stooges’?” At no time does he call richard a stooge. What he does say about richard is:

    However, there are those who seem to genuinely believe that they can make a difference through working for what are little better than government mouthpieces. [Richard], long-time China-blogger and, until recently, foreign editor and columnist for the Chinese state-owned Global Times said in a recent interview that…..

    All he says subsequently that the taint of working for state media can be hard to get rid of. That is a valid argument to make, even if you don’t agree with it.

    So it is highly, highly ironic that in post # 53 you condemn fabrication and distortion, because that’s exactly what you’ve done towards FOARP. It is you who are sick.

  62. Jason Says:


    Uh…the quote your provided PROVES that FOARP is accusing Richard of a ‘stooge.’

  63. Raj Says:


    Uh, no it DOESN’T. The only time the word “stooge” appears is in the question at the start of the blog entry – a question that was being asked in the general media.

    How does FOARP accuse richard of being a stooge in that quotation? By saying that he thinks he can make a difference through working for what is little more than a government mouthpiece? That’s hardly accusing him of being a stooge.

  64. Jason Says:

    FOARP used Richard as an example of government mouthpieces AKA ‘stooge’

  65. barny chan Says:

    Regarding the deletion of #47, I’m mighty curious as to why the explanation reads “Comment deleted for including personal slander against Allen”. For a statement to be slanderous it has to be incorrect, and, not only was there no slander in the post, there was nothing whatsoever that contravenes the code of conduct. Ironically, the statement “Comment deleted for including personal slander against Allen” is slanderous in itself.

    Good luck Raj if you intend to continue here, but I’m not wasting another moment of my time engaging people who seek nothing more than racial divide.

  66. Allen Says:

    @barny chan #65,

    Raj is welcomed here because he is civil, courteous, and does not make personal attacks by distorting facts – even if he and I may disagree on almost everything on planet earth besides the vision that the sky should be blue, and forests should be green.

    Best of luck to you where you decide to go…

  67. Otto Kerner Says:

    In general, on the subject of Chinese nationalism and whether a strong, prosperous China will be good for the world as a whole, I think it will be entirely dependent on external circumstances in the world. A prosperous China by itself is good for the world, but it’s natural for a prosperous country to want to be strong and influential, and then the question is what a strong China does with its strength. This will depend largely on the situation it finds itself in. It’s like asking, is a strong and prosperous Germany or Japan good for the world? Right now, I would say, yes. Seventy years ago, not so much. The effects of sentiments of patriotism and nationalism will be largely dependent on the practical expediencies presented to Chinese policy makers, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned.

  68. Otto Kerner Says:


    “Why is it that you always get the non-Chinese, European/American Caucasians types who have lived in the expat bubble in China for a few years who are trying to tell native Chinese people what is the best for them?”

    I agree that it’s asinine for foreign observers to try to tell you what’s good for you. When I start talking about Tibet, my goal is to advocate on behalf of Tibetans, not to tell you about your interests.

  69. Otto Kerner Says:

    @hzz #38,

    “When I wrote about fear of a unified Chinese people, this is what the Western communities fear the most. During the anti-China protests during the Olympics, the Western media is mystified and angered that so many people of Chinese descent, who are born and educated in the Western worlds free of Chinese propaganda, stand up against the breaking up of China. I am mystified that the Western media is mystified.”

    If you were talking about Chinese people in China being nationalistic and united, then I would agree with you. Anyone who is surprised by that is just being silly. But here you’re specifically talking about people of Chinese descent in Western countries. I would indeed be surprised if most Chinese Americans care that much about Chinese nationalism. It even seems a bit offensive to suggest it. Moreover, if by “unified Chinese people” you mean to include people of Chinese descent outside of China, then it seems very natural and reasonable for Western communities to be uncomfortable with that.

  70. FOARP Says:

    @oiasunset – Absolutely pathetic. I said nothing of the kind about Richard, and the fact that this thread has become a discussion centred on a weird distortion of something I wrote last month rather than, I don’t know, anything to do with the original post, just shows how this blog is being annihilated by conspiracy theorists and thread-jackers.

    Speaking of scary nationalists peddling conspiracy theories:


  71. shane9219 Says:


    >>> “China stands for tolerance and peaceful co-existence”

    >> The evidence for this is totally lacking.

    I couldn’t image how you made up such blinding statement. Everything China did in the past 30-year is a living proof of the true meaning of being an independent sovereign and peaceful large nation.

    On the contrariy, you may count how may fereign invasions US got involved. How many times India engaged armed conflicts with Pakistan.

    >> If you wish to frame your world view so as to ignore and discount all the good that the west does, and all the bad that China does, then you will arrive at the conclusion that the west is bad and that China is good – but by doing so you will have proved nothing.

    For a few China haters here, you guys have long overshot your own ignorance. You have conciencly reached your conclusion long ago that everything China is evil. There is really no need to prove anything to you anyway, since it is your day job to throw dirty at China.

    However, you are now facing your own worst nightmare since China is getting stronger and more prosperous everyday.

  72. BMY Says:

    @Raj #52

    My #49 was just trying to remind people not to name calling each other when this thread was heading to right then.

  73. Wukailong Says:

    @Raj (#46): Honestly, I really don’t like the way this thread has turned out and it seems it’s impossible to discuss Chinese nationalism/patriotism in a civil way unless everyone is like-minded or willing to listen to the views of others. The reason I’m not giving up yet is that:

    * I’ve been able to have good discussions with many of the “rabid” nationalists here, including Wahaha
    * Discussions aren’t necessarily just to exchange criticism, but also to build trust and have others understand your viewpoint, at least to a point

    Actually, there are two things here: the posts and the comments. If posting is indeed skewed I do think it’s possible to change it by having more people of your own kind contribute. Comments are a different thing. There was a time, quite recently, when a certain somebody really did litter the comment section with cynical nonsense that was always of the same “tu quoque” type. Luckily, he’s gone now.

    I really don’t think there is any better way to change things than to persevere if you’re in for something where you believe the odds are heavily tilted against you. If you stop commenting because others are not serious, or all arguments end in the same way, then that’s too bad. I’d rather see that you publish more articles/letters here, like the one you did on democracy (I really liked that).

    One thing we shouldn’t forget is that most people here, even though they don’t agree with you, are not trolls. That means that they seriously believe in their arguments, including things like pointing fingers at the US, seeing the West as united against China etc. If you think those arguments are wrong, then argue against their fundaments.

    Admittedly, I sometimes get tired too. There are times when the nationalist winds are blowing heavily, though I don’t think this is one of the worst periods.

  74. pug_ster Says:

    @Raj, FOARP, Barny Chan

    I think the thing you have to understand is that there are people out there who don’t believe what you believe and trying to convince them is just like bashing your head into the wall. Calling other people ‘brainwashed’ and ‘trolls’ is just childish. Just remember that people have different beliefs than you so maybe you will rest easier by not throwing a tantrum.

    Regurgitating propaganda from the Western Media won’t fly here. We don’t throw around Chinese propaganda slogans and we appreciate if you do the same.

  75. miaka9383 Says:

    I think you are being a little bit unfair. Forgive me, but I can’t help but to chime in. Specifically YOU don’t throw around Chinese propaganda slogans here, but there are plenty of others that come on this site that does. Also it is fair to say both Western Media and Chinese media spews their own forms of propaganda and the truth is in between.
    The impression that I am getting more and more from FM is that people who does not agree with Chinese policies and argue against it are out to set Chinese Government up for failure. More and More I see this evil West vs Good China argument or even vice versa. This is what this thread has degenerated into. Frankly, it is sad that bunch of intelligent adults cannot carry on a civilize political discussion on both sides.
    Back to topic…
    Here is a question for all of you…
    Don’t you think it is possible to be patriotic but not overly nationalistic all at the same time? I think so, but I believe it needs to be created with proper education.
    On the internet, Chinese Netizens appear to be overly nationalistic, only because they don’t know how to accept other opinions that is different from theirs. They were taught to think in black and white and never taught how to think from a different point of view. Creating a nation full of people like that can be dangerous. A good example is WWII Japan, full of overly nationalistic young Japanese believed in their government and believed that they could be a world power. A famous Japanese Author Saburo Ienaga wrote many books that warned against these types of nationalism. A blind faith in your government and believe that the version of Japanese history created by post wwii Japanese government is correct and denying any wrongful act from the Japanese part is not the correct way to go. (now I am getting this from reading the Pacific War)Believe it or not, Saburo Ienaga’s books were banned. Same thing happened with post 9/11 United States a burst of nationalism that alienated every Muslim American. I think Chinese government should look at past history of the world and learn from it. Not repeating the same mistakes as other countries had. Instead of justifying their actions using past history, they should learn from it and create a different route for themselves. Either it is with governmental structure or just beliefs like nationalism.

  76. pug_ster Says:


    Specifically YOU don’t throw around Chinese propaganda slogans here

    So where do I throw around Chinese propaganda slogans?

    Edit: Yes, that there is Chinese Nationalism, like American nationalism (disguised as patriotism) out there. American Media as well Chinese media does fuel that kind of nationalism/patriotism. But I think that the Chinese government does try to stop it when it gets out of hand. IE, in the olympic protest last year, when there was a growing resentment towards carrefour, the chinese government tries desparately to quell that resentment. Look at here in the US, when there was growing resentment towards Muslim in post 9/11 world, governments in the US and UK did little toward to distinguish mainstream islam and islam fundamentalists.

  77. miaka9383 Says:

    I said specifically YOU don’t throw around chinese propaganda. IT WAS AN EMPHASIS JUST LIKE THIS ONE.

  78. Jason Says:

    @ miaka9383

    evil West vs Good China argument is false notion and false accusation of Chinese nationalism.

    The real argument I believe that Chinese nationalist are making is that the Western “main stream media” rarely reports their own problems like breaking human rights and civil rights, using eupheuism like “harsh interrogation techniques” to torment to describe “torture” but when it comes to China, they always use “torture.”

  79. Steve Says:

    I’d like to address the original topic…

    Firstly, I’d prefer not using the world “nationalistic” because it doesn’t have a clear meaning. For the sake of discussion, I’ll use the words “patriotic”, “ultra-nationalistic” and “xenophobic”. I’ve heard versions of all three discussed here. The definitions are my own and not from a dictionary; I’m using them in this way to clarify different positions.

    Patriotism is love of one’s country. I’ve never met a Chinese person living in China who wasn’t patriotic, though I have only met Han Chinese when living over there. I simply don’t know how patriotic Tibetans, Uighurs or other minorities are. I see nothing wrong with patriotism and feel it is a GOOD thing and not a bad thing. I would expect Chinese to be patriotic as I know I am concerning my own country. I love my country and all the Chinese citizens I know also love theirs.

    Ultra-nationalism is the position that one’s government is always correct. It goes far beyond loving one’s country. For instance, when the Bush administration asked “Are you with us or against us?” they were promoting ultra-nationalism. When a writer can find no fault with the CCP, they are ultra-nationalistic. When someone condemns someone else for disagreeing with a government position, that is ultra-nationalism. Ultra-nationalist positions are such that they cannot be discussed with someone with an opposing viewpoint.

    Xenophobic behavior is an unreasonable hatred of all things foreign or strange. This can manifest itself in blaming foreigners for all internal problems. Extreme xenophobia is the hatred not only of foreigners and strangers, but also the hatred of expat countrymen who have been “contaminated” with foreign ideas. At one time, the Japanese were so xenophobic that if you had studied or worked in another country, people in Japan would avoid you as being “contaminated” with foreign influences, though you were as Japanese as they were. Xenophobia is irrational and paranoid.

