New York Times: China's political system superior to Americas.

[Kay]

Huh. I thought this thread was going to be about another Thomas Friedman column. Go figure.

I was actually surprised that it wasn't.

 

[wollery]

Do you have anything logical to support the notion that China would have been better off if they had adopted the US model of government following their Revolution?

One short term president, 2 chambers of Congress and a Supreme Court would have done exactly what better to deal with famine, Japan, Russia, etc?

To be fair, at the time of the revolution Japan really wasn't an issue.

 

[Humes fork]

How come the implicit assumption that the US is the only democracy and democracy stands or falls with the US? If the US became less democratic, would then suddenly, say, Sweden just think that democracy can't be so good, now that the US has abandoned it?

I think our political system is much superior to the Chinese one.

 

[KingMerv00]

What next? Islamic attitudes to women superior to the West's?

I'm sure Muslims living in the West are confused by this question.

 

[WildCat]

Has anyone even considered why the NYT would print such an opinion piece now?

China has been in the news of late as opposing efforts to pressure Bashar Assad, and accused of propping up a murderous dictator. So the NYT prints an opinion piece by a Chinese man defending the Tiananmen Square massacre and dismissing republican/democratic forms of government.

I have a hard time believing they did this to gain sympathy for China, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[crimresearch]

To be fair, at the time of the revolution Japan really wasn't an issue.

Wasn't talking about war with Japan.

A big political issue for the PRC was fear that Japan would be a springboard for US forces, and still finding a way to deal with Japan in order to build vital relations.

 

[crimresearch]

Same question to you then.

 

[wollery]

Wasn't talking about war with Japan.

A big political issue for the PRC was fear that Japan would be a springboard for US forces, and still finding a way to deal with Japan in order to build vital relations.

Fair point.

 

[angrysoba]

To be fair, at the time of the revolution Japan really wasn't an issue.

It depends which revolution we are talking about. The 1911 Revolution very much was targetted at a feeble monarchy whose military had been smashed by the Japanese in 1895 and by 1911 Japan was the colonial master of Korea.

 

[Wolfman]

The New York Times printed an opinion piece by a Mr Eric X. Lee which asserts China's political system is superior to Americas. I don't know if they though they were being edgy, but that's a pretty stupid thing to print.

What next? Islamic attitudes to women superior to the West's?

Yes, let's just issue a statement of blanket condemnation, and throw in some entirely irrelevant anti-Muslim fear-mongering, instead of discussing the arguments raised in the article.

First, let me point out that this is an opinion piece written by a Chinese man in Shanghai. Personally, even if I disagree entirely with his arguments, I still think that it is worthwhile for am American paper to present a legitimate Chinese perspective, if only to help people in America see how many Chinese view these issues. Contrary to what many Americans seem to think, there are actually quite a few Chinese who are very happy with their government, and who have ideas similar to those of Mr. Li. Yeah, they want improvements and change...but the same is true in the U.S.

The very concept that a newspaper should only print opinions that happen to coincide with your own ideas is repulsive; and the fact that you don't even bother to consider the perspective behind this says more about you than it does about the author of the article.

Now, let's jump straight into the fray, and the whole Tiananmen Square Massacre thing. Let me state up front that I consider that event to be an unforgivable atrocity. I have friends who lost family members there, and one of my best friends is a Chinese lawyer who's brother was killed there, and who is now a lawyer who has been fighting for more than 15 years to have the gov't admit what actually happened, and who has twice been imprisoned for his efforts.

But let's look at the core of the argument. Mr. Li doesn't deny the massacre, or paint it as a good thing. He states up front that China "paid a heavy price for that violent event". His argument isn't that it was a good thing, but rather that it was a necessary evil.

A terrible argument? Arguably so. But before you hop on your high horse, let me point out that this is 100% identical to the arguments used by the U.S. when discussing their ongoing policies of supporting despotic dictatorships. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and many others were the recipients of significant economic and military aid, which was then used to oppress, terrorize, and kill others.

How does the U.S. justify this? "Yes, its a terrible thing, but it was necessary...if we hadn't done it, things would have been even worse". If you disagree with me, just check out this thread, which makes exactly that argument.

Now, for myself, I condemn both arguments equally. Being an active participant in the oppression and murder of others is always wrong. It doesn't matter if it is China, or the U.S. Killing civilians in Tiananmen Square was wrong, and supporting Saddam while he tried to wipe out the Kurds was wrong.

