PDA

View Full Version : My Article on China published by Beijing Review: My Understanding of "Democracy"



MichaelBaron
05-11-2008, 08:35 AM
Here is an article of mine that was published by "Beijing Review" 3 weeks ago.

http://www.bjreview.com.cn/eye/txt/2008-10/07/content_155556.htm

For those who are too lazy to follow the link, I am also pasting it below :)

UPDATED: October-7-2008 NO.41 OCT.9, 2008
Get the Message Right
Foreign media unfair to China
By MICHAEL BARON


In recent months, China has been subjected to a lot of unfair and completely groundless criticism. Western newsmakers appear to be deriving some kind of sadistic pleasure out of the horrifying negative reports that portray Chinese authorities and people in general as some kind of closed-minded villains who are oblivious to the needs of Tibetans, suppressing freedom of speech and flooding Western shops with "cheap unreliable goods." Given the enormous subjectivity of these reports, one is starting to wonder what kind of accusations are going to come next as there are hardly any "deadly sins" left that China has not been accused of.

So why are the Western media so hostile toward China? In my opinion, there are several unfortunate reasons behind this hostility. First of all, the Western media have gradually forgotten what true democracy is all about. Traditionally (in ancient Greece where the term "democracy" is from), democracy was defined as government "for the people and by the people." Therefore, if we consider the concepts of "democracy" and "democratic society" from the authentic perspective-China appears to be no less democratic than the United States, Britain or France. It shows that the ongoing attacks that the Chinese Government is subjected to are motivated by political reasons rather than willingness to show China the way toward so-called "democracy."

In reality, China is being prosecuted for being different rather than for lack of the so-called democratic values. "Democracy" and "freedom of speech"-related attacks are due to inability of the Western media to understand traditional Chinese values as well as the lack of independent media channels in the Western countries. CNN and many of the other mainstream newsmakers are (indirectly of course) dependent on support (both political and financial) they can obtain from government and corporate sources. In some cases, this dependence is transparent and direct. For example, many of the newsmakers (such as SBS TV and Radio in Australia or BBC in Britain) are government-owned. Such dependence makes it impossible for journalists to avoid the obvious pressure to produce reports that are in line with the government viewpoint. Should the reports focus on Chinese achievements rather than shortcomings, they would be unlikely to be published by the press or shown on TV.

Some of the complaints produced by the Western media are rather anecdotal. Recently, the Chinese Government has come under a lot of criticism for the alleged censorship of Internet websites. The critics completely ignore the fact that the majority of the blocked websites contain pornographic or other kind of inappropriate content. At the same time, a recent article by Paul Watson revealed that while establishment media outlets in Britain were spending the lion's share of the time reporting on China's so-called "censorship of political websites in anticipation of the Olympic Games," they ignored the fact that London Pancras International, one of the biggest transport hubs in the West, had already implemented stringent filters that block users of their Wi-Fi service from accessing even mildly political websites. Such double standards are the best evidence that anti-China media campaigns are carefully orchestrated and based on lies rather than on the true facts. The media effectively divert all the attention to the happenings in China while similar (or even significantly tighter) control measures occur in Western countries as well.

Similarly, Sepp Blatter (FIFA President) pointed out in one of his recent interviews that many countries and companies were very keen to get involved in doing business in China, but at the same time used the recent Olympic Games as a convenient platform for criticizing the Chinese Government. In other words, there is a lot of hypocrisy surrounding the anti-China protests. Blatter's statement confirms that the protests are motivated not only by the political closed-mindedness discussed above, but also by trivial economic rationale. From a purely business perspective, it is in the very best interest of the Western countries to turn the Chinese economy into their weak and dependent satellite. Therefore, ongoing political pressures on China are often aimed at weakening its economy and creating economic and social dependency on the West. Deep inside their hearts, many of the journalists behind the anti-Chinese reports hardly believe in what they are writing as they are simply doing their job! Criticism of China is in demand, so it pays off well!