    A future strong and prosperous China should be good for the world but could be bad, depending on how China handles it. A truly strong and prosperous China should have their trade in balance rather than running large surpluses, should be at peace with its neighbors and should have a series of alliances with other developed nations. Currently, China is still outside the system, relatively speaking, though it is far more engaged than before. If China continues to move into the international system rather than go it alone, peace and prosperity should reign through much of the world. The key aspect of international relations would be a strong alliance between the USA and China where they have no need to point missiles at each other or engage in militaristic rhetoric. A strong and prosperous China would be able to handle differing opinions on how government should be run, would have an independent judiciary and some sort of checks and balances (not necessarily the same as western democracies as long as they are effective) and a relatively egalitarian society with its own unique Chinese features.

  80. Steve Says:

    @ pug_ster #76: Miaka was complimenting you, not insulting you. Please accept it graciously. 😛

  81. Shane9219 Says:

    @Steve #79

    Nice try. Did you realize your efforts of trying to play a fair hand really sounded hollow here after reading your last post.

    >> “A truly strong and prosperous China should have their trade in balance rather than running large surpluses”

    Export-oriented economy was invented by Japan and Germany. Just wonder why people did not make it as a huge issue as it is now towards China. Historically, the West has been quick to complain and take action when they were/are on the losing side of trade craft. People with knowledge of history understood how opium war was started by GB and France.

  82. Shane9219 Says:

    Does the West nations have a strong propaganda program? Of course, they do. They just do it in a more subtle and skillful way, and often with their money and economy prowess.

    History and current world affair would silent those who are quick to jump up, crying foul about perceived Chinese nationalism. Actually, a perceived “strong nationalistic sentiment”, if existed, is West’s own making due to their isolation and containment policy on China in the past.

  83. Steve Says:

    @ Shane9219 #81: Are all your remarks always this condescending, or just on this blog?

    First of all, Germany and Japan didn’t invent export economies. China had an export economy in the early Qing dynasty days, the Roman economy was export oriented and England’s mercantile system was export oriented, just to name a few. In fact, a major reason (though not a moral one) for the Opium war was a lack of trade balance. I had actually written (Japan/Germany model) in the original post but deleted it because I felt it was so obvious. People with a knowledge of history understand this.

    People with a knowledge of history also know that both the USA and Europe made a big deal about Japan’s trade surplus during the ’70s and ’80s. Many European nations have not been happy with Germany’s export surplus either. Just because you don’t know about something doesn’t mean it never happened.

    The reason China’s trade surplus is a bigger problem than those other countries is based on China’s sheer size. Unbalanced trade can disrupt the entire world trading system when countries the size of China and the United States are involved. That is why America’s trade imbalance in the other direction is just as bad. Japan has had a trade surplus since the end of the war yet her economy has been stagnant for the last 20 years. Excessive surpluses in either direction aren’t a good thing, but the effects are multiplied depending on the size of the economy. People with a knowledge of economics already know this.

    Allen asked what attributes would make a strong and prosperous China and I gave my honest opinion. You cherry picked one sentence in there and tried to bash me over it but not very effectively. Then for some unknown reason, you bring up the Opium War though it has no bearing on the topic.

    Nice try. I used your style to write this comment. Now do you realize how it sounds to others?

  84. pug_ster Says:


    My apologies, I misread you. I must be braindead

  85. Shane9219 Says:

    @Steve #83

    >> “Are all your remarks always this condescending?”

    You may wish to label such criticism on your own postings before finger pointing others. 🙂

  86. Steve Says:

    @ Shane: I would if I did so.

  87. Shane9219 Says:

    The West could not gain any real trust from Chinese people if they keep playing two hands at the same time: seeking economical gains from China on one hand, while undermining China’s national interests on many important matters on the other. It is only China who did its best to manage this difficult relationship with the West for such a long time.

    The West nations badly need a game changer in order to maintain a stable relation with China with a long view towards the future. There are many things that western nations could do differently and reasonably to meet Chinese standard.

    For example, on the issue of dealing with political separatist forces of Tibet and Xinjiang, western governments and politicians could voice concern and show their sympathy as much as they wanted on one hand, while encourage these forces to seek conciliation with China and make constructive contribution to Chinese society (as did by some China’s friendly nations). However, they could not cross the red line by funding and providing any meaningful political support to these political forces. By doing so, the West had been walking on a path full of land mines, and things were deemed to blow up once a while. Nations like US, Japan, France and now Australia had all experience that bad taste. Maybe someday, China would simply say “Look, enough is enough!”

    Some in the West were quick to point out, with their political naivete, that China could invite 14th DL to attend 2008 Olympics as a chance for reconciliation with the exile force he represents, even after the fact that 3.14 riot completely undermined the goodwill towards 14th DL by most Chinese.

    After the severe Sichuan earthquake last year, I have not hear anyone in the West who came out to openly encourage 14th DL and exile Tibetans to show sympathy and make donation to Sichuan earthquake victim. On the contrary, I only heard some Hollywood types making open hateful remarks on the earthquake victim. So, 14th DL really lost a good opportunity for reconciliation, while westerns politicians either muted on the side lines or jumped up and down with hateful cheers. Where is that moral high horse they like to ride? One has to wonder …

  88. miaka9383 Says:

    -Please delete for not wanting to engage in a useless off topic debate

  89. huaren Says:

    Hi Shane, Steve,

    I read some of your recent exchanges and hope you won’t mind me barging in.

    1. Steve – on the Opium War – I know you know the history and understand it was not moral. I would simply add that it was despicable. GB could simply have consumed less – which was in GB’s control, rather than forcing your trade partner to take drugs.

    I guess I don’t see trade imbalance as evil on its own. I do see a completely free trade zone for planet earth is a good thing for all. The E.U. model is something many people are trying to replicate. Asia is well underway.

    Anyways, the fact that the U.S. buys more from China than the other way around gives the U.S. more leverage in dealings with China, because China has more to lose if she tries to alienate the U.S.. If the U.S. government’s consumption policy doesn’t change, then the U.S.’s total net import/export with the world would remain the same – even if a lot of the factories in China is moved to some other developing country.

    China has to watch her total import/export too. A lot of the trade imbalance the U.S. suffers to China are passed along to other developing countries China rely on.

    2. Shane9219 – I feel you are very unfair to the U.S..

    a. The U.S. supported China’s entry into WTO, didn’t it?
    b. The U.S. allows Intel, Microsoft and the likes to open plants and R&D centers in China and hire locals there. The locals will gain experience and then form their own companies – and some may even compete against the U.S. corporations.
    c. The U.S. allows something like 300,000 Chinese students a year studying in the U.S. universities.
    d. The U.S. is trying to expand IMF and other world institutions to better accomodate China.

    This list is HUGE. So, I believe at a strategic level, the trend is towards normalization. Understandably, there are segment of the U.S. population who don’t view China with trust. The Cold War wasn’t even that long ago. A lot has been said about NED and such. Compared to the grand scheme of things, I think they won’t ever add up to the list I just started.

    I’d bet too this dichotomy exists in China – many wanting a noramalized relationship with the U.S. and the world and some wanting this to be a zero-sum game. Perhaps China is not that strong yet for this minority to assert their views yet.

    Anyways, you have many interesting thoughts which I often agree with. I guess I plead here for understanding. I hope you will join us in not pay credence to the divisive elements on both sides of the divide.

  90. Steve Says:

    @ huaren #89: I agree with you on the Opium War. In some ways it ought to have been called the “Tea War” since England was going broke paying for Chinese tea. However, no story is ever black and white. What many forget these days is that before the Opium War, the British were engaging in the opium trade with the cooperation of the local mandarins, who demanded heavy bribes for the privilege. So this trade had developed to where it was essential for the British to maintain in order to keep their balance of trade in order. While the illegal trade was going on, the tea trade continued to increase. The mandarins took care of getting the opium to the local dens located in various parts of China.

    It was when the Emperor dispatched an official to stamp out the trade (he was very successful) that the British started the war. It WAS despicable. But without a trade imbalance, it would never have happened.

    Trade imbalances (along with excessive borrowing) create too much money for the investment opportunities. When there is overcapacity, the money ends up in the stock and real estate markets. Those markets create “bubbles” which eventually burst and create all sorts of problems. Just ask Japan. They also play havoc with the money supply. I only brought that up because Allen mentioned “free and prosperous” and to me, having balanced trade helps insure prosperity. Many economists in China have said that the nation needs to create more internal demand and that is why they are creating a basic health care system so people will be more willing to spend money that is currently saved for illness. That internal spending will help balance their trade deficit.

  91. Shane9219 Says:

    @huaren #89

    I have been fair as much as I can to nations and people based on their deed, but not on what they said or saying. This is the typical gap between Chinese way and western way of approaching international politics: Chinese like to look at deed, while people in the West like pretty words.

    >> “The U.S. supported China’s entry into WTO, didn’t it?”

    Yes, after rounds of tough talks. US’s policies on China have been running on a platform of strategic ambiguity for a long time since the founding of PRC.

    1) It wanted to get China’s cooperation as much as possible in return for opportunities to work with the West-bloc nations, so that China does not play as a forceful force to undermine current interest holders, joining WTO as one earlier case, global warming initiative being the lastest etc

    2) It has a clear intention to undermine Chinese political and geo-political interests as much it can by repeatedly testing China’s bottom line, like what US military did during Korea War, now on China’s dispute with Japan and activities around South China Sea etc

    3) It wanted to gain as much as economical fruition as possible on China’s growing economical capacity and opportunities. The huge size of Chinese market potential always kept capitalist west dreaming for centuries, the time has now finally come … so does China’s new integration with the rest of world.

  92. huaren Says:

    Hi Steve, #90,

    Agreed. The local Chinese helping to push opium were just as despicable.
    I also remember reading one of the things during the SED meetings, China announced their shift in policy to encourage domestic consumption.

  93. Otto Kerner Says:

    “After the severe Sichuan earthquake last year, I have not hear anyone in the West who came out to openly encourage 14th DL and exile Tibetans to show sympathy and make donation to Sichuan earthquake victim.”

    I googled for five minutes and found this: http://www.dalailama.com/news.264.htm and this: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAjQjkMuOIB3Bi-FIaDtsR41KkEw.

    “On the contrary, I only heard some Hollywood types making open hateful remarks on the earthquake victim.”

    Who are the “some Hollywood types”? I can’t think of anyone other than Sharon Stone. Also, her comments were not “hateful”. She described the earthquake victims as “people who aren’t nice to you” and said that she would try to help them anyway. That’s a really dumb and insensitive thing to say, because obviously the earthquake victims did not design China’s Tibet policy, but to describe it as “hateful” is hyperbolic.

  94. huaren Says:

    Hi Shane9219, #91,

    I would say your 1), 2), and 3) are very normal for all nations on this planet. 🙂
    They all cooperate and compete.

    The U.S. has like 50,000 troops occupying Japan still. Are Japan and U.S. that great “friends”? Japan has to pay for half of it (or something like that) too.

    If the relationship between China and the U.S. is that like between U.S. and Cuba, then I think it’d be one sided.

    I think they are cooperationing.

  95. Shane9219 Says:

    @Otto Kerner #93

    I was fully aware of 14th DL’s activities during 2008 (a really special year anyway). I don’t think he and exile Tibetans did enough to change their image, and he lost a good opportunity. Many people would agree with him.

  96. Jason Says:


    Why did you leave this comment from her out: “And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that Karma? When you’re not nice then the bad things happen to you?”