The thing is, a great many of the Americans who condemn the Chinese gov't for Tiananmen Square, and who reject absolutely this argument to justify it, will turn around and use exactly the same argument to justify American policies. It is hypocritical, and demonstrates an ideological blindness which renders any rational discussion with them pointless and a waste of time.

As to the rest of the article, others have raised this point, but I will elaborate on it. There is no single universal criteria for evaluating which government is "best". Those who argue for the U.S. tend to focus on issues such as freedom of speech, human rights, etc. Those who argue for China tend to focus on issues such as social stability and economic progress.

Using the former criteria, the U.S. obviously comes out on top, whereas using the latter criteria, China quite arguably comes out on top. And despite Virus' dismissal of this article as invalid, Mr. Li is expressing an opinion that is shared by a great many Chinese people. Being a culture that is collectivist, Chinese people tend to put "the rights of the group" ahead of "the rights of the individual"...if some individuals have to suffer unfairly in order to protect the larger group, then so be it. Thus, for example, many Chinese citizens are opposed to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in capital crimes (rape, murder, etc.), because they consider that it means more guilty people will go free (and present an ongoing threat to society). If that means that some innocent people will also be punished, that's a necessary evil, so long as more guilty people are being punished than innocent.

My own perspective...I'm somewhere in the middle. I think that the U.S. and China represent opposite extremes, and I personally think that the best answer is somewhere in the middle, in a philosophy that presents more a balance between individual and group needs.

But to go back to the OP, the mindless reaction of someone like Virus is more of a concern to me than the opinion piece from Mr. Li. You are free to disagree with Mr. Li's opinion (I certainly do), but that opinion raises arguments and perspectives that are shared by a great many Chinese people. Moreover, it uses arguments that are also used by the U.S. gov't to support some of its own abuses.

I'd suggest that there are at least two reactions which are infinitely superior that of Virus:

1) To use this article as a way to better understand the Chinese perspective, so that discussion on important issues such as human rights and freedom can be more readily discussed and understood between the two sides. It pretty much goes without saying that if you don't even understand the other person's perspective, communication is going to be pretty difficult.

2) To look at the arguments used in this article and compare them with our own country and perspective. Truth is, most people here can't do much to influence policy in China...but they would have more opportunity to influence policies in their own countries. You can't prevent the Chinese gov't from being complicit in human rights abuses; but you can make your own voice heard in preventing your own government from similar complicity.

Thanks to those who've contributed thoughtful responses about this article.

 

[Giz]

A terrible argument? Arguably so. But before you hop on your high horse, let me point out that this is 100% identical to the arguments used by the U.S. when discussing their ongoing policies of supporting despotic dictatorships. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and many others were the recipients of significant economic and military aid, which was then used to oppress, terrorize, and kill others.

How does the U.S. justify this? "Yes, its a terrible thing, but it was necessary...if we hadn't done it, things would have been even worse". If you disagree with me, just check out this thread, which makes exactly that argument.

Now, for myself, I condemn both arguments equally. Being an active participant in the oppression and murder of others is always wrong. It doesn't matter if it is China, or the U.S. Killing civilians in Tiananmen Square was wrong, and supporting Saddam while he tried to wipe out the Kurds was wrong.

You're trying to argue a strawman.

Supporters of the US (such as myself) will say: supporting unsavory regimes may or may not be justifiable, i.e. aid given to Stalin in WW2 - despite him being 'orrible - was arguably the lesser evil. When we view Chinese oppression (i.e. at Tiananmen Square) there doesn't seem to be, what we would consider, a moral justification for it (unlike some US actions/aid given during WW2 and the Cold War).

Note: that doesn't mean that the US always made the right decision, or that said support always turned out for the best, but it was intended to and often did. Unlike the Chinese regime - which appears to simply value the amoral pursuit and retention of power.

 

[ravdin]

I read the article prepared to hate it (which I did). However, I couldn't help but feel there were a few uncomfortable grains of truth in what the author had to say.

I have a very strong sense that my civil liberties are innate and inalienable, and not privileges that can be granted or bargained away by the President or Congress at their convenience. But as I was reminded of recently, these liberties are a fiction- all governments, including ours, can and will take what they want when they want it.