I can recall having an intersting debate about the state of affairs in China here on ChessChat. From reading the article above, you can once again see my views on China's right to make its own choices and to decide whether it wants to be a "western kind of democracy" or not.
Feel free to disagree :)

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2008, 02:24 PM
China's right to make its own choices and to decide whether it wants to be a "western kind of democracy" or not.
The question is, which China makes the choice? The people, or its dictators? And this downplaying of the huge numbers of political and religious prisoners sounds much like Walter Duranty's whitewashing of Stalin in the New York Times (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/stuttaford051501.shtml). It's no accident that Death By Government (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) lists Communist China as #2 after the Soviet Union, with 35,236,000 murdered.

TheJoker
05-11-2008, 05:04 PM
I can recall having an intersting debate about the state of affairs in China here on ChessChat. From reading the article above, you can once again see my views on China's right to make its own choices and to decide whether it wants to be a "western kind of democracy" or not.
Feel free to disagree :)

The article does make a number of valid points however it seems as unbalanced as the "western media" it is criticising. It implies that only the western media is criticising the Chinese government and that all criticism of the government are based on a projection of western cultural values. It ignores internal cristicisms or criticism from expatriate Chinese.

The article does not acknowledge that the current Chinese government is responsible for some genuine human rights abuses, even if at level similar to other western nations.

It seemed as if your arguement was based on the assumption Chinese population has a culture that is inhernatly more collectivist than the individualist western culture. And therefore people were willing to sacrifice individual freedoms (both their own and others) if they considered it a benefit to the society as whole. However, you didn't provide any evidence to support such an arguement.

But considering this is an opinion, I guess a balanced arguement is not really important. In all a good article to provoke thought on cultural difference and the projection of ones own cultural/moral values onto others.

MichaelBaron
05-11-2008, 05:29 PM
The article does make a number of valid points however it seems as unbalanced as the "western media" it is criticising. It implies that only the western media is criticising the Chinese government and that all criticism of the government are based on a projection of western cultural values. It ignores internal cristicisms or criticism from expatriate Chinese.

The article does not acknowledge that the current Chinese government is responsible for some genuine human rights abuses, even if at level similar to other western nations.

It seemed as if your arguement was based on the assumption Chinese population has a culture that is inhernatly more collectivist than the individualist western culture. And therefore people were willing to sacrifice individual freedoms (both their own and others) if they considered it a benefit to the society as whole. However, you didn't provide any evidence to support such an arguement.

But considering this is an opinion, I guess a balanced arguement is not really important. In all a good article to provoke thought on cultural difference and the projection of ones own cultural/moral values onto others.

Thx for your feedback.
1) You could be right about people willing to sacrifice the freedoms. One intersting thing i noticed about chinese people living in australia - majority of them supports the government back home..even though they are no longer dependent on it and are free to be critical

2) I feel that Western values are being imposed on others far too often.

pax
05-11-2008, 05:30 PM
The question is, which China makes the choice? The people, or its dictators?
My thought exactly.

Aaron Guthrie
05-11-2008, 05:45 PM
Some of the complaints produced by the Western media are rather anecdotal. Recently, the Chinese Government has come under a lot of criticism for the alleged censorship of Internet websites. The critics completely ignore the fact that the majority of the blocked websites contain pornographic or other kind of inappropriate content. At the same time, a recent article by Paul Watson revealed that while establishment media outlets in Britain were spending the lion's share of the time reporting on China's so-called "censorship of political websites in anticipation of the Olympic Games," they ignored the fact that London Pancras International, one of the biggest transport hubs in the West, had already implemented stringent filters that block users of their Wi-Fi service from accessing even mildly political websites. Such double standards are the best evidence that anti-China media campaigns are carefully orchestrated and based on lies rather than on the true facts. The media effectively divert all the attention to the happenings in China while similar (or even significantly tighter) control measures occur in Western countries as well.Bolding mine. The support for the double standard claim here seems dubious, or at best irrelevant (i.e. of course we hold governments to different standards than transport hubs). A whole country being filtered by the government seems more serious than a transport hub being filtered, thus worthy of more criticism.

Leaving that aside, assume it is evidence of double standards, and I don't see how double standards are good evidence of lying, nor of careful orchestration. The former is ignoring one party doing something, but paying attention when another does the same thing. How one gets from that to lies I have no idea. Similarly the later seems to be a non-sequiter.