    I hope you are fully aware what the comment means and how hateful she is.

  97. FOARP Says:

    “However, you are now facing your own worst nightmare since China is getting stronger and more prosperous everyday.”

    Errrr . . . . Yeah, my own worst nightmare. Every time I rolled into Shanghai and went out to XinTianDi for cocktails I was was literally crying into my G&T. Working at Foxconn in Longhua, Shenzhen, I woke up screaming every night with nightmares that I might get paid more. When I went back to Longhua this summer to visit my friend I howled with anger to hear that they were all doing well, and that the business that a firend of mine had started was flourishing. Or perhaps you don’t really know me all that well.

  98. haha Says:

    I am strongly calling for the cancellation of the cersonship and block on Media and internet and free expression, thought and press. If those were done, everyone could imagine what will happen?
    The so-called nationalism is building on the frail foundation by ways of blocking the information, propagenda and brainwashing. Those chinese are not real nationalist, only doing whatever CCP allows them to do. When CCP sell interests and territory of China’s country to Russia and other coutries and destroy chinese future, they are disapeared and dumb. When CCP voilate chinese basic interest and rights and undermine the consolidation of ethnic group, they keep in silence. They are also blind to CCP’s violation against human rights declaretion and trampling on constitution and national laws as well as everything CCP does to hurt all Chinese, tibetan, mogolian and uighur. They don’t distinct wrong from right and even don’t know what is right or wrong. A real nationalist would sincerely listen to the criticism from west and try to promote the self-improvement of China. Those so-called nationalists are just some adherents of CCP and harm to China, like Red Guard in Cultural Revoltion. it is right and appropriate to compared them with Nazi, so well-matched.

  99. Otto Kerner Says:


    No, I don’t think I left that out. The only part of that that is objectionable is that she describes the earthquake victims as “not nice” and she apparently thinks they have something to do with causing China’s Tibet policy. Both of those are dumb things to say, but describing them as “hateful” is quite hyperbolic. The idea that “When you’re not nice then the bad things happen to you” is the basic idea of karma, which is fundamental to Buddhism and Hinduism — it’s not some kind of bizarre, meanspirited idea that Sharon Stone came up with.

  100. Steve Says:

    I never understood the whole thing about Sharon Stone. She’s a mid level actress (a person who pretends to be someone else) who hasn’t had a major hit in over ten years and was never that big. Why should anyone care what she thinks or says? This might be a cross cultural thing, but I think it befuddles Americans when the Chinese government gets so riled up about such matters. It’s not like she was the Secretary of State or someone who was actually important. For the government of one of the world’s biggest and most powerful countries to get so caught up in the antics of a nobody never made any sense to me. Can someone explain it?

  101. Jason Says:

    @Otto Kerner

    Sharon treats Chinese people as group-members rather than persons, is a necessary condition for racist thinking. It produces the inability to distinguish between members of groups, to recognize individuality:

    If Chinese people (in government) were mean to Tibetans, and you’re Chinese, you must have been mean to the Tibetans too.

    One other note, some Tibetans did die in the earthquake so Tibetans hate Tibetans as well? 😀

  102. Bridge Says:

    I have two friends who were in Sichuan when the earth quake struck last year. The 3-week Sichuan holiday they had planned for a long time turned out to be a desperate escape from hell. They said they were very lucky to be alive. They were on the third of the 10 or so trucks transporting people out of the danger zone. When the trucks were making their escape on a freeway on a mountain, a sudden aftershock opened a huge pit right behind the truck my friends were on. The truck behind them was going too fast and drove right into the pit. They still do not know the fate to those people who were on other trucks blocked by the pit.

    @OK #99, yes the idea of karma is not invented by Sharon Stone, but the way she put it clear hinted that those died in the earthquake deserved it. At least, this is how most people interpreted it. Yes, her comments are dumb, but they are also hurtful and hateful.

    @Steve #100. I don’t think the Chinese government actually cared about Sharon Stone. Had anyone else made such comments at that time, they would’ve been targeted by the Chinese people and government as well. And Sharon Stone was stupid enough to do that.

  103. haha Says:

    You would never know how Chinese government think of and handle everything if you didn’t know the nature of CCP. Their political manipulation and everything they do is just for preseveing their power to rule China. Actually Chinese goverment didn’t care about Sharon Stone at all, right, but unluckily she became a target of CCP into political manipulation, to be used for the relief of CCP’s political crisis by means of displacing of huge social conflicts and discontent under their rule of decades, in particular, aim to divert the attention of ordinary chinese from the criticism on slow response of army force to earthquake, inaction to report of prediction of SIchuan earthquake and many thousands of innocent death of youth due to jerry-built project originating from the collision between officials and businessmen.

  104. Otto Kerner Says:


    One common view of karma, which apparently is what Sharon Stone was thinking of, is that everything is caused by karma, so you could say that everyone deserves everything that happens to them. I still think it’s offensive to go shooting your mouth off in an ignorant way about why you think someone deserves the fruits of his or her karma.

  105. Allen Says:

    @Otto Kerner #104,

    You wrote:

    One common view of karma, which apparently is what Sharon Stone was thinking of, is that everything is caused by karma, so you could say that everyone deserves everything that happens to them. I still think it’s offensive to go shooting your mouth off in an ignorant way about why you think someone deserves the fruits of his or her karma.

    You show off your own ignorance of Buddhism here. It’s not just offensive to say someone deserves his Karma, it’s wrong.

    Karma is not about justice – it is never used to attribute to anyone (much less a group of people) evidence of guilt. Karma is a concept created for individual use – for one to privately cultivate one’s spiritual growth – to accept one’s condition – and in doing so to work toward a better future.

    Imagine I – in the name of Buddhism – go mouthing off around the world – hey you and you in Africa, India, or China living in poverty – look at how pathetic you are. I guess you deserve it since you obviously don’t have very good Karma. We in the developed world don’t live in poverty – and have an outstanding standard of living. We as a group must have done a lot of good before and be above you in the evolutionary Karma chain – that’s why we DESERVE to live better – perhaps even to conquer you – or enslave you. Accept it. You owe it to us. It’s called Karma.

  106. Otto Kerner Says:

    Well, Allen, you seem to be very confident in your own ability to expound Buddhism for the benefit of sentient beings. All I said is that you could say that people deserve the fruits of their karma; in other words, it sort of depends on how you look at it. Now, apparently you disagree with that rather mild assertion, but you will be relieved to learn that these are my words, not Sharon Stone’s. All she said was “And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? — when you are not nice that bad things happen to you. And then I got a letter, from the Tibetan Foundation that they want to go and be helpful. And that made me cry. And they ask me if I would write a quote about that and I said I would. And it was a big lesson to me, that some times you have to learn to put your head down and be of service even to people who are not nice to you. And that’s a big lesson for me.” So, she considers the possibility that the suffering of the earthquake might have been caused by karma (without coming to a conclusion), and she lumps the earthquake victims in as people who are “not nice” to the Dalai Lama (which is the dumb and offensive part), and then she resolves to try to be helpful to them anyway. The tone of this rambling declamation is obviously quite different from your hypothetical example.

    Also, I think it’s arguably the case that one could use the concept of karma to argue that people who are currently poor in some sense “deserve” their current circumstances, and rich theirs … but it obviously says nothing about whether poor people should continue to be poor in the future, let alone whether they should be enslaved or conquered.

  107. Bridge Says:

    @haha #103
    Well, to be frank, you would never know how any government thinks of and handles everything even if you do know their nature. Every government manipulates their people and everything they do is for preserving their power to rule. So, your point is?

    …in particular, aim to divert the attention of ordinary Chinese from the criticism on
    1 slow response of army force to earthquake – how fast is a fast response?
    2 inaction to report of prediction of Sichuan earthquake – huh? You think they are fortune tellers?
    3 and many thousands of innocent death of youth due to jerry-built project originating from the collision between officials and businessmen. – this is the only partially valid point.

  108. Allen Says:

    @Otto Kerner #106,

    Fair enough. I have no problem with one ruminating about Karma – about one’s own circumstances – even if couching that understanding with the concept of what one “deserves.”

    I still think it’s “dangerous” for people to apply Karma to others – to link Karma with the outward concept of what someone deserves (justice) instead of treating it just as a framework for spiritual development. It’s like misconstruing the concept of Darwinism as an evolutionary biology concept to a social/political framework. When concepts are thus misunderstood and misapplied – they can have grave consequences…

  109. Steve Says:

    @ Allen & Otto: I’ve had several Buddhist speak of Karma as the “law of cause and effect”. Acts in a previous life would determine the current one, if I understood them correctly. I don’t personally believe in reincarnation and I’m not a Buddhist so I never thought too much about it. I always thought the “effect” part happened in the next life, not the current one. Is that accurate?

  110. Allen Says:

    @Steve #109,

    You identified a tricky part. My understanding is that karma explains both your current situation and your future. The tricky part occurs if you believe in the proposition that a lot of our “evil” dispositions and thoughts are mere reactions to the desperate environments we find ourselves. If this is true – and our present environment and circumstances are determined by our past, how much say do we have about changing our future?

  111. Wukailong Says:

    From what I understand, karma is a summary of your actions and state of mind (and possibly other variables) that will later lead to fruition. In the Dhammapadda (法句经), which is one of the earliest Buddhist works, possibly written by the man itself, it says that our present circumstances are a result of what we have thought. It also says that evil deeds follow the evil-doer both “in this world and next”, so I guess it can happen both in this and the next life. The results of karma are called karma-phala, btw.

    Of course, there are many different interpretations. I’m sure many buddhists take it quite literally (and as you might know, DL has said that it might make us more peaceful when we consider that the effects of natural disasters like the tsunami 2004 are results of karma, a statement he was criticized for) but there are of course also the purely “spiritual” interpretations.

  112. hongkonger Says:

    “there are of course also the purely “spiritual” interpretations.”

    As all religion teaches doing good, forgiveness – against judging others, self denial, etc., I think it is always safer and appropriate to relegate all things religious to spiritual interpretations. I think if religions focus more on understanding the “spirit” instead of endlessly bickering over the letter of the law, and view religious doctrines and rituals as means for training ones spiritual skills in attaining peace and tranquility as the goal, then human history would have been a lot less violent. And of course I am actually sleeptyping in my blissful afternoon nap here .

  113. Otto Kerner Says:


    I should preface this by saying that I’ve ruminated on this topic from time to time, but I haven’t put much effort into learning the “official” Buddhist doctrinal position on it. In answer to your question, no, I don’t think that karma is limited to effects on your future lives. I would say that any kind of cause and effect from your volitional actions falls under the rubric of karma (technically, in Buddhist jargon, “karma” is just the action and there’s some other term for the result). So, sometimes the result of your actions is more or less immediate, sometimes it happens a while later but the chain of effect is apparent, in other cases the result happens a while later and the connection between cause and effect is not clear, and then sometimes the effect doesn’t hit you until one or more lifetimes in the future. In the first two cases, we tend to classify that as just “the normal way that life works” (cause and effect: you are rude to someone, and then they are rude back to you; or, you eat a lot of potato chips and then later you get fat) and, in the latter two, we classify it as mystical karmic magic, but fundamentally the only difference is how visible the connection is between action and reaction. In theory, if you could see your life 100% clearly, maybe everything that happens to you would seem as straightforward as Newton’s third law.

    One thing I’ve never heard or thought of a good explanation for is what mechanism causes karmic effects to hit immediately in some situations but not for many years in other situations. I’m sure some philosopher at some point has come up with an explanation for that, which may or may not be very convincing.

