我深深感到屁股决定脑袋，坐在学院里的教授们是最不可信的一群。孔杰荣教授号称中国问题专家而能受到中共礼遇，这个骑墙文人极善于投机。我想如果 是林培瑞教授来作为陈光诚的谈判代理，绝不会那么轻易接受共匪的虚假承诺。 @tengbiao
12 年5月4日, 21:04
Perry Link @perrylink
#cgc 美对中国观点已过时 林培瑞：美专家将中国等同于政府，忽视广大民意，与国情脱节。美政府谈判时唯恐开罪中方，不敢提醒对方有政权嬗变可能，但中国高层将家人财产转移国外，显 然切切在心。网民大多认为美方应加大对陈光诚支持 华盛顿邮报社论： http://wapo.st/J3ULnj
12 年5月11日, 17:16
edde 小杜 @Edourdoo
林培瑞表示中共不等于中国。Allowing "China" to mean only a small elite is dangerous in that it adumbrates nearly a fifth of the world's ppl.
12 年5月11日, 15:06
lihlii @lihlii
到位评论 > @perrylink #cgc 美对中国观点已过时 林培瑞：美专家将中国等同于政府，忽视广大民意，与国情脱节。美政府谈判时唯恐开罪中方，不敢提醒对方有政权嬗变可能。网民大多认为美方应加大对陈光诚支 持 华盛顿邮报社论：http://wapo.st/J3ULnj
12 年5月12日, 17:43
林培瑞吁美国认清中共非中国 公开与中国人民对话（图）: 美国知名中国问题学者林培瑞(Perry Link),日前在《华盛顿邮报》发表评论文章,从陈光诚事件反思美国看待中国问题的观点已经过时。林培瑞在洛杉矶接受本台访问,进一... http://bit.ly/KXhh8c
5:27 PM - 13 May 12
ZhangWeiGuo 张伟国 @zhangweiguo
林培瑞：我的主张是美国应该和中国老百姓有更多接触,比如中国老百姓发表《零八宪章》,美国应该给予支持,公开说<零八宪章>挺好 的,不要看中国官方反应,要直接给中国老百姓一些支助,并保持互动关系,我觉得这才有用 http://bit.ly/KXHRhu
ZhangWeiGuo 张伟国 @zhangweiguo
林培瑞说:"若是把美国的态度说成'文明',我觉得这就流于过奖了。美国(对中国)最大的问题是天真!美国看不到中国老百姓真实情况,而是中国官 方说什么,美国就天真的接受了,而且还体贴考虑到中国是否敏感,但考虑的全都是中国官方的'敏感'。" http://bit.ly/KXHRhu
ZhangWeiGuo 张伟国 @zhangweiguo
林培瑞他在華盛頓郵報以「美國對中國過時觀點」為題，對陳光誠一案引發的中國問題分析，歐巴馬表示，「我們希望中國強大、繁榮」。林培瑞表示美國 要把中國政府與中國人民分開看。他提醒美國政府，不要再讓「中國」這個字眼持續曖昧不明。http://bit.ly/KXrm59
http://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/th-05132012105224.html
林培瑞吁美国认清中共非中国 公开与中国人民对话（图）
2012-05-13
美国知名中国问题学者林培瑞(Perry Link),日前在《华盛顿邮报》发表评论文章,从陈光诚事件反思美国看待中国问题的观点已经过时。林培瑞在洛杉矶接受本台访问,进一步呼吁美国不应该 把"美中关系"窄化成"两国官方关系",应该和中国老百姓广泛而公开地对话交流。
图片：林培瑞在洛杉矶接受本台访问,吁美国看清中共非中国,公开和中国人民交流。(记者萧 融拍摄)
他 表示:"因为我觉得美国官方只和中国官方交谈,如果中国是个民主国家,中国领导阶层真能代表所有中国人,那么美国现行的法子还可以说得过去,但 是,中国不 是民主国家,中国官方代表的是一个利益集团,一个权贵阶层.事实上,近几年网络发达之后,中国老百姓(公众意见)开始有自己的表现,很多看法和官 方不一 样,陈光诚事件就是一个例子,不论墙内墙外,绝大多数网上评论都支持陈光诚,网民意见和中国官方态度截然不同.所以,包括美国在内的民主国家不能 只和中国 官方打交道,应该兼顾中国老百姓。"
林培瑞直指美国官方和某些国际事务专家对待中国问题的论点,总是在"中共"和"中国",以及"中国" 和"中国人民" 等概念上暧昧不明,对陈光诚事件的态度和讲话也显得太过天真。
林培瑞说:"若是把美国的态度说成'文明',我觉得这就流于过奖了。美国(对中国)最大的问题是天真!美国看不到中国老百姓真实情况,而是中国官 方说什么,美国就天真的接受了,而且还体贴考虑到中国是否敏感,但考虑的全都是中国官方的'敏感'。"