The event that reminded me of this was the unhappy 70th anniversary of President Roosevelt signing Executive Order 9066^WP on February 19, 1942, which led to 110,000 Americans being sentenced to prison camps for the crime of having Japanese ancestry. If the author feels China's government is superior to ours because it won't hesitate to curtail its citizens' liberties if exigent circumstances appear to warrant it, then he should rest assured that our government will do the same.

 

[Wolfman]

You're trying to argue a strawman.

Supporters of the US (such as myself) will say: supporting unsavory regimes may or may not be justifiable, i.e. aid given to Stalin in WW2 - despite him being 'orrible - was arguably the lesser evil. When we view Chinese oppression (i.e. at Tiananmen Square) there doesn't seem to be, what we would consider, a moral justification for it (unlike some US actions/aid given during WW2 and the Cold War).

Excuse me?

The Chinese gov't -- and many Chinese people -- take the position that had the gov't not stomped down the Tiananmen Square protests, it would have led to a significant destabilization of the government, and of society. This is a country that was still recovering from the Cultural Revolution, another period of terrible instability. China was finally achieving stability, was starting to open up, and recovering from the past ravages of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.

It is actually quite possible that ongoing protests would have resulted in significant destabilization...protests that turned into riots, riots that spread to other cities across China, etc. At the least, such riots could have led to military actions that would have killed many, many more people; at most, it could have led to a civil war.

This is an entirely hypothetical discussion, as it is impossible to prove one way or the other what would have happened...just as it is impossible to prove that American policies to support despotic regimes resulted in better consequences than if we had not supported them.

But thank you for so very promptly and vehemently demonstrating the assertion I made in my reply regarding the hypocrisy of such views. "It's okay if we do it, just wrong if they do it".

And by the way, a straw man argument is one where someone argues against something that the other side never said...whereas my arguments are directly addressing specific claims that are presented quite accurately. You may disagree, but that's an entirely different thing.

 

[Giz]

Excuse me?

The Chinese gov't -- and many Chinese people -- take the position that had the gov't not stomped down the Tiananmen Square protests, it would have led to a significant destabilization of the government, and of society. This is a country that was still recovering from the Cultural Revolution, another period of terrible instability. China was finally achieving stability, was starting to open up, and recovering from the past ravages of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.

It is actually quite possible that ongoing protests would have resulted in significant destabilization...protests that turned into riots, riots that spread to other cities across China, etc. At the least, such riots could have led to military actions that would have killed many, many more people; at most, it could have led to a civil war.

This is an entirely hypothetical discussion, as it is impossible to prove one way or the other what would have happened...just as it is impossible to prove that American policies to support despotic regimes resulted in better consequences than if we had not supported them.

But thank you for so very promptly and vehemently demonstrating the assertion I made in my reply regarding the hypocrisy of such views. "It's okay if we do it, just wrong if they do it".

And by the way, a straw man argument is one where someone argues against something that the other side never said...whereas my arguments are directly addressing specific claims that are presented quite accurately. You may disagree, but that's an entirely different thing.

Sigh... lets try again...

You said that it was hypocritical for us to support oppressors while condemning other oppressors. I pointed out that it obviously depends on whether you view giving aforesaid support as the lesser or greater evil.

Obviously some people (for example, the NYT guest op-ed writer) think that T-Square was the lesser evil. Westerners may disagree.

If "Westerners" can make an argument why their "lesser evils" are justified and the Chinese "lesser evils" are unjustified then I don't think that they are being hypocritical (as they have advanced a moral justification for discriminating between the events).

Note: obviously this is true for the Chinese too - they get equal play at the "according to our paradigm we aren't hypocritical" card. And each sides justifications may look hollow to the other due to their different values.

Note 2: If I pass a value judgement, obviously it is based on western values and may be shrugged off as silly/irrelevant by those from different traditions. I know that, but I'll still make moral judgements all the same.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Has anyone even considered why the NYT would print such an opinion piece now?

They want Chinese financiers to buy some of their stock.

Now, for myself, I condemn both arguments equally. Being an active participant in the oppression and murder of others is always wrong.

Wolfman, that is what the guys who flew the Stars and Bars said too.
You a closet Rebel?
Resorting to sweeping platitudes like that doesn't help your argument, though I certainly enjoyed reading your post.