  114. Dragan Says:


    +3 Michael Says:

    August 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
    Two things I don’t understand. What is this ‘century of shame’? It sounds like ethnic self pity, a common denominator in nationalistic regimes like Yugoslavia. India had more than two centuries as part of the British Raj but modern Indians don’t feel shame.

    Secondly, what exactly does China stand for? America, for all its faults offered the best and worst aspects of freedom, free enterprise and Hollywood. China has lost touch with its own traditional confucian culture and manners, so what does it offer a developing country like Algeria or Trinidad apart from soft loans and cheap labour to build sports stadiums? America opened its doors to millions of students (including many Chinese), many of whom who returned home with skills and a positive attitude to the US. Will a graduate degree from Wuhan have the same effect on students from Nepal or Norway?

    American at the height of its power assumed that everyone else in the world wanted to be part of the American Dream, whether it was Berlin, Santiago or Saigon. Russia flew the flag for the working man. Chinese nationalism is inward looking and based on self pity/self aggrandisement. How does it exert a greater influence on the non-Chinese of the world, other than “money talks”?


    I am from former Yugoslavia and did not notice a century of shame paralel with China. Would you please explain?

    China stands for RESPECT and INDEPENDENCE, exactly those things that west ommits to give and allow in its relations with third world’s countries.

  115. hongkonger Says:

    Steve, WKL, Otto:

    Do we really want to know, then get ready to be more confused…..

    Alan Watts after a lifetime of religioous persue formed a dislike for religious outlooks that he decided were dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing — no matter if they were found within Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
    As Episcopalian priest (beginning in 1945, aged 30), until an extramarital affair resulted in his young wife having their marriage annulled. It also resulted in Watts leaving the ministry by 1950. He spent the New Year getting to know Joseph Campbell; his wife, Jean Erdman; and John Cage.
    Watts also studied written Chinese and practiced Chinese brush calligraphy with Hasegawa as well as with some of the Chinese students who enrolled at the Academy. While Watts was noted for an interest in Zen Buddhism, with its origins in China, his reading and discussions delved into Vedanta, “the new physics,” cybernetics, semantics, process philosophy, natural history, and the anthropology of sexuality.
    In his writings Watts conveyed his admiration for the practicality in the historical achievements of Chán in the Far East, for it had fostered farmers, architects, builders, folk physicians, artists, and administrators among the monks who had lived in the monasteries of its lineages.
    In his mature work, he presents himself as “Zennist” in spirit as he wrote in his last book, Tao: The Watercourse Way. Child rearing, the arts, cuisine, education, law and freedom, architecture, sexuality, and the uses and abuses of technology were all of great interest to him.



    UCLA Professor of Psychology Patricia W. Cheng from Hong Kong is a leading researcher in cognitive psychology who works on human reasoning. She is best known for her psychological work on human understanding of causality. Her “power theory of the probabilistic contrast model,” or power PC (probabilistic contrast) theory, posits that people filter observations of events through a basic belief that causes have the power to generate (or prevent) their effects, thereby inferring specific cause-effect relations.



    Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Oriental Express:

    Detective Hercule Poirot: ” If all these people are not implicated in the crime, then why have they all told me, under interrogation, stupid and often unnecessary lies? Why? Why? Why? Why? ”

    Dr. Constantine: ” Doubtless, Monsieur Poirot, because they did not expect you to be on the train. They had no time to concert their cover story. ”

    Hercule Poirot: “I was hoping someone other than myself would say that. ”

    Indeed, if it wasn’t for Galilleo and Martin Luther etc., the faith-based West would still believe the world was flat and that the Pope held the key of heaven’s gate….

  116. Wukailong Says:

    @Dragan: Welcome! Just curious, what country are you staying in now?

  117. Dragan Says:

    @ wukailong

    Thanks! been reading for a while though. I am in China.

  118. Steve Says:

    @ Hongkonger #115: Alan Watts was standard reading in my college “Oriental Philosophy” class. Back then, he was what I guess you could call the “gold standard” in terms of comparative theology. Watts and D.T. Suzuki were the two most influential figures in spreading Zen (Chan) Buddhism to the west. What I found most interesting in Japan is that most Japanese are not Zen Buddhists and even in the temples, a large percentage of Zen Buddhist monks are non-Japanese. I believe the largest sect in Japan is Nichiren (Lotus Sutra based).

    I personally believe all religions started out as spiritual, metaphorical and concerned with individual enlightenment. Once they achieved large followings and political power, they all devolved into dogmatic, literal religions concerned with social welfare. Every major religion has had periods where its interference in political affairs has brought misery to the people.

    “Sin” in its purest Christian meaning are acts that hurt the individual. These acts might also hurt others but they always hurt the individual who committed them. This is most obviously shown in the “seven deadly sins”.

    My guess (and this is only a guess) is that karma is in the same vein. A person might commit bad acts and still be rich and powerful, but be miserable spiritually. Back in the mid ’60s, Simon & Garfunkel even wrote a song about it called Richard Cory. I”m not quite sure how reincarnation fits in since that’s not something I can comprehend but under this definition, karma makes a lot of sense to me.

    @ Dragan: Welcome to the blog! Out of curiosity, where in former Yugoslavia? My youngest son was just through that region this summer. I think at one time or another he was in Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia. I’m not sure if he got over to Montenegro but I know he was close.

  119. Hongkonger Says:


    One of things that really pisses me off is how so many -isms which promise release are actually the instrument of oppression and source of disinformation. Take Alan Watts’ book “Nature, Man and Woman,” for example, in which he wrote of the possibility of the Apostolic practices which were known to early Christians and of it being kept secret & made a taboo by the Church -i.e. the religious practice of what Roman Catholics call “coitus reservatus”.


  120. haha Says:

    To Bridge
    Actually as you said, all the governments aim to keep their own power, but the difference between dictatorship and democratic countries is whether or to what degree they have to taken civil voice into account or not. In mainland of China, civil society is weak and have few influence on power group. Political elites concern more on their own interest, don’t care about civil society at all, prevent the development of civil society all the time and its consequent is that the interest of earthquake victims deserved were generally overlooked. They always keep showing their achievements and covering their mistakes and inaction in some way.

    You can go though the whole process of earthquake response. they missed the prime time of the first 72-hours rescue of victims after earthquake occurred and initially refused the assistant from international community and allowed international rescue guards in afterwards in response to appeals and pressure from civil society. meanwhile, they restricted the participation of civil society in order to avoid the exposure of uncontroled and unpredictable infromation and expression to international community, like Huang Qi and Tianwang, etc, as well as avoid the expanse of influences of NGO and completely independent organisation from CCP and governments. You can compare it with the response of civil society and press to recent disaster of flood caused by typhoon in Taiwan.

    It is no doubt that no one asked CCP to be fortune teller, including me, which is not responsibility of government. However,exposed facts reveal that before earthquake happened, local and central governments received the report of predict about earthquake from scholars. you could say it is hard to judge it. But governments should be responsible for safty of mass and society to investigate and make sense of it. In this case, no evidence confirm they fulfilled due function. By contrast, what they did is to manage to divert the focus of governments’ responsibility to whether eartherwuake could be predicted precisely or not and to cover up the fact that they got the report. They were into inaction after getting the report, which is dereliction of duty. Citizens have rights to know and to make their own decision, but the governments did nothing to inform the possibility of earthquake. in addtion, governments did nothing about self-protection training and education. before and after earthquake, they do nothing they should be responsible for. However, after earthquake occurred, they strenthened the censorship of press and internet and kept apraising by ways of propagenda of mouthpiece, to shirk their responsibility, which is unacceptable.

  121. haha Says:

    in fact, after earthquake happened, the criticism on one party ruling system and CCP is appropriate and proper as the source of the man-made calamities in earthquake.

  122. haha Says:

    So no wonder did CCP take Sharon Stone as a target of plitical manipulation to get out of political crisis concerning over its rule legitimacy in the face of criticism inside China and abroad on the man-made calamities in earthquake.

  123. Wukailong Says:

    When was Sharon Stone criticized by the Chinese government, exactly? I never heard any official condemnation. I don’t think one was needed, either – people weren’t brainwashed into thinking it was quite a horrible thing to say, they really thought it.

  124. haha Says:

    Actually Chinese government didn’t officially condemn her. But it is impossible that all main Chinese web portals reported her expression at the same time and ordinary chiese discussed that issue freely in main BBS without the connivence and consent of Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee during that sensitive period, particularly compared with simultaneous ongoing censorship for complaints of man-made calamities. they played the underground role in this case, the same role with regard to the resistance to carrefour last year and the protest demonstration to Japan earlier.

  125. Dragan Says:


    hi Steve! I am sure he had good fun. I’ve been home in Serbia this summer as well and hanged out for a night with international travellers staying at a hostel where my cousin works. They all loved it! And generally, there are good experiences to be made in that whole area

  126. Steve Says:

    Hi Dragan~

    My son keeps talking about the food there and smiling… must have impressed him. He did the hostel thing and now has friends from just about every part of the world. I’m guessing you had the same experience hanging around your cousin’s hostel.

    Oh, and he did mention something about tall, pretty, slender women. 😉

  127. Dragan Says:

    :))) can’t miss them there even if you wanted…great to hear! interesting enough – no Serbian living in Serbia would tell you that smiling is a thing there – usually they talk about people being nervous and intentionally rude – but all the visitors I met were talking exactly the same as your son. might have been one of them.

  128. Steve Says:

    @ Hongkonger #119: Are you familiar with the story of Sùnǚ (素女; ”Plain Girl”), one of the three daughters of Hsi Wang Mu? The legend is that she taught these same techniques to Huang-di (the Yellow Emperor) in great detail. Now the time of Huang-di was well before the early Christian Church, but these stories are believed to have been written down about the same era as the early Christian times. Some have even speculated that Hsi Wang Mu was the Queen of Sheba, though I’d say that is legend. Who knows if these techniques went east or west? My gut feeling is that they are related.

    They have also been traditionally practiced by Taoist monks in China. I even learned them as part of my Xingyiquan (形意拳) training. I guess the world has always been smaller than we think. 😉

  129. hongkonger Says:



    pre-religious Taoist practices


    770 BC to 222 BC / Chou Dynasty: During this time, female homosexuality was widespread, but male homosexuality was rare because it was considered a complete loss of yang essence on the part of both men. Meanwhile, since women were said to have an unlimited yin essence, there was no loss of yin in female homosexual relations.
    Not until the Han dynasty did male homosexuality figures reach the same standard as among other societies.

    221 BC to 24 AD The Ch’in Dynasty shifted the Taoist culture to a Confucianist culture, which was completely different.Women were placed in an inferior position to men. All physical contact between men and women was confined to marriage and their bedroom or a couch….


    American Indians:
    Current researchers reject the older notion that berdaches (male courtesan) and amazons were hermaphrodites, transsexuals, transvestites, or gender-crossers because American Indian cultures allotted more than two gender options.
    The Europeans were amazed to discover that the Indian tribes often respected berdaches as spiritually gifted. Since women had high status in most Native American cultures, and the spirit of women was as highly regarded as the spirit of men, a person who combined the spirits of both was seen as having an extraordinary spirituality. Such sacred people were often honored with special ceremonial roles in religious ceremonies, and they were often known as healers and shamans. They had the advantage of seeing from both the masculine and the feminine perspectives, and so were respected as seers and prophets. Berdaches were known as creative persons who worked hard to help their extended family and their community. They often served as teachers of the young, healers, artists, and performers.
    The community defined berdaches based on their gender role as “men” (i.e., a hunter and/or warrior) rather than on his sexual behavior. …This view changed drastically after the arrival of the Europeans…

    Ancient Hebrews:


  130. hongkonger Says:

    Ancient Hebrews


  131. hongkonger Says:

    @ Steve, I know a little about The 素女 legend and sorta tied it with different history of eros… but apparently tthose comments got arrested …????