记 者向林培瑞提问,美国对中国表现出的"天真",恐为美方招来什么麻烦?他回答:"这样的天真,首先将出卖十八世纪美国建国之初坚持民主的理想,美 国创立当 时的理想乃普世价值,包括华盛顿等历任总统都强调人权价值,人民有权追寻快乐等等,这些权利不是政府恩赐的东西,而是人类生来自然的权利,也是普 世价值. 所以,美国现在若不主张普世价值的概念,对美国文化将造成损失。第二, 更直接地说,中国共产党无论如何不会永久,现在有那么多老百姓对他有意见,他(中共政权)能持续多久已是个问题,一旦美国把所有注意力投向一个政党,哪天 这个政党没了政权,美国又该怎么办?双方既有关系全没了,这对美国也是个危险,这是错误的外交政策。"
针对美国官方和媒体经常可见把"中国"和"中共"两者划上等号的观点,林培瑞对此发出警讯,他特别呼吁美国政府莫把美中"两国关系"自我设限成" 两国官方关系"。
林 培瑞指出:"尤其在人权问题上,美国官方对中国官方太怀柔,也太客气。我的意思并非要美国针对人权问题向中国官方直说不对,或是和中方'对着干 ',这样对 美国也不会有多大好处,因为中国官方听不进去。我的主张是美国应该和中国老百姓有更多接触,比如中国老百姓发表《零八宪章》,美国应该给予支持, 公开 说<零八宪章>挺好的,不要看中国官方反应,要直接给中国老百姓一些支助,并保持互动关系,我觉得这才有用.美国官方和中国经常不公 开谈论' 敏感'问题,总是私下对话,但是,所得效果和事前预期恰是相反,因为循私下渠道和中国官方对话,他们就可以只听不做,反正外界也不知道,包括人权 问题,陈 光诚能否自由的问题,《零八宪章》和乌坎事件等任何中国老百姓的问题,美国若是能公开表态,中国官方当然会讨厌,但那也是中国官方自己的事.美国 应该对全 体中国,而非和单一阶层对话,我的概念(美中关系)是两个国家和两国人民的关系,美国应该和你应该对话的对象说话,和中国老百姓公开交流,不要蒙 在鼓里说 话,美国应该公开说出人权问题和普世价值等大原则问题。 "
以上是自由亚洲电台记者萧融发自洛杉矶的报导。
http://www.worldjournal.com/view/aChinanews/18569812/article-%E6%9E%97%E5%9F%B9%E7%91%9E%E6%92%B0%E6%96%87%E6%89%B9%E7%BE%8E%EF%BC%9A%E3%80%8E%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E8%A7%80%E9%BB%9E%E3%80%8F%E9%81%8E%E6%99%82?instance=cnnews#site_footer_container
林培瑞撰文批美：『中國觀點』過時
大陸新聞組北京12日電
May 12, 2012 06:00 AM | 1924 次 | 0 | 3 | |
美國學者林培瑞於華府時間11日在「華盛頓郵報」發表專文指出，陳光誠4月逃到美國駐北京大使館，被中國網民稱為「中國盲人蜘蛛俠奇蹟」，他認為 美國要把中國政府與中國人民分開看。
林培瑞把中國共產黨統治比喻為中國歷史上兩個短命的朝代秦朝與隋朝，他說，兩個朝代都嚴密監控進行新的大型建築工程、快速累積財富，但卻是殘暴政 權，強制壓榨勞工並迫害知識份子，現在美國看待中國的觀點都已經過時，他說，也許陳光誠脫逃的奇蹟可以成就第二個奇蹟：讓美國政府真正了解「中 國」。
林培瑞是專門揭開1989年六四天安門事件內幕一書「天安門文件」共同編輯，是美國知名的「中國通」。
他在華盛頓郵報以「美國對中國過時觀點」（America's outdated view of China）為題，對陳光誠一案引發的中國問題分析，認為美國總統歐巴馬表示，「我們希望中國強大、繁榮」。他提醒美國政府，不要再讓「中國」這個字眼持 續曖昧不明。
林培瑞文中提到，對美國人以及眾多中國人而言，美國總統歐巴馬衷心希望富強繁榮的對象是「所有中國人」，但以中國共產黨領導人角度，美國希望的是 在共產黨領導下的富有而強大的國家，這個看法可以從中國政府的官方媒體中反映出來。
林培瑞說，很遺憾的，美國一些熟稔中美關係的專家，持續以北京政府一小圈領導菁英分子觀點歸屬為「中國」（China）以及「中國人」（the Chinese），然後以這個所謂「中國觀點」（the Chinese view）看待所有問題，包括人民幣匯率、高科技轉移、西藏、台灣以及敘利亞，不管這個觀點與其他中國人看法背離程度有多遠。
林培瑞舉上個月剛在美國過世的中國天文物理學家方勵之為例表示，1989年方勵之在美國大使館避難時，中國政府釋放他的條件是不能再從事「反中 國」活動，但方勵之拒絕共產黨擁有「中國」二字，他說做為中國公民，他關心中國的和平繁榮以及現代化，因此在方勵之獲釋後，仍持續批評中國統治 者。