 

[angrysoba]

Well that's the first time I heard anyone claim the Tiananmen Square massacre was A Good Thing^TM.

Unfortunately I have heard others say things which are similar.

Here's what he said:

China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.

That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.

The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.

Li is using a rather broad bare assertion to suggest that it had to be done, which is pretty shocking, but a new biographer of Deng Xiaoping, Eric Vogel, seems to have come to similar conclusions:

“Did any other leader in the twentieth century do more to improve the lives of so many?” Vogel asks. “Did any other twentieth century leader have such a large and lasting influence on world history?” He clearly believes that Deng — known in the West mostly for engineering the slaughter of protesters in the streets near Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989 — has been wronged by history. His tome is an attempt to redress the balance.

Under Deng’s watch, Vogel writes, China transformed from a country with an annual trade of barely $10 billion to one whose trade expanded 100-fold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/enter...ezra-f-vogel/2011/08/26/gIQAfTD6FK_story.html

ETA: Another one here in which a Tiananmen-style solution to the Arab Spring is discussed as a potentially desirable outcome from the point of view of, say, the White House or Whitehall:

DAVID CESARANI: ‘That is certainly a moral dilemma… If you were to take the wholly pragmatic view, the expedient view of those sitting in the White House and possibly here in Whitehall, stability, the outcome of a Tiananmen Square-style crackdown is desirable and is predictable. If you allow this popular, democratic movement to run unchecked you cannot predict what’s going to happen. But you can predict probably that after a short, sharp massive clampdown, at huge human cost, there will be a sullen stability.’

No doubt this was what Assad, Gaddafi, Saleh and the Bahrain government thought too although it hasn't gone exactly to plan for all of them.

By the way, I do think that the Arab Spring is a better comparison with the Tiananmen Square massacre than the invasion of Iraq.

 

[angrysoba]

A bit more on that Vogel book on Deng Xiaoping:

The book is not without its weaknesses. Vogel is so effusive in his praise of Deng that the book sometimes reads as if it came straight from party headquarters. Vogel also portrays dissidents who have fought China’s authoritarian system as troublemakers blocking Deng’s mission of modernization. He seems highly sympathetic to Deng’s — and the party’s — argument that if China allowed more freedom, it would devolve into chaos, as if stability under the party’s rule or pandemonium were the only choices.

...In discussing the killing around Tiananmen Square, Vogel wonders why the West was so obsessed with the crackdown when other bloodier, government-sponsored massacres in Asia — such as the Kwangju killings in South Korea in 1980 or the slaughter of Taiwan’s intellectual elite in 1947 — passed relatively unnoticed into the annals of history.

It is no doubt true that the US and the West were very tolerant of brutal dictatorships in South Korea which quite often crushed rebellions under the assumption that things would be much worse if they didn't.

 

[Wolfman]

If "Westerners" can make an argument why their "lesser evils" are justified and the Chinese "lesser evils" are unjustified then I don't think that they are being hypocritical (as they have advanced a moral justification for discriminating between the events).

So, essentially, you are arguing that "it is okay to do evil if it prevents a greater evil"...or the whole "end justifies the means" philosophy...yes?

Now, personally, I disagree (which is why I oppose both American policies and Chinese policies in this regard)...but let's put that aside for the moment. The Chinese gov't claims that their actions were justified because it prevented greater evils; and the American gov't claims that their actions were justified because it prevented greater evils.

It is impossible to provide any conclusive proof for either side of the argument...we are dealing purely in hypothetical situations, "what would have happened if...". So inevitably it comes down to opinion.

And again, in my experience, such opinion tends to be flavored much more by "I support this gov't, so their actions must have been right" and "I oppose this gov't, so their actions must be wrong", than on any pragmatic, rational evaluation of the two issues.
So let me put this another way.

Your position -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- is that if the U.S. gov't believes that their actions, regardless of how 'bad' they may be, will prevent a greater atrocity in the future, then they are justified in taking those actions...yes? Their decision cannot be based on absolute facts, since it is impossible for them to actually know the future...it is based on an evaluation of the information they have at present, and a decision that their conclusion seems to be a reasonable one. It is based on opinion, evaluating their situation, and attempting to predict a future that may be right, and may be wrong.

If you disagree, please explain where you disagree.