  132. hongkonger Says:

    Hmm…there they are ! Thanks Admin….

  133. Steve Says:

    Hi Hongkonger~

    I’ve always harbored suspicion when an ancient culture is written about hundreds or even thousands of years later. I’ve always suspected that what is really being said is more about the time when it was actually written rather than an ancient time, especially in Chinese culture where the older something is, the more respect it engenders. That’s why I’d guess that manuscripts written in Han dynasty times are more reflective of competing Han dynasty values than true historical documents.

    Though there are many positive features of Confucist societies, I believe some aspects actually hold the culture back and keep it from modernizing, especially once the political leaders learned to use it to control the people in the neo-Confucist tradition. They simply ignored certain features of what Confucius said while stressing the part about blind obedience to their leaders.

    I think there are many positive aspects of Taoist society that would be beneficial to bring back, but in some ways Taoism emphasizes a more individualistic society, the antithesis of Imperial and Communist rule. As an American, I never felt comfortable with the paternal aspects of government rule while living over there. I don’t mean that as a value judgment but more as a personal choice. I personally prefer greater individual freedom which makes sense because I was raised that way.

  134. hongkonger Says:


    ” I’ve always suspected that what is really being said is more about the time when it was actually written rather than an ancient time…. That’s why I’d guess that manuscripts written in Han dynasty times are more reflective of competing Han dynasty values than true historical documents. ”

    That makes the two of us…and this is why a lot of good stuff were either burnt, watered down, whitewashed or re-interpreted to suit the then current administrations which gave birth to short lived ideologies and religions, as opposed to following the perfect natural order of the universe. “For the way that can be named is not it,” right? 🙂

    “I personally prefer greater individual freedom which makes sense because I was raised that way.”

    My parents were born in the 1920s, they were both educated in S E Asia, never lived anywhere else, and they were individualists – definitely not conficianists. I was thus raised, perhaps much like you in America, free to choose my own paths. “Freedom is the only thing that means a damn to me,” was and is the line from Bad Company’s “Ready for love,” that’s been the theme in my life. But then there is the myth of man’s free will….

    Sure, we all make choices based on our understanding, our feelings, our likes and dislikes, and our appetites. In other words, ones will is not free from oneself! Ones choices are determined by ones own basic character. The will is not independent of ones’ nature, but the slave of it. Our choices do not shape our characters, but our characters guide our choices. The will is quite partial to what one knows, feels, loves, and desires. We always choose on the basis of our dispositions, according to the condition of our hearts.
    By saying that our will is free, we certainly do not mean that it determines the course of our lifes. We did not choose the sickness, sorrow, war, and poverty that have spoiled our happiness. The major factors which shape ones life cannot thank ones will. We did not select our social status, color, physical attributes, intelligence, etc. Anyway, I digress.

  135. hongkonger Says:

    @ Steve:

    “especially once the political leaders learned to use it to control the people in the neo-Confucist tradition. They simply ignored certain features of what Confucius said while stressing the part about blind obedience to their leaders.”

    Very true….

    “History, for most parts, is the account of the ruling classes. There was a time when philosophy encompassed almost every subject from history and physics to economics and medical studies. No wonder, lines dividing many a subject appear blurred in the works of the masters, from Plato’s The Republic and Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason to Hippocrates’ theory on medicine and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Their works were welcomed because they didn’t pose a threat to the ruling classes, ”


    Russophile 2009-09-05 16:03
    The article is fine; Americans just can’t face reality.

    The Great Conspiracy can be downloaded from:


    Mervo 2009-09-04 22:21
    Op, I suggest you read a lot more history. This really is a poor article.


    As HK best known standup comedian Dayo Wong 黄子华栋笃笑 : 儿童不宜 in his “Unsuitable for children” show said of entrenched interests : “Once you understand the role of Conspiracy & Conspiracy theories, you will understand the need to constantly argue / debate about every damn thing…”


  136. Shane9219 Says:

    Lee Kuan Yew: Treat young Chinese well


    “As for how China could convince the world it can rise peacefully, MM Lee suggested starting with a bit of branding. ‘I would not use the word ‘peaceful rise’. In Chinese it sounds okay, but in English it sounds like you are rising like a mushroom; you scare people. Why not call it a cultural renaissance?’ ”

    “THE key to the relationship between China and the United States may lie right in the Americans’ backyard, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on Wednesday.”

    “He said: ‘I tell my American friends, I won’t worry about them (China) today. You’ve got tens of thousands of Chinese students. You give them a bad time, they will go home and nurse a grievance. But if you accept them, it’s a different world.'”

  137. Shane9219 Says:

    John Naisbitt: Analyzing China on its Own Terms

    “Most of those who look at China with interest, fear, reprobation, courtesy, hope or simple curiosity, see the future and sustainability of China as adapting to the Western economic and value system. But what is the scenario from a Chinese point of view?

    With an inside out approach, explains what enabled China to change in only 30 years from a nation of poverty and backwardness to become the third largest economy of the world, beat Germany as export champion, and challenge America as the most competitive. China has reinvented itself as if it were a huge enterprise, developing a company culture which fits the demands of the enterprise and its people on the path to modernity and wealth.

    Looking for patterns that form the picture of the new China, John und Doris Naisbitt and the 28 staff members of the Naisbitt China Institute in Tianjin found what was of much greater dimension and importance than the economic rise of China: China is creating an entirely new social and economic system. It is creating a political counter model to Western modern democracy fitting to Chinese history and society just as America created a model fitting to its history, society and values more than 200 years ago.

    Economically and politically China has left the path of imitation, determined to become the innovation country of the world. In the next decades China will not only change the global economy, it will challenge Western democracy with its own model.”

    Book: China’s Megatrends


  138. Rhan Says:

    I don’t worry about them (China) today? So when LKY are going to remove the US naval base? Why not use the term cultural revolution 2? Does LKY really know China and Chinese? Ask him to shut up la, like what he did to anyone that oppose him.

  139. shane9219 Says:













      三是现实政治因素。执政党对执政合法性的追求,是重要的政治因素。但执政党对核心国家利益的坚持,与绝大多数民众因历史悲情而催生的民族情怀一拍即合。一如西方,今天中国执政党在对外关系上同样面临民意压力。这是西方必须面对的现实。准确地描绘和解读这一现实,是西方面临的挑战;而如何准确把握自身的心理变化,更为自信和自如地进入中西方文化大调整的进程,则是中国官方和民间所面临的挑战。 ”


  140. Shane9219 Says:

    First Solar USA — Chinese solar plant expected to be the biggest –

    “The solar field would dwarf anything in operation in the U.S. or Europe. At 2 gigawatts, or 2 billion watts, the solar plant could pump as much energy onto China’s grid as two coal-fired plants, enough to light up three million homes. Like most solar plants, however, it wouldn’t produce electricity at night.

    “The potential is enormous” for projects like this in China, CEO Mike Ahearn told The Associated Press before the announcement. “The Chinese government is further along in its thinking about solar than we’ve imagined.”


    “First Solar, the globe’s largest photovoltaic cell manufacturer, will also likely build a factory in China to manufacture thin-film solar panels, according to Mike Ahearn, the company’s chief executive. “It is significant that a non-Chinese company can land something like this in China,” said Mr. Ahearn in an interview.

    “This is nuclear power-size scale,” said Mr. Ahearn added.”


  141. Shane9219 Says:

    Mockup of C919, first home-made jumbo jet of China displayed in HK


  142. TonyP4 Says:

    @Shane, #141.

    Interesting. They must start the plane project eight days after 911. 🙂

    The planners did not have enough skill to have a feasibility study of the project, or special interest/national ego took over the study.

    It is NOT marketable. The world already has one plane manufacturer too much. Without heavy subsidy, Air Bus is not an economically sound venture.

    No one will buy these planes made in China outside China. If I have a choice, I do not even want to fly with local airlines even on American planes in China, given the knowledge of how they maintain planes. With the bad reputation of the Chinese products, I have a ton of jokes for this plane like ‘the stewardess check all passengers have bought life insurance before taking off’.

    Transfer of technology is standard in most Chinese contracts on foreign products that are high tech but not dual use for weapons. China helps to build some Boeing parts. Some major mechanical parts when shipped to Boeing were routinely stamped as Rejected – I do not know whether it is still true. It is Boeing way to satisfy the contract without making the products unsafe.

    It is just dumb nationalism for us to cheer on the ‘accomplishment’ without realizing China is wasting effort on some products they should not be in – at least for a while.

  143. miaka9383 Says:

    I totally disagree. I think that China is not wasting their time and effort creating their own products. China needs to create their own products and that would teach them accountability since it is their own people using the product. It would definitely enforce quality control.

  144. TonyP4 Says:

    Miaka, you’re right if the products are marketable and this one is not. I bet even the local Chinese will not ride on these planes if they’ve a choice. The investment in building a plane is enormous. It is better to invest in other products that they can make money, or at least not to lose a lot. The electric car is a good product that will be successful and there are many other good examples. Building a plane is too much for China’s current engineering capacity, not to mention its poor reputation of product safety.

    Personally I try to avoid all Chinese food products, Chinese tires… Even I love my country, safety comes first.

  145. pug_ster Says:


    Agreed with Miaka9383. It is not that China is going to start shipping planes tomorrow. They said that they are going to have test flights in 2015 and shipping them in 2016. Even if they did well, I doubt that foreign companies will seriously take a look at their aircraft until 2020. Right now Boeing and Airbus is holding a monopoly on commercial aircraft. It would definitely be a sink or swim for this company to challenge the bigboys.

  146. TonyP4 Says:

    Hi pug_ster, Any investor only invests in investment that works. I do not see it will work for China for a long, long while. Check how much money they are wasting in this project now. Even Air Bus has financial problem with heavy subsidy. China needs to fix product reputation first. Check out their satellite launch business and you can tell the problems they will face with foreign buyers.

  147. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Tony:
    it seems like a chicken/egg problem for CHina when it comes to developing tech-intense heavy industry like airplane manufacturing. She needs such an industry to develop the requisite expertise and experience with QC. But it seems unlikely for China to have a market(well, at least foreign market) for such products because of her perceived poor QC track record. Perhaps short haul planes for domestic sales can be a starting point. Or maybe the CIC will have to go out and buy itself such capability, though obviously it will be many tiers below the Airbus/Boeing scale to start. And even then, there may be regulatory hurdles when it comes to foreign ownership.

    The Chinese electric car seems interesting. Unfortunately, the report I saw was focussed more on the business side, whereas i’d be more interested in the specs. Also unlikely that Car and Driver will be doing a story on it, in contrast with their recent issue on home grown electric cars. The Fisker, btw, looks pretty sexy. But if you’re gonna avoid Chinese tires, then I assume you won’t be an early adopter of Chinese electric cars 🙂

  148. TonyP4 Says:

    Hi S.K, there are many articles on China’s electric car which will be about half the US counterpart, which uses the same technology. The US’s MIT will be the first one to buy one to check whether they violate their patents. My friend’s relative bought a US dealership in Central US, so it will be real.