林培瑞在文中說，網路是第一個北京政府沒有辦法全盤控制的媒體，從這次陳光誠事件，網路成為沒有被完全封鎖、民眾仍可討論陳光誠案的平台，而且意 見都呈壓倒性正面。
郭亮 @okokmean
美学者林培瑞批美政府中国观点过时 http://soundofhope.org/programs/162/217136-1.asp
http://soundofhope.org/programs/162/217136-1.asp
美学者林培瑞批美政府中国观点过时
2012年5月12日 星期六 节目长度：2分25秒 下载mp3(16k) | (128k)
美国学者林培瑞11号在华盛顿邮报发表专文，分析大陆盲人维权律师陈光诚一案引发的中国问题，林培瑞提醒美国政府，中共不等于中国。
中央社报导，林培瑞认为现在美国看待中国的观点都已经过时，也许陈光诚脱逃的奇迹可以成就第2个奇迹：让美国政府真正了解"中国"。
林培瑞11号在华盛顿邮报以"美国对中国过时观点"（America's outdated view of China）为题，对陈光诚引发的中国问题进行分析，认为总统欧巴马以及国务卿希拉蕊先后表示，"我们希望中国强大、繁荣"。他提醒美国政府，不要再让 "中国"这个字眼持续暧昧不明。
林培瑞文中提到，对美国人以及众多大陆人而言，美国总统欧巴马以及希拉蕊衷心希望富强繁荣的对象是"所有中国人"。
但是从中共的官方媒体中反映出来的却是，美国希望的是在共产党领导下的富有而强大的国家。
林培瑞说，很遗憾的，美国一些熟稔中美关系的专家，持续以北京政府一小圈领导菁英份子观点归属为"中国"（China）以及"中国人"（the Chinese），然后以这个所谓"中国观点"（the Chinese view）看待所有问题，包括人民币汇率、高科技转移、西藏、台湾以及叙利亚，不管这个观点与其他中国人看法背离程度有多远。
林培瑞举上个月刚在美国过世的大陆天文物理学家方励之为例表示，1989年方励之在美国大使馆避难时，中共政府释放他的条件是不能再从事"反中 国"活动，但方励之拒绝共产党拥有"中国"二字，他说做为中国公民，他关心中国大陆的和平繁荣以及现代化，因此在方励之获释后，仍持续批评中国大 陆统治者。
林培瑞在文中还提到网路对中共统治的改变，他说，网路是第1个大陆政府没有办法全盘控制的媒体，从这次陈光诚事件，网路成为没有被完全封锁、民众 仍可讨论陈光诚案的平台，而且意见都呈压倒性正面。这次陈光诚离开美国大使馆保护到北京一家医院治疗，大陆网路上意见几乎都认为美国人没有充分帮 助陈光诚。
林培瑞是"天安门文件"（The Tiananmen Papers）一书的共同编辑，是美国知名的"中国通"。
希望之声国际广播电台 郑念、何雯报导。
台灣新聞 @twlatestnews
林培瑞撰文 批美中國觀點過時: （中央社記者林淑媛華盛頓11日專電）美國學者林培瑞在「華盛頓郵報」發表專文指出，陳光誠4月逃到美... http://bit.ly/K95Bws （華視）
http://news.cts.com.tw/cna/international/201205/201205121000766.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
林培瑞撰文 批美中國觀點過時
2012/05/12 08:01 中央社
（中央社記者林淑媛華盛頓11日專電）美國學者林培瑞在「華盛頓郵報」發表專文指出，陳光誠4月逃到美國駐北京大使館，被大陸網友稱為「中國盲人 蜘蛛俠奇蹟」，他認為美國要把中國大陸政府與中國人民分開看。
林培瑞把中國共產黨統治比喻為中國歷史上兩個短命的朝代秦朝與隋朝，他說，兩個朝代都嚴密監控進行新的大型建築工程、快速累積財富，但卻是殘暴政 權，強制壓榨勞工並迫害知識份子，現在美國看待中國的觀點都已經過時，他說，也許陳光誠脫逃的奇蹟可以成就第2個奇蹟：讓美國政府真正了解「中 國」。
林培瑞是專門揭開1989年六四天安門事件內幕一書「天安門文件」（The Tiananmen Papers）共同編輯，是美國知名的「中國通」。
他今天在華盛頓郵報以「美國對中國過時觀點」（America's outdated view of China）為題，對大陸盲人維權律師陳光誠一案引發的中國問題分析，認為美國總統歐巴馬以及國務卿希拉蕊．柯林頓先後表示，「我們希望中國強大、繁 榮」。他提醒美國政府，不要再讓「中國」這個字眼持續曖昧不明。
林培瑞文中提到，對美國人以及眾多中國大陸人而言，美國總統歐巴馬以及希拉蕊衷心希望富強繁榮的對象是「所有中國人」，但以中國共產黨領導人角 度，美國希望的是在共產黨領導下的富有而強大的國家，這個看法可以從中國大陸政府的官方媒體中反映出來。
