Posts Tagged ‘beijing’

Happy Chinese New Year!

February 27, 2015

And in its honor, a primer to understanding China’s international relations:

Let’s say I’m China, and I have this delicious cake. It’s fluffy and moist, covered in all the flair with like chocolate flakes and candied rose petals and stuff. Written on top in pretty floral icing are the words “China’s Territorial Integrity.”

Along comes Britain who says “give me some of that cake.”

I ask why, and he says that it’s for free trade. I am reticent, and he wants to compromise. I ask what I get out of this compromise, and he says that I get to keep the part of the cake that I already own.

I do not think this is a good deal. He pulls a gun on me and cuts himself a slice anyway.

We will call this the Treaty of Nanjing.

Emboldened by Britain’s example, others – France, Russia, Portugal, Japan, the US, etc – do the same thing. Tientsin, Whampoa, Peking, Shimonoseki, Boxer Protocol, Twenty-One Demands, etc, etc, etc.

At one point, the US decides that, as one of the “compromises”, everyone gets to share equally in the cake. Everyone, that is, except me, who actually owned the cake in the first place.

We will call this the Open Door Policy.

Finally, when I’m left holding a tiny slice of what was originally left of my cake, I decide I’m done.

I buy a gun, I take some tactical classes, and the others are weakened due to fighting amongst themselves.

I start reclaiming my cake. It’s not a perfect process, and the icing got smudged or had bites taken out of it, but by and large it’s starting to look like the way it did before.

And then, the thieves that stole my cake in the first place have the gall to set themselves up as the arbitrators of whether this is correct and proper.

They’re standing there, wringing their hands that formerly held pieces of my cake that they took, making anime eyes at me and whining about my “saber-rattling” and my “territorial ambitions” that threaten to “destabilize the region”, asking why won’t I find a “peaceful way to reach compromise.”

And I’m just standing here, going “you have got to be kidding me.”

I’ve seen what your idea of compromise looks like.

There’s two definitions to that word, one is to actually meet in the middle, and the other is to concede, and it’s real obvious which one is meant whenever they say China needs to “compromise”.

(Original credit for the cake analogy goes to LawDog, whose original version I also agree very strongly with)


Real Men of Genius – Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights

August 8, 2008

Real Men of Genius – Internet Crusader for Human Rights


____ presents: Real Men of Genius

Real Men of Genius!

Today we salute you, Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights

Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights!

Some people do research before committing to an action. Others make cost-benefit analyses. But not you. The moment you hear a slogan with celebrity endorsement and the word “freedom” in it, you’re up and ready to fight the good fight from the safety of your keyboard.

If nothing else, you’re raising awareness!

It’s wartime, there’s civil unrest in the border regions, and the economy is shaky, but that’s no reason to install cameras at traffic lights or to imprison looters and arsonists.

We’re jumping off a slippery slope here!

Sure, you have no idea how to build a functional government and economy from scratch. And you’re really fighting for a small disgruntled minority that no one cares about. But thanks to your efforts, at least the people are free…to complain about their lack of food.

MLK would be proud!

So here’s to you, oh helper of the helpless, oh champion of the oppressed. Just remember: only YOUR beliefs and standards of ethics and morality are correct, and anyone who says otherwise is a goddamn Nazi.

Mr. Internet Crusader for Human Rights!


The Olympics start in less than a day. All the Internets arguing (some of which I’ve engaged in) will soon be meaningless. This is a little something I wrote and recorded, inspired by all the insipid things I’ve had used on me, mostly the following.

Complaints against HR people:

Don’t do research.

Don’t acknowledge alternate viewpoints caused by cultural differences.

Don’t account for factors such as war and civil unrest that necessitate some restrictions of rights.

Don’t consider that the cure might be worse than the disease.

Overly idealistic, leading to proposed “solutions” that are unrealistic at best and mess up the situation even more at worst.

Arrogant as fuck.

Often support vocal minority against the interests of the majority

Musings on Tiananmen

June 6, 2008

So, yesterday (June 4th) was the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Incident. Amidst the memorials and the calls for improving human rights, the facts often get lost in the noise.

You see, what happened was that the government tried to negotiate. Due to the disorganized nature of the protesters (academic elites calling for democracy and disgruntled workers calling for more communism*), it’s little surprise that negotiations didn’t go well. They then sent in unarmed and lightly armed soldiers to disperse the riot. Which, in and of itself, isn’t anything to get the panties in a bunch over. “Civilized” countries do this all the time. Even in America, if you want to hold a demonstration, you have to clear it with the authorities.

What turned it into a clusterfuck was when those soldiers got attacked. Violently. As in pelted with stones and Molotovs. As in destroyed vehicles. As in dragged out of their APCs and beaten to death. As in corpses strung across the sky bridges. More dangerously, weapons were taken from those soldiers who were lightly armed.

I don’t care what your goals are. When you instigate violence, you deserve an ass-beating. An eye for an eye may make the world blind, but justice is blind, so what’s your point? Since when did instigating violence against military personnel become a “civil liberty”? And since when did military personnel defending themselves and maintaining public safety become “oppression”? My sympathies for the June 4th crowd stopped when I came across those papers at the top of this article. They now lie for only two groups of people: the random bystanders who got lumped with the protesters due to battlefield conditions not permitting a person-by-person inquiry, and the 人民子弟兵, the brave PLA personnel who died not to an enemy’s bullet, but to the sticks and stones of some young punks.

Yes, the government overreacted. But hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. Given how the last time something like this happened was the Cultural Revolution, and how that was ended by the PLA laying a whipping on the out of control Red Guards, it’s hardly surprising, no?

*Surprised? Quite understandable when you realize that Deng’s liberalization campaign resulted in many communes being closed down because they weren’t competitive. These communes formerly employed many workers who were now out of a job. Also, because most (if not all) communes were subsidized, they didn’t have much incentive to invest in modern methods. Between liberalization and starvation vs communism and food, that’s not a hard decision to make.

Addendum: Just looked up Jack Nicholson’s speech at the end of “A Few Good Men,” and felt it was relevant to this topic.

You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You?! You, Chai Ling? You, Wei Jingsheng? You, Tank Man? The CCP has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the protesters and you curse the PLA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know: that the crackdown, while tragic, probably saved lives. And the CCP’s existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want the PLA on that wall! You need the PLA on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very economic opportunity, public safety, and societal stability that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, “Thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!