    If you’re from Hong Kong, do not miss the article about HK in http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/09/07/city-of-dreams-or-nightmare/

  149. Shane9219 Says:

    @TonyR4 #142

    Your view on China large plane project is both simplistic and absurd, even carries a sense of typical arrogance by Europeans. It could be tough to enter mature markets like US and EU, but you need to always remember the world as a whole is much larger than smallish US and EU combined.

    What you saw about low cost consumer good manufacturing is one thing, and mostly carried out by private business owners who want to make some quick bucks. You can easily set up a shop if you are in China doing this sort of business. This is a kind of outsourcing manufacturing business first used by Japan, later passed on to Korea, Taiwan etc.

    COMAC is producing a regional jet called ARJ21 with over 200 confirmed and non-confirmed orders, including oversea customers like GE Leasing. On the whole economic side, China has a large enough market by itself to sustain a home-grown large plane program and be profitable. Right now, C919 will be likely powered by GE engines. Eventually, they will be powered by home-grown jet engines as well.

    As a similar case, China’s high-speed rail system, running at world’s fastest speed in operation 350KM/h, uses bullet trains developed by China (with some elements license from Germany). Home grown program like these are strategically important to China’s industrial future, national infrastructure and high income job creation.

    Once these programs become mature and well managed, they will become a very competitive force in world economy. One good example is China’s ship building industry, another one is China’s emerging solar industry (you may end up buying a solar panel produced by companies like SunTech Ltd with China’s home grown technology).

    What you was saying is like China shouldn’t have a commercial satellite launching program or a human space flight program etc.

    BTW: C919 stands for C-China, 9-serial number, 19-capacity

    “China’s Large Commercial Aircraft Corp. officially named the planned passenger airliner as C919. The letter C stands for China, while 9 have the Chinese good fortune meaning for ‘forever’, 19 stands for the maximum seating (all Y) at 190.
    The C919 will be a single aisle, twin engines aircraft, and first flight is expected to be in 2016. Basic version with C/Y classes at 150 seats, and can accept standard LD for underfloor baggage/cargo. Range with maximum payload would be similar to B757 so as to take the C919 up to add another market level.

    China is taking aim at to use the C919 as a direct replacment of the B737NG and A320. China LCA forcast China alone would have a demand of over 1400 passenger aircarfts of C919 similar size aircraft by 2020. The replacment of even half the number of the current and expected B737NGs and A320s within China would make the program a success. China LCA Corp will start to market the C919 world wide within a year.
    As both Boeing and Airbus has no plans currently to replace the B737NG and A320 series, China LCA Corp. took the opportunity and wanted position itself ahead of the competition by 2020. The C919 will be assembled in Shanghai, while various parts will be manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Corp., Xian Aircraft Corp., Shenyang Aircraft Corp, and Shenxi Aircraft Corp., all of which are under AVIC”


  150. Shane9219 Says:

    Here are some more info about the progress of COMAC C919 project

    “It was disclosed by a responsible person from the airliner project of Chengfei Corp. on June 2, that the company has sent a team to Shanghai to help in the design of the COMAC 919 Airliner nose. The prototype of the airliner nose may be finished as early as the end of this year and will be exhibited to the public in September next year.

    Technology under research

    Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) has signed a memorandum of understanding with the domestic suppliers of COMAC 919 Airliner airframe. The official contract will be signed at the end of year or the beginning of next year. Chengfei Corp. becomes one of the suppliers and is responsible for the production of the airliner nose.

    According to the responsible person, in May last year, Chengfei Corp. passed capacity evaluation and sent out a team of four to Shanghai to form a cooperation team with COMAC to carry out the research and overall design of the airliner. On May 14, 2009, Chengfei Corp. again sent out a team to form a cooperation team with COMAC to start researching the technology of the airliner nose in detail.

    The prototype

    It is apparent that there is no need to make prototypes for some components of the airliner. A 3D effect is enough for those components. But it’s still necessary to make a metal physical prototype of the same size for the airliner nose.

    Chengfei Corp. will make a 7.9-meter-long nose by the end of this year or the beginning of next year. The prototype of the nose consists of a radar cabin, a pilot’s cockpit, two equipment cabins, a front undercarriage cabin, a front service cabin and part of the passenger cabin.

    It is estimated that the nose weighs about 10 tons. It will be exhibited in Shanghai in September next year after it is finished. However, before that people in Chengdu will be the first to see the airliner nose.

    Cheaper than that of Airbus or Boeing

    Wang Wenbin, general manager of COMAC said that COMAC 919, the home grown airliner with independent intellectual property rights, was planned to be first put in use by the end of 2014 or the beginning of 2015 and officially put into market in 2016.

    It was expressed yesterday that Chengfei Corp. expects to produce 10 airliner noses every year after the initial flight of the homegrown airliner.

    The current project under research is regarding the single-aisle airplane, like the current Boeing 737 and Airbus 320. Chengfei Corp said that the price of the homegrown airliner nose would be cheaper than that of Boeing 737 or Airbus 320.

    An airliner is an aircraft with a weight over 100 tons after take off, including military aircraft, large transport aircraft for civil use and big commercial planes with more than 150 seats.

    The current market for airliners is mainly dominated by Boeing from the US and Airbus from France. China began to develop its own airliners “Yunshi” in the 1970s, only two years after Airbus. Ten years later, “Yunshi” successfully finished its first flight. But then the project for developing homegrown airliners stopped due to several reasons. China restarted the important projects of developing homegrown airliners last year.”


    “Comac, which has one of the largest stands at the show, is speaking with various western suppliers about recruiting them as partners on the programme. Engine makers including CFM International, General Electric, International Aero Engines, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce have been meeting Comac to discuss the supply of engines for the project.

    Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) Commercial Engines also hopes to supply Chinese-built engines for the C919 but has conceded the first C919s are likely to be powered by western engines.

    US firm Goodrich, meanwhile, is forming a joint-venture with China’s Xian Aircraft in the hope that this new venture can secure C919 work.

    The Chinese joint-venture plans to make landing-gear and engine nacelle components.”


  151. TonyP4 Says:

    Hi Shane, you totally misunderstood my intention. I’m a American Chinese and I love my country I was from and my adopted country. I just doubt the logic of producing a product of this scale.

    You and I are the final customers. Without our votes, no company will buy the plane. Why we do not want to ride on this plane? It is the low reputation of Chinese products that I made large voice all the time. No problem I’ll buy a hammer or similar products as long as it does not make me sick or cause an auto accident to kill me.

    China has a good record in launching satellites and very cost effective. However, they have not launched too many of them for foreign countries except giving them the deals they cannot refuse. If you cannot sell this technology in launching satellites, how can you sell a plane that involve so many lives?

    Without foreign orders, the market is limited even for a country as large as China. Air plane engines involve a lot of high technology and a industry to support it. China cannot build competitive car engines (even Korean lacks behind here), transmission, and emission control today. How can China build a decent air plane engine for jumbo jets? By the time you master one, Boeing and Air Buses have their next and next engines from their vendors.

    Do you think US allow GE to sell engines to China with no questions asked? If you think it is 10% possible that GE will not sell them engines, we’ll in big troubles. There are many examples that US does not approve many technology to be sold to China and some are critical to building air planes. Some have been sneaked in but it will not be too long that US tightens the control of such transfer.

    I believe China has certain air plane technology and products that they should concentrate on. China depends on Russia for the state-of-the-art jet fighters and heavy-duty helicopters that they need for the last earthquakes.

    I wish I were all wrong, but time can tell.

  152. Shane9219 Says:

    @TonyR4 #151

    >> “I wish I were all wrong, but time can tell”

    Unfortunately, you are already wrong because that time is already here. For example, some part of high speed rail project in US (still quite far away from real construction) is looking into using China’s bullet train system.

    Your problem is that you and other similar people have pathetically and habitually underestimate China’s capability, vision and resolution to power up China by our own efforts and talents. So keep your distorted image of China that could only produce stuff like hammers. LoL.

    >> “Without our votes, no company will buy the plane.”
    Vote who? I don’t vote at all. Plus, airlines are capitalistic animal, your vote don’t count there. There are WTO rules that will make Chinese plane competitive. Like 90-seat ARJ21, it locked in some US customers already.

    >> “China has a good record in launching satellites and very cost effective. However, they have not launched too many of them for foreign countries except giving them the deals they cannot refuse.”

    Don’t you know the limitation was politically and militarily motivated. US Congress made it illegal to send satellite
    (with US parts or components) onto Chinese soil. I think Obama administration will be forced to open this up now.

    >> “China depends on Russia for the state-of-the-art jet fighters”

    It is the case right now, and mostly due to urgent defense need to prevent potential US invaders. China has home grown J10 fighter jet that perform quite well in comparison to other 3rd generation fighters. China has its own stealth fighter program in R&D, not depending on Russian unlike India (even Russian tried hard to woo China’s participation).

    >> “heavy-duty helicopters …”

    US in many cases would have to contract Russian for their heavy lifting machines, right? Remember how that “spy pig” was air-left out of China in 90s.

    >> “I’m a American Chinese and I love my country”

    Sorry, you need to figure those confusing stuff out yourself. Why not just say you are American, period! I have seen some ABCs making complaint about being discriminated by whites in US, then again claim discriminated by Chinese when working inside China.

  153. Wukailong Says:

    @Shane9219: “Your view on China large plane project is both simplistic and absurd, even carries a sense of typical arrogance by Europeans. It could be tough to enter mature markets like US and EU, but you need to always remember the world as a whole is much larger than smallish US and EU combined.”

    This wasn’t directed to me, but as a European (and somewhat of an immigrant to China after all these years), I just want to point out that given the economic clout the US and EU combined, they are currently not that small. They will be in the future when China, India and maybe the others (Russia, Brazil, Mexico) have grown significantly, but right now they are anything but tiny.

  154. miaka9383 Says:

    So you can’t American and Chinese all at the same time?

  155. Shane9219 Says:

    @miaka9383 #154

    Good question, it is really a tricky one though because everyone has their own personal and family situation. I have seen some leveraging the best of both with good even great success, but also seen some with deep struggle.

  156. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Shane,
    when it comes to China’s aviation industry, you’re certainly of the glass-half-full perspective. I agree that, based on your descriptions, and to use sports parlance, the industry has great up-side. However, depending on your spectator sport of choice, you might want to review the end result of all the upside potential of folks like Sam Bowie (NBA basketball), Alexandre Daigle (NHL hockey), or Ryan Leaf (NFL football). While Tony does seem pessimistic about China’s investment, it seems premature to assume that the industry will (pardon the pun) be flying high. Especially when the 919 you speak of hasn’t even proved that it can stay aloft yet.

  157. Shane9219 Says:

    @SKC #156

    I don’t know nor do I play American football, so I don’t know a thing about NFL 🙂

    I also don’t Know Sam Bowie at all, but I do follow Yao Ming closely. Last time I checked, he is a top earner of NBA’s last season (after many NBA seasons with All Star level performance) and a foundation of Houston Rockets even with a broken foot. Houston Rockets could lose much of their revenue from broadcasting programs inside China as well as Chinese commercials in both Chinese and US market, so I guess the owner would have to keep Yao on his team no matter what in next season. 🙂

  158. Shane9219 Says:

    美议员提议案谢中国总裁 对中国企业走出去有何启示

    Senior U.S. Senator raised a motion in Congress to thank China Executive for going global


    “Recently, the U.S. Senior Senator John Kerry in the Senate to raise a motion to thank Mr. Wei Jiafu, the President of China Ocean Shipping Group (COSCO) for COSCO Group’s support of Boston Harbor and the local economy by creating prosperity and employment opportunities.