林培瑞說，很遺憾的，美國一些熟稔中美關係的專家，持續以北京政府一小圈領導菁英份子觀點歸屬為「中國」（China）以及「中國人」（the Chinese），然後以這個所謂「中國觀點」（the Chinese view）看待所有問題，包括人民幣匯率、高科技轉移、西藏、台灣以及敘利亞，不管這個觀點與其他中國人看法背離程度有多遠。
林培瑞舉上個月剛在美國過世的大陸天文物理學家方勵之為例表示，1989年方勵之在美國大使館避難時，中國大陸政府釋放他的條件是不能再從事「反 中國」活動，但方勵之拒絕共產黨擁有「中國」二字，他說做為中國公民，他關心中國大陸的和平繁榮以及現代化，因此在方勵之獲釋後，仍持續批評中國 大陸統治者。
林培瑞在文中還提到網路對中國大陸共產黨統治的改變，他說，從這次陳光誠離開美國大使館保護到北京一家醫院治療，林培瑞說，大陸網路上意見幾乎都 認為美國人沒有充分幫助陳光誠。
林培瑞在文中說，網路是第1個大陸政府沒有辦法全盤控制的媒體，從這次陳光誠事件，網路成為沒有被完全封鎖、民眾仍可討論陳光誠案的平台，而且意 見都呈壓倒性正面。1010511。
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-governments-outdated-view-of-china/2012/05/10/gIQAUvgaGU_story.html
Opinions
America's outdated view of China
Perry Link, who was a co-editor of "The Tiananmen Papers," teaches comparative literature and foreign languages at the University of California, Riverside.
When the human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng escaped extra-legal house arrest and beatings and found his way to the U.S. Embassy last month, he became an instant hero on the Chinese Internet. How had he escaped? How could a single blind man tear such a hole in the government's pervasive blanket of weiwen, or stability maintenance? Many called it a "miracle"; stories of "China's blind spiderman" went viral. Eventually someone who had helped Chen tweeted an account. Chen had done merely this: "In nineteen hours climbed eight walls, jumped a dozen or so irrigation ridges, fell down a few hundred times, injured a foot, and finally crossed a stream that got him out of the village."
The Internet is the first medium in the history of Communist rule in China that the government has not been able to fully control. The authorities hire hundreds of thousands of police and spend billions of yuan annually monitoring the Web and blocking unwanted messages. Yet for hundreds of millions of Chinese, the Internet continues to grow as a source of uncensored news and platform for popular expression. Regarding Chen, Internet opinion has been overwhelmingly positive.
