| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
China & Communism
Strategies and Schemes by Robert M. Liu More than two years ago, I wrote an article entitled "Does Ambiguity Work?" discussing America’s "policy of ambiguity" on the Taiwan issue under the Clinton administration. As you may recall, despite Clinton’s "policy of constructive engagement" toward China, U.S.-China relations deteriorated during the 1996-2000 period, as Beijing’s saber-rattling toward Taiwan escalated. Yet immediately after the Bush administration came into office, Beijing’s saber-rattling stopped. Since then, U.S.-China relations have improved beyond the optimistic predictions I made in my political treatise "A Guide to Chinese Affairs" (published in October of 2000): "If Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush wins the election, bringing back a stable China policy with no ambiguity on the Taiwan issue, he might stand a better (rather than poorer) chance to improve U.S.-China relations (and trade ties)." (Page 202 - Chapter 11- Territorial Issues: Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau). This is not a coincidence in my opinion. Skeptical of "the policy of ambiguity", the Bush administration made an unequivocal commitment to Taiwan’s security from the very beginning. This has apparently convinced Beijing that saber-rattling toward Taiwan would not serve its interests. It was years ago when I was still in Hong Kong that I first came across the term "policy of ambiguity" in Newsweek Magazine. When I realized that some American experts on Chinese affairs believed that ambiguity was a wise strategy which would allow America to protect Taiwan without committing itself to specific actions, I was amused. As a man born and brought up in Shanghai, China, "policy of ambiguity" clicked loudly in my head -- it reminded me of an ancient Chinese scheme called "the Empty City Stratagem". China is a country with a 5000-year history of civilization and a culture full of strategies and schemes, of which, "the Empty City Stratagem" is but one. I do not claim to be a historian with a good knowledge of ancient China. Yet, because ancient Chinese strategies frequently figure in Chinese literature and drama (such as Peking Opera), quite a few of them are common knowledge to people brought up in Chinese culture. I dare say that in China even a kid knows what "the Empty City Stratagem" is. When I heard the tale of "the Empty City Stratagem", I was no more than ten years old. When I was a high-school teenager, I took out time to read some ancient Chinese literature including The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a historical novel written during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). It was in that huge book that I found the origin of "the Empty City Stratagem". During the Three-Kingdoms period (220-265) in ancient Chinese history, General Sima Yi of the Wei Kingdom led his troops to a city under the Shu Kingdom’s jurisdiction. His plan was to besiege and capture it. But his scouts reported that the Shu Kingdom’s prime minister, Zhuge Liang, was sitting on the battlements, playing his zither, and that the gate in the city wall stood wide open. Both General Sima Yi and Prime Minister Zhuge Liang were great strategists of the time. General Sima Yi thought he had to be very cautious when dealing with Zhuge Liang. Looking up at the city battlements, he found that Zhuge Liang was really sitting there, playing his zither with great composure. The general concluded that Zhuge Liang must have deployed strong forces inside the city, or he wouldn’t have the city gate wide open. Not wanting to march into Zhuge Liang’s ambush, Sima Yi ordered his troops to withdraw immediately. What he did not know was that the city was actually empty with no defenses at all. Back to "the policy of ambiguity", chances are it may have appeared like an American-style "Empty City Stratagem" in the eyes of the Chinese leadership. The fact that Beijing escalated its saber-rattling toward Taiwan up to the very end of the Clinton administration is an indication of what Beijing thought about "the policy of ambiguity". It would be naive to think that American-style "Empty City Stratagem" could fool China’s leaders who grew up reading The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and watching "the Empty City Stratagem" on stage. They would use every possible means to test America’s commitment to Taiwan’s security, I presume. Besides, "the Empty City Stratagem" is a scheme for the weaker player to use. The stronger player doesn’t need it, because he has a stronger hand. That said, strategies and schemes always have an important role to play in politics. In the words of the late chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, "Policies and strategies are the Party’s life." That means the Communist Party could not have survived to this day without strategies and schemes. Mao seized power through "class struggle" (or "class warfare" as Americans call it) and maintained his left-wing dictatorship through "class struggle" until he died in September 1976. Without such strategies and schemes, he could not have started his business in the first place and could not have stayed in business for so long. In 1930s Germany, Adolf Hitler used anti-Semitism as a strategy to seize power. A close look at both "class warfare" and "anti-Semitic warfare" would reveal something in common between the two strategies. Mao’s "class warfare" incited envy of the rich and set the poor majority against the rich minority, thereby winning support from the poor majority for his Communist movement. Hitler’s "anti-Semitic warfare" incited hatred of the Jews and set the gentile majority against the Jewish minority, thereby winning support from the gentile majority for his racist Nazi movement. Both strategies (Mao’s "class warfare" and Hitler’s "anti-Semitic warfare") encouraged people in the majority to focus on differences (e.g. differences in class or race), rather than on the fact that those in the minority were as human as those in the majority. Both strategies were designed by shrewd, ruthless demagogues whose ulterior motive was to establish the dictatorship of the undiluted majority under their control. Another well-known strategy employed by Mao was "the United Front", through which, he managed to gain support from the middle class as well as from intellectuals, actors and actresses whose writings, speeches and performances could influence public opinion in favor of the left wing. He also used his "United Front" strategy to neutralize part of the opposition from the upper class. The purpose of this strategy was to isolate Mao’s enemy, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government in Nanking. It was so successful that by 1949 when the Communists took over the