You might be being really sneaky though, and mean that this is the best evidence for lies etc., thus what you really mean is that there is no reasonable evidence for lies etc.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2008, 06:53 PM
Hmm, not often that I'm in agreement with Joker, Pax and Manga all on one thread ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
05-11-2008, 08:29 PM
I recall a Russian joke of late 70s (which Michael is definitely aware):
An American a Soviet arguing about freedom of speech.
American: I can go in the street with the big sign "Carter is an idiot" without fear of being arrested.
Russian: I can also go in the street with the big sign "Carter is an idiot" without fear of being arrested.

MichaelBaron
05-11-2008, 08:45 PM
I recall a Russian joke of late 70s (which Michael is definitely aware):
An American a Soviet arguing about freedom of speech.
American: I can go in the street with the big sign "Carter is an idiot" without fear of being arrested.
Russian: I can also go in the street with the big sign "Carter is an idiot" without fear of being arrested.

LOL :D Yes, it does ring a bell

MichaelBaron
05-11-2008, 08:50 PM
Bolding mine. The support for the double standard claim here seems dubious, or at best irrelevant (i.e. of course we hold governments to different standards than transport hubs). A whole country being filtered by the government seems more serious than a transport hub being filtered, thus worthy of more criticism.

Leaving that aside, assume it is evidence of double standards, and I don't see how double standards are good evidence of lying, nor of careful orchestration. The former is ignoring one party doing something, but paying attention when another does the same thing. How one gets from that to lies I have no idea. Similarly the later seems to be a non-sequiter.

You might be being really sneaky though, and mean that this is the best evidence for lies etc., thus what you really mean is that there is no reasonable evidence for lies etc.


Let me bring on my favorite argument: Do Chinese people tell Austarlian government how they think we should run our country? I do not think so!

Yet, Western media has so much to say about China. This reminds of the early 1980's (unlike Igor, I was either unborn or too young to remember USSR of the 1970's) when Russian TV kept showing reports on how horrible life in the Western countries was rather than discussed Russia's own current affairs.

Do not we have problems of our own? If yes, then why should we focus so much on the China's problems? They are strong enough to deal with them independently.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2008, 08:51 PM
Similar to the one showing that the PLO and Israel are really the same: in both places it was fine to criticise Ariel Sharon and praise Yasser Arafat.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2008, 08:55 PM
Yet, Western media has so much to say about China. This reminds of the early 1980's (unlike Igor, I was either unborn or too young to remember USSR of the 1970's) when Russian TV kept showing reports on how horrible life in the Western countries was rather than discussed Russia's own current affairs.
I also recall Natan Sharansky saying that life for GULag inmates was much easier when Reagan denounced the Evil Empire, and not so good when Dems were preaching appeasement and moral equivalence.


Do not we have problems of our own? If yes, then why should we focus so much on the China's problems? They are strong enough to deal with them independently.
What nonsense. Yes, Australia has problems. But we don't imprison or execute political or religious dissenters, or impose one-child and force abortion policies on families.

Zwischenzug
05-11-2008, 08:59 PM
But we don't imprison or execute political or religious dissenters...

China does these things in the name of combating terrorism within its on country.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2008, 09:00 PM
China does these things in the name of combating terrorism within its on country.
Of course, any excuse will serve a tyrant. Hitler and Stalin thought of excuses that many in the West swallowed too.

Zwischenzug
05-11-2008, 09:23 PM
Of course, any excuse will serve a tyrant. Hitler and Stalin thought of excuses that many in the West swallowed too.
If they are truly victims of the Chinese government and aren't terrorists, the US isn't exactly providing them amnesty. In fact, 17 Chinese Muslims were kept at Guantanamo Bay. Don't know the full details on this topic though and a little hesitant on declaring China's policies as similar to Hitler's or Stalin's.

Chinese Muslims kept at Guantanamo Bay. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/21/guantanamo.chinese/index.html)

Dougy
05-11-2008, 09:34 PM
Wow! I thought people had given up pretending they know something about "human rights" in China, just like with refugees and uranium mining.

Good on you for getting the word out MB, it's embarrassing how inaccurate and misleading the media is on China. It's even more embarrassing that people just believe it unquestioningly, not just laymen, but educated, intelligent people.

If your only source of information is the media, expect your opinion to be very skewed.