Online chatter in recent years has generated new notions of what it means to be Chinese. For decades China's rulers have insisted that "China" means not much more or less than "Chinese government leaders." To be "patriotic" has meant to support the party-state; anyone who disobeys is "anti-China." After the astrophysicist Fang Lizhi took refuge in the U.S. Embassy in 1989, China's government demanded, as a condition of his release, that he promise to refrain from "anti-China" activity. Fang agreed — but refused to allow the party to own the word "China." He pledged that "my concerns for China, as a Chinese citizen, will be for its peace, its prosperity, and its modernization." Then, after his release, he continued to criticize China's rulers.
Twenty-three years ago, Fang, who died last month at 76, was a lone pioneer. Today, people frequently distinguish between themselves and their rulers. The practice has become sufficiently common online that Chinese authorities have declared zhengfu (government) a "sensitive term" that Internet filters must highlight so police can check how it is used. To avoid the filter, microbloggers refer to their government in such sarcastic terms as guichao (esteemed dynasty) and xi chaoxian (western North Korea). Meanwhile, use of gongmin (citizen), in the dignified sense in which Fang used it, has spread widely.
It is regrettable that American experts on U.S.-China relations continue to use "China" and "the Chinese" to refer exclusively to elite circles within the Beijing government. For these experts, "the Chinese" view of anything — currency, technology transfer, cyberwar, Tibet, Taiwan, Syria — is inevitably the government's view, no matter how far it departs from the views of other Chinese. They warn that such adherence is a matter of respecting the "sensitivities" of "the other side" and that if Washington supports human rights or democracy it will be "seen in China" as American sabotage. But seen this way by whom in China? In the days since Chen left U.S. protection to go to a Beijing hospital, Chinese opinion online has weighed heavily on the side of saying the Americans did not help Chen enough.
U.S. acceptance of the China = "Communist Party leadership" formula dates from the Nixon-Mao breakthrough. In the early 1970s, the regime's rulers were indeed the only Chinese whom Americans could reasonably approach. But to persist with such a constricted understanding today is obtuse, even dangerous.
The Obama administration has signaled that it wants to pull free. When President Obama visited Shanghai in 2009, he probably knew that his "town meeting" was packed with pre-selected party people. But he asked that some questions come from the Internet, and some of those queries — including on Internet censorship — were obviously not party-approved.
During the recent crisis over Chen, Obama said that "we want China to be strong [and] want it to be prosperous." Days later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed with "we want a strong and prosperous China." Here the word "China" was adroitly ambiguous. To Americans, and to many Chinese, it could mean the United States wishes the best for "all the Chinese people." But to Communist Party leaders, given the way they have used the term for decades, the message could be: "The American president favors wealth and power for the Communist Party-state." That was the interpretation projected in China's government-run media.
Allowing "China" to mean only a small elite is dangerous in that it adumbrates nearly a fifth of the world's population. It also prevents a square consideration of how long the regime will last — by far the most sensitive topic in the diplomatic language game. One cannot raise it; it is an affront to "the other side" even to think it (though Chinese elites, who consistently send their money and children abroad, seem to think about it themselves). And the question persists: If "China" means only "the regime," what happens, some day, if it is not there?
The two dynasties in Chinese history that most resemble the Communist episode are the Qin (221-207 B.C.) and the Sui (A.D. 589-618). Both oversaw huge new construction and great increases in wealth but also ruthless tyranny, deaths from forced labor, and horrors such as burning of books and burying of scholars (the "dissidents" of another era). Both were well short. China will eventually outgrow its current spasm as well, perhaps without Chen Guangcheng's help. On the other hand, maybe this artist of miracle escapes can pull off a second miracle: changing the way the U.S. government understands "China."
Read more on this issue:
Jerome A. Cohen: Chen's silent partner — luckSally Jenkins: What sustains China's truth-tellers
The Post's View: Defending Chen Guangcheng
Bob Fu: U.S. credibility is on the line
Yang Jianli: The U.S. helped me. Will it help Chen Guangcheng?
48 Comments
drbilllemoine
5/12/2012 9:50 PM GMT+0200
Well said and very important information, Perry. I'm in constant contact with friends everywhere in China. They are still mostly willing to live and let live regarding the government. But they do act in their best self interest to protect themselves and their assets given uneven information from the party line. I'm more concerned lately that captains of industry are so caught up with authoritarian government--snap of the fingers making heaven and earth move--that they want to replicate it back h...See More
RecommendRecommended by 2 readersReplyReport
chidrbmt
5/13/2012 10:33 PM GMT+0200
Well said,actually well written. Having spent time and a marriage in China,the far majority feel it's hopeless to give any thought to change the government. Much of their energy is to make money to provide a little security for when things turn bad. Which can and often happens at a "turn of a RMB" in China's history.