If you agree, then one must hold a position that other governments have exactly the same prerogative (if not, then again, you are a hypocrite..."we can do it, but you can't"). Therefore, the Chinese gov't (or any other gov't on the planet) is justified in engaging in terrible abuses if they have reason to believe that it will prevent even greater problems in the future. The criteria for the Chinese gov't to make such a decision is no different than that of the U.S. gov't.

And if that is the case, then if the Chinese gov't believed that allowing protests to continue would result in greater harm, and if they had evidence to support such a belief, then they were justified in killing those students.

Now, personally, I disagree with all of this...I think it's absolute ********. For the very reason that such decisions are predicated on a claimed ability to be able to predict the future...an ability that doesn't exist.

Take Bin Laden as an example...American policies in supporting him eventually resulted in the tragedy of 9/11. Had the U.S. gov't known when they started supporting Bin Laden and the Taliban that this would be the end result, would they have supported him? Of course not. Their decision, ultimately, was demonstrably wrong...the world today would arguably be a better place if the Russians had defeated the Taliban and taken over, than it is with Al Qaeda and the tragedy of 9/11.

And it is because of that inability to actually know the future that I argue that the whole "doing something evil now to prevent a greater evil later" argument is a massive pile of ********. In most cases, the decisions are made for purely political reasons, and "evidence" to justify that decision is cherry-picked. Since nobody can predict the future, it is impossible to 'prove' they are wrong...leading us to situations such as that I have with you, where I get people like yourself making subjective declarations about "what atrocities are acceptable, and what atrocities are not"...with absolutely no possible evidence or proof to support their contentions.

Question: Can you prove, or even provide a strong argument (based on more than personal opinion) that if the Tiananmen Square protests had been allowed to continue, things would not have gotten worse? That it wouldn't have led to rioting? That protests wouldn't have spread to other cities? That vigilantism and radicalism wouldn't have fueled rioting in much the same way that it had fueled the Cultural Revolution only 15 years before? Or that overthrowing the government would have resulted in a better situation for the Chinese people than they have today (as opposed, for example, to a new dictator taking over, or a long period of instability that caused starvation and economic collapse)?

And to keep things very clear -- I'm not saying that it would have, or that it wouldn't have gotten worse. I'm saying that it is impossible to know. Which is why decisions to engage in such atrocities is always wrong. Whether you're American, or Chinese.

Whereas you are arguing for a position that seems to be based entirely on personal, subjective opinion -- one that allows Americans to engage in abuses, but not Chinese.

Which, again, I consider to be hypocritical.


ETA: In case someone feels tempted to bring in things like fighting Hitler, while I dislike war, I agree that it is sometimes necessary. Having two armies fight each other, however unpleasant, is a sad reality. That is very, very different from shooting unarmed civilians to maintain power, or supporting a government that is attempting the ethnic cleansing of Kurds, or of supporting a fundamentalist Muslim group that is intent on the suppression of all freedoms in their society...all of which are equally wrong.

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, that is what the guys who flew the Stars and Bars said too.
You a closet Rebel?
Resorting to sweeping platitudes like that doesn't help your argument, though I certainly enjoyed reading your post.

Sorry...I fail entirely to get your point, could you please elaborate?

 

[Giz]

So, essentially, you are arguing that "it is okay to do evil if it prevents a greater evil"...or the whole "end justifies the means" philosophy...yes?

I'm saying... it depends. As you note with your comment on WW2, sometimes we have to commit the lesser evil. For example, the Allied invasion of France in WW2 saw thousands of French civilians die... but one can certainly argue that it was a necessary evil despite the predictable collateral damage.

As we both agree that "sometimes" these kind of choices are necessary, we are now left with saying, on a case by case basis, whether we approve them rarely or very rarely.

Whereas you are arguing for a position that seems to be based entirely on personal, subjective opinion -- one that allows Americans to engage in abuses, but not Chinese.

Which, again, I consider to be hypocritical.

Not sure where you got that.

I said that (to adjust your wording slightly):

if the U.S. gov't believes that their actions, regardless of how 'bad' they may be, will prevent a greater atrocity in the future, then they believe that are justified in taking those actions

Obviously, you can switch "US Gov't" for "Chinese Gov't" and "greater atrocity" for "worse situation from Confucianism viewpoint".

But all that is saying is that folks will try and take what they see as the best practical course of action. Not that observers will consider it moral.