The Snow Lion and the Dragon (http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft2199n7f4&brand=eschol) is a good review of the Tibet issue, about as unbiased as one can hope for.

Aaron Guthrie
05-11-2008, 09:58 PM
Let me bring on my favorite argument:How about just responding to what I wrote?

MichaelBaron
06-11-2008, 01:15 AM
Bolding mine. The support for the double standard claim here seems dubious, or at best irrelevant (i.e. of course we hold governments to different standards than transport hubs). A whole country being filtered by the government seems more serious than a transport hub being filtered, thus worthy of more criticism.

Leaving that aside, assume it is evidence of double standards, and I don't see how double standards are good evidence of lying, nor of careful orchestration. The former is ignoring one party doing something, but paying attention when another does the same thing. How one gets from that to lies I have no idea. Similarly the later seems to be a non-sequiter.

You might be being really sneaky though, and mean that this is the best evidence for lies etc., thus what you really mean is that there is no reasonable evidence for lies etc.

How can I respond to this?
You seem to know more about China than I do :). You seem to know that China has a lot of problems..and exactly what these problems are.

A country filtered by government? The government acts in accordance with the Chinese laws. Whether you like the laws or not..its another story. There are many chinese laws that i personally do not approve of. However, i have no intention to write to Chinese government demanding for the laws to be reviewed as i am not a Citizen of the Republic of China.

Double standards are good evidence...of double standards! I have seen similar double standards applied (at different points in time) to almost all major non-Western economies (India, Russia, Brazil etc.) To quote a friend of mine who is originally from Maldives "My country is small and cute rather than strong and powerful so everybody likes us".

Do you genuinly believe that the Western Society has no problems to discuss other than transport hubs? The media knows how to bring "democracy" to China, but does anyone know how to stop the growing teenage obesety in Australia, USA etc?

Chinese university graduates are familiar with major literature and art works produced by the western civilization over the years. And what do many of the Australian graduates know about the Asian cultures? They travel to Bali for cheap beachers and entertainment and to Thailand for eqully cheap prostitution but they can not tell the difference between the Nothern Song and Sothern Song dynasties, in fact some of them do not even have a clear idea about fairly recent events that have occurred in China such as cultural revolution.

This reminds of a funny story: Once upon a time, a journalist asked a famous soccer player (I think it was Bobby Charlton) whether he knew anything about Kafka, to which Charlton replied "never heard about this guy before, which soccer club is he playing for?"

Desmond
06-11-2008, 08:24 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Michael Baron was an IT or eCommerce lecturer. What is he doing commenting on such matters? :hmm:

Anyway, if that is right, I'm sure he will point out the all too common mistake of Chinese taking domain names that translate badly into English to the BJ Review. :rolleyes:

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2008, 09:55 AM
Chinese society is, of course, a complex one. They had tremendous achievements over the last thirty years. IMHO, everyone in China should praise Deng Xiaoping at least daily, as he reversed the deadly path China was following under Mao Zedong rule. The direction they took could've been the most practical, as it avoided civil unrest on one hand, and overthrow by a communist bureaucracy on the other.
China (like Russia) still lack strong property rights and personal freedom. They have bigger (and stronger) bureaucracy and more corruption compare to Western countries.
On the other hand, they don't try to micromanage economy like our governments and don't have massive spending program.

That's my view of China, which might be right or wrong.

Now let's look at Michael's article. He claims that Western media has a special anti-Chinese agenda. I find this claim very weak.
Western media indeed stereotypes China and lack any deep analysis. However, it is not an anti-Chinese bias. Mainstream media stereotypes and lacks any deep analysis in relation to anything. It's the way they operate.
It does not, however, negate the fact that Chinese government violates human rights of it's own citizens. Not to the same extend as Sudan or Zimbabwe, but to much greater extent then Western countries.

As for claim that our media should address our own problems - it does. It freely criticises our own government and raises a lot of issues. In fact, our media is much more concerned with domestic affairs. But, unfortunately, in the same superfluous and sensationalist style as it does anything else.

As far as freedom of speech is concerned, see the joke in my earlier post, it's there for a reason.