Chinese mainland, even wealthy business people thought they could continue to prosper under Mao’s "People’s Government". But soon these wealthy business people discovered that Mao had fooled them all. In the early 1950s, Mao again heated up his "class warfare", instigating employees to investigate and interrogate employers for "wrongdoing". In 1955, Mao nationalized the entire private sector of the Chinese economy so as to complete his "Socialist Reform and Socialist Revolution". As to Adolf Hitler, he had a "United Front" strategy too, though he didn’t say so. On the one hand, he used anti-Semitism to mobilize support from all classes in the gentile population. His party’s name -- The National Socialist German Workers* Party -- was an indication that he had recruited many people from the working class. On the other hand, he toned up his anti-Communist rhetoric. That was music to the ear of the wealthy industrialist class, which, in fear of the strong left-wing movement in 1930s Germany, mistakenly saw a savior in Adolf Hitler. Thus, Hitler won the support of the wealthy industrialists as well. Only, he was not a believer in free market capitalism. He believed in totalitarianism * dictatorship plus state control of the economy (i.e. "National Socialism"). He built his war machine with the assistance of the industrialists and then tied them to his chariot. This unholy alliance between anti-Semitic Nazism and the wealthy industrialist class was Adolf Hitler’s "United Front". History shows that people can be fooled and that many don’t know what is in their best interest. In the 1930s, many Germans believed that "National Socialism" was in their interest. They did not realize that Western-style liberty was based on free market capitalism and free enterprise and that once the economy was under the control of "society" (i.e. the state or the government) liberty would evaporate. "Socialism" (i.e. state or government control of the economy) is the deadliest enemy to freedom. This argument is nothing new. But I’m not sure if everybody agrees today, because sometimes I hear calls for government intervention where market forces could act more effectively. Anyway, German voters who thought "Socialism" or "National Socialism" could save Germany voted Adolf Hitler into office, but soon he crushed opposition and democracy through illegal means and became the Great Dictator. In American politics, few use the term "United Front" in reference to a political alliance. Commentators would say "consensus", which means some kind of an agreement which the various factions of a political party may reach in order to win an election. But such a "consensus" between people holding different views would lead to an alliance or "United Front". What intrigues me these days is how the Democrats reach their "consensus" or form their "United Front". This is a party that includes people from all classes. Some of them are wealthy. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are conservative. Some of them are pro-business. Many of them are pro-labor. Others are "liberal" or "progressive" (i.e. left-leaning), who appear to be the core base of the Democratic Party now. Some even call the core establishment of the Democratic Party "the Politburo" -- an indication that they believe that the Democratic Party has already evolved into a left-wing political organization. Needless to say, the leaders of the Democratic Party are very well-educated people. They certainly know what makes the economy tick. Namely, the economy can grow only if corporate America remains profitable. They know that wealth has to be created before it can be distributed, hence, to save the economy is more important than to save "Social Security". They know that wealth can only trickle down from the rich to the poor. Yet, in their effort to energize their voter base on the left, they tend to act as if corporate America were the problem. For example, in 1992, attacking supply-side economics, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton said to his supporters, "That’s "Trickle-Down". We don’t want that. "Trickle-Down" has only created people like Ronald Reagan and George Bush." But as president, Bill Clinton had to modify his original agenda and cut deals with the pro-business Republicans, allowing America’s "Trickle-Down" prosperity to continue so as to ensure his re-election in 1996. Perhaps, Bob Woodward’s *The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House* would shed some light on the conflict between economic reality and Clinton’s ideology. According to the book, Clinton was reminded by his advisors that his original agenda would trigger a sell-off in the bond market, which in turn would hurt the economy and the poor. Another example: In 2000, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore ran his election campaign on a "class warfare" platform. His anti-business rhetoric probably caused a few sleepless nights to investors whose savings and retirement dollars were in the pharmaceutical, tobacco and oil industries. While he did manage to energize the Democratic Party’s left-wing voter base, he may have failed to win the support of many in the middle, for example, middle-class people with 401(k) or IRA portfolios. In order to win elections, politicians need the support of those in the middle. That is why a "consensus" or a "United Front" strategy is essential to the Democrats. So far, it is not clear what the Democrats* consensus economic philosophy is. Apparently, liberal Democrats don’t believe in "Trickle-Down". The question is: What alternative economic philosophy do they offer? Their usual approach is wealth redistribution through high taxation of the rich, plus socialist-type over-regulation for business, which without exception would limit corporate earnings and discourage investment. They tend to ignore the fact that limited profitability and limited capital formation would bar corporate America from promoting economic growth and job creation. It must be interesting to see how Democratic front runner Howard Dean (if nominated his party’s candidate) would go about reaching a "consensus" with his party’s moderates -- the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party" as he put it -- in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election. Can he form a "United Front" capable of speaking in a coherent voice? Today’s Democratic Party is certainly not right-wing. Nor does it sound "centrist", either, given the radical voices from its left. It looks more like a hotchpotch dysfunctional united front under left-wing control, where the party’s few respectable moderates frown and squirm with embarrassment, wondering how much more nonsense they will have to take from the circus. December 29, 2003 About the Author(s): See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|