Recommend
godfree
5/13/2012 5:33 AM GMT+0200
"American experts on U.S.-China relations continue to use "China" and "the Chinese" to refer exclusively to elite circles within the Beijing government."
Actually, that's pretty sensible, since between 85% and 95% of ordinary Chinese support and trust their government–depending upon whether we believe Pew, Edelmand, or Harvard.
It's great that everyone else has the opportunity to make their opinions known on line. But they are a very small minority.
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReplyReport
drbilllemoine
5/12/2012 9:50 PM GMT+0200
Well said and very important information, Perry. I'm in constant contact with friends everywhere in China. They are still mostly willing to live and let live regarding the government. But they do act in their best self interest to protect themselves and their assets given uneven information from the party line. I'm more concerned lately that captains of industry are so caught up with authoritarian government--snap of the fingers making heaven and earth move--that they want to replicate it back home. Suppress wages, democractic institutions, voting, mobility, government benefits, business regulation and much more. We have seen some of the results of such policies in the States--increased poverty, less food stamps, trampling democratic legislative processes, abolishing elected leadership and legislatures, unleashed risk taking of banks, contrary population groups attacked or isolated, budgets to abolish government agencies and ubiquitous programs, lies, cheating, hedging, conspiracies and unlimited hidden money to implement. If the American public doesn't fully wake up to the negative possitilities and actualities of Republican domination federally and in the states, we are facing more fascism, communism, poverty, dirty environment and more oppression of minorities.
RecommendRecommended by 2 readersReplyReport
chidrbmt
5/13/2012 10:33 PM GMT+0200
Well said,actually well written. Having spent time and a marriage in China,the far majority feel it's hopeless to give any thought to change the government. Much of their energy is to make money to provide a little security for when things turn bad. Which can and often happens at a "turn of a RMB" in China's history.
RecommendReport
ibsage
5/12/2012 7:00 PM GMT+0200
what is amazing is that some obscure non-entity like chen could be blown up into a cause celebre as a symbol of "human rights" by the western main stream media. chen is an illiterate loose cannon being manipulated by forces outside china to create chaos and dissent for their own purposes.
homogeneous china has its own traditional confucian culture that defines the relationships between the individual and government that differ in major ways from the christian west, and it works for them. that they choose to go their own way is of no strategic consequence to the west; what matters is that our mutual economic and military policies are compatible. we should not allow artificial distractions like the issue of chen to interfere with our real interests.
RecommendReplyReport
bencheslak
5/12/2012 1:31 AM GMT+0200
You clowns are just now getting this? The Chen incident was not mishandled, it was a master stroke of diplomacy. By negotiating with the government and letting the Party break the agreement, the Obama administration has shown that the Communist Party in China is modeled exactly as the Soviet one was, where the security apparatus clearly runs the state, not the civilian government. This will allow exactly what you just wrote about - a divergence between the tyrants and the people. Americans are natural friends of all peoples worldwide and when we see that the people are outraged by their government's, er, Party's actions, we can finally understand that there are differences in opinion in China, something that the Party has spent years cultivating to the contrary. The funny thing about what Chinese rulers have said since the Waring States Period, that China is civilized (it's not, no tyranny is), that it is one people (preposterous that 1.3 people all have the same identity - differences between north/south, east/west, the 56 ethnicities that are recognized there, et al), and that the Great Walls worked to keep barbarians out and Chinese in, is that they doth protest too much. The "Great Firewall" is more like an expensive screen door and illuminates the basic fact that no people are the government and no government the people. Now we can see how full of it the Chinese Communist Party is, thanks to the "blunder" of the Obama administration. Cheers to you sir.
RecommendReplyReport
zhuubaajie
5/13/2012 1:00 AM GMT+0200
Wow!! The world missed all that??!! How silly of the world!!
The living standards of the Chinese people DOUBLED every 7 or 8 years for the last 34. HOW ABOUT YOURS??!! Maybe you missed that too?
If China has, instead of India, become the world's largest democracy, what would we have? All iniquities would have miraculously been eliminated, just like in the U.S.? Or would China just become another India, or worse? WHAT is the life expectancy in India? China?