Aaron Guthrie
06-11-2008, 10:05 AM
How can I respond to this?
You seem to know more about China than I do :).I haven't made any claims about China. I have claimed that your claim for double standards is not well supported. I have also claimed that your claim that double standards are evidence for lying and careful orchestration is mysterious.
You seem to know that China has a lot of problems..and exactly what these problems are.See above. I really have no idea how you are attributing that to me.
A country filtered by government? The government acts in accordance with the Chinese laws.
Whether you like the laws or not..its another story.I have never said anything about my opinion of the laws. I have said that if you are comparing transport hubs and countries, the latter must be a more serious issue.
There are many chinese laws that i personally do not approve of. However, i have no intention to write to Chinese government demanding for the laws to be reviewed as i am not a Citizen of the Republic of China.Your favourite argument, but again this doesn't respond to what I actually said.
Double standards are good evidence...of double standards! I have seen similar double standards applied (at different points in time) to almost all major non-Western economies (India, Russia, Brazil etc.) To quote a friend of mine who is originally from Maldives "My country is small and cute rather than strong and powerful so everybody likes us".Which is all very nice, but it isn't a defence against the dubiousness of the comparison (transport hubs to countries). Nor is it a defence of your claim that double standards are the best evidence for lies and careful orchestration.
Do you genuinly believe that the Western Society has no problems to discuss other than transport hubs? The media knows how to bring "democracy" to China, but does anyone know how to stop the growing teenage obesety in Australia, USA etc?Again, all very nice but not actually a response to me. I have made no claims about whether or not we should be talking about transport hubs or not. You are the one who thinks transport hubs as a relevant issue.

In case you missed it.

How about just responding to what I wrote?

MichaelBaron
06-11-2008, 11:12 AM
I haven't made any claims about China. I have claimed that your claim for double standards is not well supported. I have also claimed that your claim that double standards are evidence for lying and careful orchestration is mysterious.See above. I really have no idea how you are attributing that to me.I have never said anything about my opinion of the laws. I have said that if you are comparing transport hubs and countries, the latter must be a more serious issue.Your favourite argument, but again this doesn't respond to what I actually said.Which is all very nice, but it isn't a defence against the dubiousness of the comparison (transport hubs to countries). Nor is it a defence of your claim that double standards are the best evidence for lies and careful orchestration.Again, all very nice but not actually a response to me. I have made no claims about whether or not we should be talking about transport hubs or not. You are the one who thinks transport hubs as a relevant issue.

In case you missed it.


I was under the impression that i was responding to what you wrote :). But of course as a future Master of Philosophy student you may have some hidden questions in your writing that i am not able to notice. Sorry, I am a simple person with a simple brain so if you have a question pls ask it directly :). How about a one sentence-long question with a a question mark at the end of it :)?

MichaelBaron
06-11-2008, 11:23 AM
Now let's look at Michael's article. He claims that Western media has a special anti-Chinese agenda. I find this claim very weak.
Western media indeed stereotypes China and lack any deep analysis. However, it is not an anti-Chinese bias. Mainstream media stereotypes and lacks any deep analysis in relation to anything. It's the way they operate.
It does not, however, negate the fact that Chinese government violates human rights of it's own citizens. Not to the same extend as Sudan or Zimbabwe, but to much greater extent then Western countries.

.

Igor, you actually have a point!:hmm: In fact, I agree that bias is evident not towards China only. As the article was written for a Chinese publication, It was focusing specifically on the treatment of China. Of course, same could be said about the media's lack of understanding of current affairs in India, Russia etc.

As for the human rights violations in China...some freedoms are simply not regarded as appropriate in non-Western societies. I wonder whether people of China have more or less freedoms when compared with citizens of Qatar or Brunei. Yet, when the Australian prime-minster is holding talks with the leaders of these countries - he is not urged by the media to bring up 'human rights" issues.

Aaron Guthrie
06-11-2008, 11:27 AM
you may have some hidden questions in your writing that i am not able to notice.My criticism was direct.
How about a one sentence-long question with a a question mark at the end of it :) ?I can turn my criticism into questions, if you wish.
Bolding mine. The support for the double standard claim here seems dubious, or at best irrelevant (i.e. of course we hold governments to different standards than transport hubs). A whole country being filtered by the government seems more serious than a transport hub being filtered, thus worthy of more criticism.Given that actions of a country are of a different type (and especially worthy of more criticism) to actions of transport hubs, how does the example you gave show double standards exist?
Leaving that aside, assume it is evidence of double standards, and I don't see how double standards are good evidence of lying, nor of careful orchestration. The former is ignoring one party doing something, but paying attention when another does the same thing. How one gets from that to lies I have no idea. Similarly the later seems to be a non-sequiter.How does double standards show lies? How does double standards show careful orchestration?