    For many people, this news sounds quite strange. First, the U.S. Congress had always showed an arrogant attitude toward China, both the Senate and the House of Representatives often issued statements on things critical of China, and how come they suddenly show an appreciation? Second, why they choose to use the name of the US Congress to pay tribute to a president of Chinese enterprises, What medicine they hide in their sleeve?

    It is often very difficult to understand American politics, at lease not able to do so with our own logic. For example the United States Congress is a convergence of ideas, intertwined with various conflicting interests. To understand the United States Congress, we must first understand that it is difficult to keep a cohesive thesis. For example, John Kerry, East Coast Senator of Massachusetts, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate , just got a visit two weeks ago by an old friend, Chinese State Councilor Dai. They had dinner together to renew old friendships. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, West Coast House of Representatives of California, is an old “gunner” specializing with rhetoric and actions attacking and limiting China, She is also one of 14th Dalai Lama’s big “soulmates”, So far, she still got her hard-line attitude stuff. These two belong to the same party at the highest and most visible level representative of the United States Congress. So how do we know the exact U.S. Congress attitude toward China? Therefore, to understand United States Congress and its political influence, first of all we should put our forcus on “personal” level, which is first inspiration coming out this story .

    From U.S. Congress members, there are both Kerry type “known-China camp,” and Pelosi kind of “suspect-China -on-everything faction” or even “anti-China faction.” However, with Sino-US political and economic relations making rapid changes at the background, it affected the strength of both camps. As a result, two years ago we saw that the U.S. Congress awarded its highest medal to 14th Dalai Lama, but this year we found a Senate bill to thank a Chinese president of a large-scale state-owned enterprises.

    Nevertheless, the Kerry motion to thank marks the beginning of our story is still unfolding. One direct consequence of such senate motion has greatly enhanced the reputation and visibility of COSCO Group in the United States, helps promoting its business in the U.S. What are the reasons for Senator Kerry and other members to thank COSCO Group r?

    As early as in 2002, the city of Boston, the capital of Massachusetts, faced a financial crisis that may result in a closure of its port, China’s COSCO Group lend a helping hand in time to save the local port workers, 9,000 jobs, and in addition, created over 26,000 new jobs. Blue-collar workers have always been the Democratic Party’s big supporters. Local workers and their union showed appreciation towards COSCO President Wei Jiafu. That naturally affect the state’s heavyweight Senator John Kerry’s attitude. In the following years, the union actually issued COSCO President a “Creating Employment Opportunities” Award …” (mostly by Google translator)


  159. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Shane:
    this article mistakenly conflates so many concepts.
    First, the US Congress has in the past been critical of China for certain specific things. To extrapolate that to assume that the US Congress is anti-China in all aspects is unfounded. So when they voice appreciation when such a sentiment is due seems hardly suspicious, and in fact is the polite thing to do. To me, the fact that they can criticize in some situations, and show appreciation in others, means that their attitude towards China is in response to the circumstances, and not pre-ordained.

    Kerry is no longer running for President. He represents the people of Massachusetts. So when a company does something that benefits his constituents, it seems a pretty natural thing to show some thanks. Now, I suppose he could’ve sent a Hallmark card; but doesn’t a Senate motion give it a little more gravitas?

    Though Kerry and Pelosi are from the same party, that doesn’t mean they have to be in lockstep over everything. Tolerance of a divergence of opinion is something many countries can learn from.

    “As a result, two years ago we saw that the U.S. Congress awarded its highest medal to 14th Dalai Lama, but this year we found a Senate motion to thank a Chinese president of a large-scale state-owned enterprises new bill.”
    —this takes the cake for a single sentence containing two completely unrelated concepts. THose two things deserve separate paragraphs, rather than being separated by a comma.

    When China truly “arrives”, hopefully her national news agency will have matured to the point where they can accept a gesture of thanks in a gracious manner, without the psycho-analysis.

  160. Shane9219 Says:

    ZaoBao: 中国模式能够被围堵吗?
    Does Containment Policy Work on Chinese Model?
    By 郑永年


    — “China does not reject all things progressive. The success it experienced is the result of an integration of Western countries experience with its own situation. This gives the Chinese model a special attraction towards developing countries.

    It is precisely because China does not develop behind closed doors but with the open door policy to build the Chinese model that gives this model an universal appeal. From the Asian financial crisis to the current global financial crisis, China’s model of crisis management capabilities and effectiveness, has led to more and more people agree with this pattern. While the West felt anxious about the impact of Chinese model on Western’s capitalistic liberal model, but as long as Chinese model attracts other developing countries, it is difficult to put it under a containment policy.” (with google translator)

    — “Although China itself is de-emphasizing ideology, but the West continued to re-ideologize China, using a variety of tasteful ideological concepts, such as “authoritarian capitalism” and “authoritarian nationalism” to describe and apply makeup to China”

    — “On the of international relations, a zero-sum game mentality is deep among people in the West. Chinese authorities are also aware of West’s concern and unease, and already devising ways to let the West to take it easy on the rise of China. Earlier, China’s focus on the “peaceful rise” and “peaceful development” concept. Now, the authorities also put out its financial resources to engage in a construction of China’s soft power (such as the spreading of the Confucius Institute and the media “go out” strategy, etc.). However, these efforts seem not only fail to eliminate doubts by the West , but they actually enhanced their inner fear of Chinese cultural “expansionism””

    — “Another main reason that any containment policy on the Chinese model may not work is that China has always pursued an open door policy. In the ideological level as well as the level of international relations, China does not hind behind closed doors. China does not like the former Soviet Union to put out effort building of a closed group of their camp. At the international level, China has access and has participated almost all important international organizations, and put tremendous efforts to reform their own inner systems to interconnect with the world community. That is, China put an working system that other countries can interact. At the regional level, China is pursuing an open regionalism. China and other countries have established a common interacting platform. The same on the world platform enables interaction with other countries, including the West, so much so that China and the international community have formed a large variety of common interest communities. Under such circumstances, the Western and other countries will not be able to contain China as they did on former Soviet Union”


  161. Shane9219 Says:

    @SKC #159

    Your various posts showed you have no idea of international politics and geo-politcis. Why don’t you just read more until you got your opinions more mature .

    That earlier post was not to help people understand politics in US Congress, but to show things have changed quite a bit even in US Congress.

    So it is also a good idea for those China bashers and haters to educated themselves more, get wiser themselves and not to jump their gun so often.

  162. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Shane:
    a) let’s face it, that xinhua article in #158 was crap. Now, if you thought that article was worth something, it reflects on your judgment (and not in a good way, in case you’re wondering).
    b) the only thing that’s changed in the US Congress was that there was something for which they owed China thanks, and they issued it, as adults should. The next time China does something worth criticizing, they’ll do that too. And let’s face it, that’s more a question of when, not if. I’ll leave the navel-gazing to you.
    c) aww, shucks. You should’ve told me that you’re an expert in international politics (self-proclaimed or otherwise). I would’ve listened to your every word, even when logic suggested that they were worthless.

  163. Shane9219 Says:


    Okay, you’re saying your Canadians really understand US politics?

    I though most white Canadians, like some of my personal friends there, wanted to keep as far away as possible from US politics. They thought it is totally stink 🙂

  164. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Shane:
    Being Canadian has no bearing whatsoever on an individual’s ability to understand US politics. One’s nationality and one’s such understanding are mutually exclusive things.
    The ethnicity of any given Canadian also has no bearing whatsoever on their affinity for US politics.
    I think US politics is fantastic, if for no other reason that it gives seemingly endless fodder for the Daily Show and Colbert Report.

  165. Wukailong Says:

    @Shane9219: As a rule of thumb, arguments carry more weight without constant references to the ignorance or stupidity of your opponents.

  166. Shane9219 Says:

    @WKL #165

    Generally agreed. However, you have to resort to such “shock-and-awe” method to get these people waked up from their habitual bias and arrogance.

  167. TonyP4 Says:

    Hi Shane,

    You’re just a Chinese apologist (see my Letter: Chinese basher and apologist). I used to be a Chinese apologist myself via the love of my country and there is nothing wrong with that.

    However, when we grow up and discuss, we need to stick with facts and be open minded. Your nationalism just takes the better self of you. Just look at my past posts (including Letter: a nation of no losers), I never say I’m almost right and I say good/bad things about China and US as long as I think they’re facts. Sometimes they turn out not to be so. We all learn together and from each other.

    * When one says ‘you’re wrong and I’m right’ or any personal attach, one has no interest to discuss.

    * I like the smaller projects for airplanes built by China, but not the jumbo jet. We have to start small.

    * I had long posts on HSR. It is the best solution for China to move people. It beats air travel within certain distances. SH and BJ could be the longest HSR and S. China is pretty much connected with HSR.

    California’s HSR will never take off for many reasons that I posted in other forum.

    * When you buy an air ticket, you vote. You vote when you select the flight based on which air plane the airline is flying for the same destination. I try to avoid Continental Air when I know the maintenance record.

    * China did not tag into US and its puppets’ launching satellete market for political reason. You know they did not have customers in friendly Asian countries and the rest of the world. I used it to emphasize the potential market problems and the potential boycott of US selling technologies to build a plane. China cheated to get some machines to make machines, but US said ‘no more’.

    * Discrimination is not something we can discuss in a single post. To be fair, discrimination happens in all parts of the world. US has far less than most countries – I posted my personal experience somewhere here. Comparatively, Chinese are more discriminative than the regular white.

    I know many Chinese Americans forbid their children to marry black. With less racial tension in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers have class discrimination. When the rich, old guy marries a poor, young and beautiful girl in HK, they’ve two banquets or same banquet in two separate rooms.

    I discriminate to go to a black ghetto at night when I know bullet flying all the time. I discriminate against Chinese food products and tires. They’re for my safety reason and my life is too precious to waste. 🙂

  168. Shane9219 Says:


    Your world view of black-and-white is way too simplistic and pathetic. You should throw those paper caps of your invention out of your window. They don’t work on people, nor make your feel any better. Plus, they are really stink 🙂

  169. miaka9383 Says:

    I hate to burst your bubble…
    But you tend to approach those people who disagree with you with the same attitude by labeling their opinions and them. what is that phrase? oh.. Pot calling the Kettle Black…

  170. TonyP4 Says:

    If many tell you you’re wrong, most likely you’re. I rest my case.

  171. Shane9219 Says:

    High-speed rail system on track for 2012 to run 500Kmph domestically developed trains


    “A HIGH-SPEED rail network covering 13,000 kilometers is scheduled for completion in three years, cutting train journey times considerably.

    A trip between Shanghai and southwest China’s Chongqing, for instance, would take only seven hours compared with up to 43 hours now.

    The network will comprise eight trunk lines, four running north to south and four east to west, and 42 lines overall. It will serve most major cities in China’s east, west and central regions.

    In addition, a domestically developed train capable of reaching speeds up to 500km per hour will roll off the production line around the end of next year, China News Service reported yesterday, quoting Zhang Shuguang, director of the transportation department under the Ministry of Railways and deputy chief designer of the rail network.

    The network will feature 8,000 kilometers of track designed for train speeds of 350km per hour, and the rest will accommodate 250km per hour travel. Zhang estimated that the new system will be able to carry 7 billion passengers a year.

    The four north-south trunks include:

    – A line from Harbin in northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province to Beijing, passing Dalian and Shenyang in Liaoning Province;

    – A line linking Beijing and Shanghai;

    – A line connecting Xiamen in east China’s Fujian Province and Shenzhen in south China’s Guangdong Province;

    – A line running from Beijing to Guangdong’s Guangzhou via Wuhan in central China’s Hubei Province.