Country LE 2011
China 73.0
India 64.7
U.S.A. 78.2
__________________________________
I beg to differ on the assertion that "Americans are natural friends of all peoples worldwide . . . ."
America's conduct when it "see that the people are outraged by their government's . . . action . . ." has been absolutely inconsistent - viz. Saudi Arabia and many of America's ME cronies, and even Singapore, where folks are routinely prosecuted for just speaking out (of course the charges are couched as defamation, but you get the spirit). More then one American news organization had been fined in Singapore. Yet do you hear the sort of holier than thou exercised here against these "allies"?
RecommendRecommended by 2 readersReport
hubertajr
5/11/2012 11:03 PM GMT+0200
Throughout Chinese history most people have lived under the thumb of the local corrupt warlords and their agents. The national government under the emperor has had very little actual affect on their lives.
Communism changed the terms used to describe those holding government positions. It did not change their duties.
America has the same view of China it had 200 years ago. If China is being run the same way, why should America's approach change?
The difference has been the internet. It has only been in operation a few years. The Chinese leadership knows China will need to adjust to it. Still America should not even try to tell China how it must adjust to it.
RecommendRecommended by 3 readersReplyReport
zhuubaajie
5/13/2012 1:10 AM GMT+0200
Well, if America KNOWS BETTER, than perhaps the rudeness would be tolerated.
Americans can't even take care of their own everyday problems - their country has been hijacked by a parasitic greedy financial class. All resources are directed for unlimited use by the banksters, but nobody else. Occupy Wall Street screamed and shouted but nobody in power cared. Everything is still just going on "as usual". The too big to fail banks, despite the $7.77 TRILLION in government subsidies (illegal per WTO rules) and guaranties since the 2008 debacle, still continue to rely solely on trading to generate record profits - that is, until they lose, ala J.P. Morgan this last week - yet still confident that AMERICANS will have no choice but to bail them out.
This time it is truly different. America's entire financial sector is collectively engaged in reckless gambling (OTC derivatives), in a casino already 50 TIMES the size of the America's economy ($700 TRILLION vs. $14.7 Trilion). The gambling is still rapidly growing, and is expected to hit $1 QUADRILLION by 2017.
RecommendRecommended by 2 readersReport
znocjza
5/11/2012 9:22 PM GMT+0200
The Qin comparison seems silly, like it ironically to reinforces the point the whole piece criticizes. Qin Shi Huang was 2000+ years ago, his "dynasty" lasted about 20 years and covered a small piece of modern day China; it's like explaining all of 20th century America away as being "like Julius Caesar all over again."
Huh, though I guess ...
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReplyReport
Wildthing1
5/11/2012 9:10 PM GMT+0200
Very funny. Here we are building our own Homeland Security and military police and warfare state and pointing the fickle finger of fate at them. We happen to have invaded a defenseless third world country already defeated and under 10 years of starvation sanctions for nothing but fumes and visions of dancing mushroom clouds on the distant horizons of our addled imagination. Then bragging about our shock and awe at our own prowess. Meanwhile we know that even the internet can be weaponized by the covert forces of oursleves and every other country in the world and the miracle of the internet is a doubled edged sword.
RecommendRecommended by 4 readersReplyReport
radiantheating
5/11/2012 8:15 PM GMT+0200
Thank you for an enlightening article. I learned something.
RecommendReplyReport
donaldsurr
5/11/2012 6:41 PM GMT+0200
What happens in China is the business of the Chinese. How would we react if they meddled in our domestic politics and posted naval forces just over the horizon along our East Coast, West Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico?
We know the answer to that question do we not?
RecommendRecommended by 3 readersReplyReport
MVman
5/12/2012 1:54 AM GMT+0200
Boy, talk about one of your clueless types -- hate to break it to you this way, skippy, but China has a VERY large role in the affairs of the United States, not least because it holds a large portion of the U.S. national debt. So they have the ability to exert a large amount of influence over U.S. affairs.
RecommendReport
ResponsibilityU2
5/11/2012 5:01 PM GMT+0200
This is very enlightening.
And yet we must be aware and as wary of the "conservatives" in China as of the "conservatives" here and in Israel.