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2008, 01:14 PM
As for the human rights violations in China...some freedoms are simply not regarded as appropriate in non-Western societies.
Correction: not regarded as appropriate by their government

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2008, 01:17 PM
I wonder whether people of China have more or less freedoms when compared with citizens of Qatar or Brunei. Yet, when the Australian prime-minster is holding talks with the leaders of these countries - he is not urged by the media to bring up 'human rights" issues.
Australian prime-minister is often urged by the media on different issues. It's up to him to either realise the shallowness of their recommendation (as Howard often did) or play populist games (as Rudd often does).

MichaelBaron
06-11-2008, 05:32 PM
How does double standards show lies? How does double standards show careful orchestration?

Ok now we get to business :).

You ask simple straight-forward questions, and now i can try to provide you with straight forward answers (to the best of my knowledge and ability that is).

1) In my opinion (and i am aware that many others disagree with me on this matter). Double standards always encourage lies. It is far too tempting for media to find a popular scapegoat to attack.

2) Regarding orchestration: it is very hard to prove. However, unity shown by the Western media when dealing with certain issues is highly suspicious

Desmond
06-11-2008, 06:28 PM
Did anyone order a mop and bucket?

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2008, 06:39 PM
2) Regarding orchestration: it is very hard to prove. However, unity shown by the Western media when dealing with certain issues is highly suspicious

Another conspiracy theory.:wall: :wall:
Use Okham razor rule and look for a simpler explanation.

TheJoker
06-11-2008, 09:33 PM
As far as freedom of speech is concerned, see the joke in my earlier post, it's there for a reason.

Freedom of speech, is an interesting concept as a universal human right. Particularly when dealing with media. There is no doubt that there is not equal access to voicing ones opinion through mainstream media. Money certainly buys mainstream media coverage. Media coverage most certainly influences popular opinion towards the bias of its sponsors. The Chinese governments position was that Western governments, domestic and foreign oligarchs would have exploited their ability to control a free media to destablise the current communist government in order to create more self-favourable business conditions. The state owned media was a response to this. It certainly has its downsides, but is has been fairly effective in creating more unified support for the government, that stability must have contributed in some part to China's economic growth.

Don't get me wrong I am sure the government also censors plenty of warranted criticism generally aimed at furthering the interests of Chinese society, but it may well be a price worth paying (at least in economic terms) to avoid external or self-interested interference in the mainstream media.

Again I think it's more about a balanced trade-off. I mean businesses benefit from diversity of opinion. But the level of critical opinion allowed to voiced in business contexts is usually well regulated. Basically you only want to allow functional criticism and not dysfunctional criticism. In politics it is almost impossible to know which one is which.

Axiom
07-11-2008, 01:01 PM
The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today

by John Pilger

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=499

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2008, 04:14 PM
Oliver Kamm refuted Pilger’s lies as follows (the original link is defunct):


Pilger has no conception of the historiography of the Pacific War. He writes:


The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. “Even without the atomic bombing attacks,” concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Pilger clearly hasn’t learned to read official propaganda with the requisite sceptical eye. The USSBS conclusion he quotes was written to conform to an agenda, and it was wrong. The civilian authors of the USSBS, in particular Paul Nitze, sought to make the case for an independent air force. Their argument would have been undermined by acknowledging that Japanese surrender had been forced by use of the A-bomb. They accordingly ignored the facts and wrote the answer they had first thought of. Their conclusion is contradicted by the evidence contained in the Survey, particularly the oral testimony of interrogations conducted with Japanese officials.