    The four east-west trunks:

    – A line between Taiyuan in northwest China’s Shanxi Province to east China’s Jiaodong Peninsula, passing Shijiazhuang in Hebei Province;

    – A line connecting Xi’an in northwest China’s Shaanxi Province with Zhengzhou in Henan Province and Lanzhou in Gansu Province;

    – A line running from Chongqing, the biggest city in southwest China, to Shanghai, passing major cities along the Yangtze River including Wuhan and Hefei;

    – A line between Hangzhou in east China’s Zhejiang Province to Kunming in southwest China’s Yunnan Province, stopping at major cities such as Nanchang, Changsha and Guiyang.

    Running Already

    At almost the same time, regional high-speed railway networks will be finished between cities in the Bohai Bay area, Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta, Zhang said.

    Some of the service is already in operation. On the line between Shanghai and Chongqing, the section connecting Wuhan, Hefei and Nanjing has been running since April. It has cut travel time from Wuhan to Shanghai almost in half to five hours.”

  172. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Shane:
    you are definitely well-endowed in the shock-and-awe department. As for substance, noticeably less so, with the possible exception of providing laundry lists of Chinese capital projects.

  173. Steve Says:

    @ Shane9219: You’ve been asked more than once to refrain from the condescending remarks and ad hominum attacks. I’ve collapsed all comments containing them and will continue to do so until you change your behavior. Enough is enough.

    If you want to link to another article, please provide the link and a short summary. Do not post the entire link. Also give reasons for including the link and summary on the particular thread so we can understand why it’s here. If you want to post entire articles, use the open thread page; that’s why it exists.

  174. shane9219 Says:

    >> Tests bring made-in-China regional jet closer to int’l market

    “SHANGHAI, Sept. 12 (Xinhua) — The third China-made advanced regional jet carried out its maiden flight here on Sunday, bringing the ARJ21 model one step closer to secure airworthiness qualifications from home and abroad”


  175. Jerry Says:

    @shane9219 #174, @S.K. Cheung #172

    Shane, this is getting to sound pretty repetitious. Talk, talk, talk. Talk is cheap. “Show Me the Money, Shane!” And I would say the same to Boeing regarding the Dreamliner, “Show me the results, Boeing!”

    SK, this is no longer “shock and awe”. It is more like “yawn and boredom”. ::rolling on floor snoring:: LOL

  176. TonyP4 Says:

    Jerry, it is typical of large projects world-wide including Big Dig in Boston, most new air planes, Taiwan’s HSR… The planner shows rosy picture on the schedule and return of investment but they never meet the requirements. If they do not show the rosy picture, they may not have the approval of the project. It is common problem for a long, long while.

    On the other hand, China always shows projects delivered on time within budget. A lot of times, just propaganda.

    Dreamliner and the new Air Bus both are delayed. When they mention the change of the schedule, the stock price is affected. With the economic condition, the delay really does not affect anything but the planning if the buyer does not expect the routine delay.

    Air plane orders are a kind of strange. You do not really order a plane but secure a position on the queue. When you’re close to the delivery date, then you have to ‘show me the money’.

  177. wuming Says:


    Actually the large projects in China have been notoriously on-time or even ahead of the schedule. Which is probably one of the reason why that Tom Friedman has been singing the praises for “One Party Autocracy” and its advantage over the “One Party Democracy”.

  178. TonyP4 Says:

    Agree as I indicated so. This is why the HSR (high speed rail) connecting SF and LA will never be materialized besides economical reason. Too many negotiations, lawsuits… In addition, they need to hire the tough and smaller Chinese folks to build railway under the hot climate. The major connections in US and Canada were done by the Chinese. However, you never see a yellow face when the pictures were taken to honor the success of the ‘workers’ in any milestone.

    However, beside cost and schedule, we need to pay attention to the quality of the project, cost/reward, impact on the environment and citizens…

    I suspect a lot of China’s projects are used to boost up the prestige of CCP and China. I do not know it is good or bad. I prefer the projects are targeted mainly for the benefit of citizens.

  179. shane9219 Says:

    @Jerry #175

    Looks like a banker has lost his patience. LoL 🙂

    ARJ21 has confirmed and non-confirmed order over 200, including 25 from GE Leasing. It has a great start given such short time of this program.


    Your understanding of real China has consistently off marks, in miles, perhaps.

  180. wuming Says:

    “Agree as I indicated so. This is why the HSR (high speed rail) connecting SF and LA will never be materialized besides economical reason.”

    I made the same argument about HSR for US northeast corridor, where it makes perfect sense to develop such a system, but won’t. I agree that California is probably worse, since it practices a more democratic (and disfunctional) form of government than the rest of the country.

    “I suspect a lot of China’s projects are used to boost up the prestige of CCP and China. I do not know it is good or bad. I prefer the projects are targeted mainly for the benefit of citizens.”

    You are on the verge of becoming an idealist Tony. It should be taken as a given that many bad projects will be built (the highway system in China, for example), to fret excessively about the goodness/badness of such projects often prevent any from being built. Of course there is a happy medium between decisiveness and excessive fretting, except that nobody ever gets there.

  181. Allen Says:


    I don’t understand why you keep on harping on tonyp4.

    I see two cheerleaders cheering for the Chinese people to do well – but end up fighting each other. It’s like two fans rooting for Liu Xiang and cheering but ending up getting into a fight on the side because they can’t agree what the time Liu will run this time.

    If China does develop many of the industries it has deemed strategic – so much the better. If it takes longer – well, better late than never.

    I don’t see what the “fight” is about…

  182. shane9219 Says:


    >> “It should be taken as a given that many bad projects will be built (the highway system in China, for example), to fret excessively about the goodness/badness of such projects often prevent any from being built”

    Do you think people in China should always walk on dirt roads, and cars too? And it would make you happy to see India’s colonial era transportation.

    Without the new highway system, what would drive so many people in China nowadays to go out and buy a car. China has higher car sale volume than US this year, first time in history, even though China’s economy (in GDP) is still much smaller.

    What the highway system has been good for US economy is also good for China. With current established highway system, logistics and public transportation have made a tremendous gain, leading to a much better regional economical development and integration involving 3rd and 4th tier cities.

  183. wuming Says:

    “What the highway system has been good for US economy is also good for China …”

    I see an under-used highway system that promotes a US-like automobile culture, which in the long run is unsustainable. China (and the world) does not have enough natural resources and land to replicate the US life style for a significant portion of Chinese population. It’s not fair but it is a reality. In my opinion China would be better off to put the emphasis on mass transportation, even more so than Western Europe. I believe they are already doing that. Count me as another one of the cheerleader Allen talked about.

  184. shane9219 Says:

    @wuming #183

    You have a legitimate concern. The good thing is that China nowadays is pursuing a sustainable and balanced development policy. With a highway network, you can also a HSR network and subway systems. China has been closing down old power plants faster than US.

  185. TonyP4 Says:

    Hi wuming #183.

    Yes, China did set the priority wrong in highway and auto instead of concentrating in mass transportation. Many initial highways are planned by HK folks and HK graduates from US colleges. They’re all awed by the US highway system esp. New Jersey Turnpike. On the other hand some highways are the only connections for some rural areas to the outside world. Financially they may never be paid back even tolls are used, but they’re strategically important.

    The rail system (even with the huge numbers) lacks behind the demand. The problem is being fixed by the stimulation package. In the economical good times, some non-essential goods were delayed due to over use of the rail system.

    HSR is cost effective for China due to the dense population. Glad to see the BJ and SH line and the network in S. China/HK. Just curious after n years, what happens to the huge laborers and engineers of the railroad project?

    Airports are over-built. Again, some tourist areas are not accessible without these small, new airports.

    I would be one of the beautiful cheerleaders as Allen said as long as I do not have to show my sexy but hairy legs. 🙂


    Chinese have the following bad habit that I observe or something I read from the book Ugly Chinese. They like to boost their personal prestige by bringing down the famous folks. 🙂

    Winning an argument here will not make me famous and actually there is no benefit for me. However, if we learn from each other in debate, it will benefit each other. The world will be better if we understand each other’s point of view.

  186. shane9219 Says:

    ifeng.com (凤凰网) is publishing a serial discussion on the development of path of various countries (current and history). It is a good read from a single concentrated source (but in Chinese)





  187. Shane9219 Says:

    >> China overtook the U.S. as the world’s second largest consumer market of luxury goods


  188. haha Says:


    此次论坛她特别以《官出数位 数位出官》揭示中国统计数字的虚假。以下是根据何女士现场演讲及听众问答整理。





    1. 中国的GDP神话到底是如何造出来的?中国的统计资料历来分五级核算,中央、省、地、县、乡(镇).乡里是如何造出来的呢?据我所知,每年到10月份左右要报统计资料的时候,在不少地方,各乡秘书都要请相邻的乡吃饭,互相打听对方要报多少,然后回来再确定自己要报多少。一些明智的乡干部懂得,不能比邻乡高太多,太高了容易引起大家嫉妒,“枪打出头鸟”,私下里给你穿小鞋。但是也不能报得太低,太低了显得在各乡中太落后,所以每年如何报是种政治艺术,秘书打听小道消息的功能特别重要。这方面有个典型就是湖北省一个号称“五毒书记”的县委书记,叫张二江,在出事以后媒体揭露了他是如何假造资料的。一个乡里的理发店只有两个理发师,他居然报出每年的营业额是36万元,那两个理发师后来说:就算我们每天工作24小时,我们理一个头才收两元钱,一年要剃多少头才能挣出这些钱?还有一个村连一个鱼塘都没有,居然报出亩产200多万斤的数量。他那些年的政绩要么是无中生有,要么就是夸大几倍几十倍。这位县委书记如果不出事,这种造假也不可能被揭露出来。这是县一级的。




































    国内传说,胡长清被逮捕不是因为他贪污。胡长清把儿子送到美国留学,他的儿子在国内前呼后拥,每天吃香喝辣,到国外留学当然生活要困难很多,尽管有钱,但是买不来国内那种衙内风光,于是老吵著要回去。胡长清经常要说服儿子要留在国外,有一次不耐烦了,在电话里责备儿子:你怎么这样不懂事,共产党要垮台了,我们让你到美国留学,是让你打前站,我们全家最后都要出来。但现在钱还不够,等我再挣几百万就全家都出来。胡讲电话时疏忽了一点,中国的厅局级以上干部的电话都是监控的。共产党容许你贪污腐败,容许你做任何坏事,但是独独不容许对它产生异心,对它没有信心,这就是胡长清出事的原因。 共产党内像胡长清这样想法的人不少,他们自己对未来都没有信心,只是把中国看成一个供他们掠夺财富的地方。既然这样,所以中共官员就产生短期化行为,掠夺性开采对环境生态的破坏只是短期化行为的一种。





































    何清涟: 作为一个中国大陆来的中国人,我比较理解这个问题的敏感性。我想其他国家也发生过类似事件,它们的处理方式是否可以做为借鉴?美国历史上,夏威夷曾经独立过。它要独立,美国同意它独立。几年以后,夏威夷又不想独立了,还是要回到美国来,美国又让它加入进来。美国能够这样做,我觉得是因为美国对自己国家的民主制度、国力等有充分的信心。我觉得中国政府也可以这样做,既然中国很强大,很有自信心,又总在说台湾人民盼望统一,那么就给台湾一点时间考虑,也给自己一点时间,慢慢改善中国的政治状况。


  189. haha Says:

    本站发布时间:2006-9-15 9:22:36

















Leave a Reply