Pilger has not read the Survey. I direct him to the work of two scholars who have examined it minutely: Robert P. Newman, in “Ending the War with Japan: Paul Nitze’s ‘Early Surrender’ Counterfactual”, in Pacific Historical Review, May 1995; and Gian Gentile, in “Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan”, in Pacific Historical Review, February 1997. In his book Enola Gay and the Court of History, 2004, p. 38, Professor Newman summarises:


All these [Japanese] officials said the war would have gone on absent the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and some said Soviet entry was also important. There is no contradictory testimony in USSBS files. Nitze made up the testimonial basis for the early surrender claim out of whole cloth.
Kamm also disposes of Pilger’s claim Japan had long tried to surrender before Hiroshima — a claim that should need no further evidence beyond the simple fact that it didn’t:


There is not a single piece of documentary evidence from Japanese sources of a desire to surrender. Moreover, the conduct of the Japanese military after the bombs were dropped demonstrated that no such prospect had been on offer.

Furthermore, recently discovered evidence (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24168898-5005962,00.html)shows that Japan's PM wanted to fight even AFTER the atomic bombs


HIDEKI Tojo, Japan's prime minister for much of World War II, wanted to keep fighting after the atomic bombings because he believed surrender was a disgrace, according to journal entries published today.

Tojo, an army general, ordered the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought the US into World War II but was forced out as premier in 1944 as the tide of the conflict turned.

He was hanged as a war criminal in 1948 by orders of an allied court.

In the run-up to Friday's anniversary of Japan's surrender, the Nikkei newspaper said it had discovered Tojo's diaries from the last days of the war.

"Without fully employing its abilities even at the final moment, the imperial nation is surrendering before the enemies' propaganda," Tojo wrote, as quoted by the newspaper.

"I never imagined the torpor of the nation's leaders and people," he wrote.

Tojo said Japan was surrendering because it was afraid of more atomic bombings and of the Soviet Union entering the Pacific front.

But Tojo warned Japan "will come off as a complete loser by accepting unconditional surrender, even if it makes a few demands".

MichaelBaron
07-11-2008, 07:21 PM
I think politics is a hell of a durty game :(

Axiom
07-11-2008, 07:25 PM
I think politics is a hell of a dirty game :(
I think you are correct.

Axiom
07-11-2008, 07:29 PM
Michael , i noticed you quoted Paul Watson in your article , am i right in assuming that it was i who introduced you to his writings here at chesschat ?
I'm just curious.

btw good article :clap: :clap: :clap:

MichaelBaron
08-11-2008, 09:29 AM
Michael , i noticed you quoted Paul Watson in your article , am i right in assuming that it was i who introduced you to his writings here at chesschat ?
I'm just curious.



You are absolutely right! However, lets keep this thread specifically for the discussions of China rather than media in general. Could it be that China is the next global leader in making or not? :hmm:

Axiom
08-11-2008, 02:17 PM
You are absolutely right! However, lets keep this thread specifically for the discussions of China rather than media in general. Could it be that China is the next global leader in making or not? :hmm:
yes, sorry, michael, i hesitated in posting in it , for that very reason , just wanted to show the depth and breadth of western propaganda, where it even becomes very difficult for astute analysts to separate fact from fiction.
I am very pleased to see you cite that source , and to see you help get the word out.
well done again michael.

yes china is a global power in waiting , the only thing that can stop them is a full scale military conflict , which no doubt the anglo-american empire is plotting .

MichaelBaron
08-11-2008, 06:34 PM
yes, sorry, michael, i hesitated in posting in it , for that very reason , just wanted to show the depth and breadth of western propaganda, where it even becomes very difficult for astute analysts to separate fact from fiction.
I am very pleased to see you cite that source , and to see you help get the word out.
well done again michael.

yes china is a global power in waiting , the only thing that can stop them is a full scale military conflict , which no doubt the anglo-american empire is plotting .


Well I do share some of your views on the way the world is (just some thought, not the Syberian tiger ones ;))

antichrist
11-04-2013, 10:46 PM
MichaelBaron
There are many chinese laws that i personally do not approve of. However, i have no intention to write to Chinese government demanding for the laws to be reviewed as i am not a Citizen of the Republic of China.

Mike,I think the Republic of China is Taiwan, mainland China is the People's Repulic of China - I admit they are confusing with their 10/10 and 10/11 whatever anniversary dates.

When I was there 35 years ago everyone hated the govt and again when there twenty years ago. Esp amongst the intellectuals. Last time there many thought Christianity was the best thing since sliced bread, I told them they were getting the West's disease