RecommendRecommended by 2 readersReplyReport
tominkuwait
5/11/2012 8:43 PM GMT+0200
Oh give me a break you moron. Yeah, like the non-conservatives that call themselves leftists, progressives or socialists are some step above. You spend like drunken sailors on liberty, you ridicule any religious or social morality, and watch your government run 'projects' become crime havens, you are willing to tear down, burn or physically damage anything that conflicts with your vision of "social justice", and yet you are willing to bad mouth "conservatives"?!!!!! If ever there was an example of pond scum calling the kettle black, this one by @Responsibility is a perfect example.
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReport
facefault
5/12/2012 2:56 AM GMT+0200
@Responsibility: Conservatives in China are very different from those in the US and Israel, what with China technically being communist and all. It isn't sensible to act like they have much in common.
@tom: Breathe. No one is out to get you. Perhaps you should stop reading the Washington Post (printed by liberal journalists who love America), turn off the Internet (developed by liberal scientists who loved America [at DARPA] and freedom [in academia]), and go read a book.
RecommendReport
teharatats
5/11/2012 3:48 PM GMT+0200
My too cents. It is a portent of the decline of nation-states and the rise of the individual as a "person-state" that the Internet is cited in subverting top-down central control in China, for Chinese. That's good stuff. China, at about 35% Internet penetration of potential users (about 400,000,000) swamps the U.S. at about 75% penetration and maybe 140,000,000. Think about it. These are HUGE numbers. If China's [Internet-powered] history can move away from the traditionally defined Nation-State model to an inevitably globally connected democracy, it spells a step up to the next level for humanity around the planet. 你去陈！
-----
我太美分。这是一个民族国家的衰落和个人作为一个"人国"，互联网在中国，颠覆中国自上而下的中央控制引崛 起的预兆。这是好东西。中国，约35％的潜在用户的互联网普及率（约400,000,000）沼泽在美国约 75％的普及率，也许140,000,000。好好想想吧。这些都是巨大的数字。如果中国的互联网历史供 电]可以从传统定义上的民族国家不可避免的全球网络相连的民主模型，它阐明了一步围绕地球人类的一个新的水 平。你去陈！
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReplyReport
mike-sey
5/11/2012 3:57 PM GMT+0200
@&;**$$$$
RecommendReport
teharatats
5/11/2012 4:03 PM GMT+0200
哈哈 - 搞笑
RecommendReport
teharatats
5/11/2012 4:11 PM GMT+0200
oops, 去陈！
RecommendReport
View 1 more reply
mike-sey
5/11/2012 3:44 PM GMT+0200
A lot of inside-the-beltway diplomatic linguistic parsing, but has America ever accepted that all billion chinese accepted whole hog the views of the regime? It would seem that decades of American propaganda and hostility would argue not, and the populace is supposed to be yearning for capitalism, freedom and baseball.
At the same time the same questions about whether America means the current administration, the elites, the populace or the protesters in the streets or the mass of tweeters who clutter up the airways with concerns about the Beebs and Lady Gaga.
Since it is the regime in both countries that has the power to launch wars, military or economic. it seems wise to pay attention to what they think while keeping an eye on the polls and an ear open to the cab driver.
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReplyReport
tominkuwait
5/11/2012 8:49 PM GMT+0200
@Mike,
You have a very good argument, as does the author of this article. But both of you are not looking at the reality of the Communist Party in China. The Party has had one guiding principle. They maintain political power. The Party does not mind capitalist activities on the economic level. But the Party maintains political control. Consider the Chinese Communist Party as a really, really big dragon who is sleeping lightly. Just how smart of an idea is it to poke said dragon with sharp sticks? It may sound like fun, but I really fear what will happen if you wake that beast up. Think Syria, but on a lot of steroids. And considering China's history, is anyone saying this is not a real possibility? If so, please explain your logic.
RecommendReport
PapaFoote
5/11/2012 2:15 PM GMT+0200
To Earth Planet,
WE HAVE ARRIVED - TO EVERYONE, TO EVERYPLACE - THAT'S GOOD!
"...The Internet is the first medium in the history of Communist rule in China that the government has not been able to fully control. The authorities hire hundreds of thousands of police and spend billions of yuan annually monitoring the Web and blocking unwanted messages. Yet for hundreds of millions of Chinese, the Internet continues to grow as a source of uncensored news and platform for popular expression. Regarding Chen, Internet opinion has been overwhelmingly positive..."
-The Old Goat-
RecommendReplyReport
zhuubaajie
5/13/2012 1:14 AM GMT+0200
On this whole conspiracy theory about how the internet is going to topple the government in Beijing, note the fact that the entire internet infrastructure was paid for and built by that same government. If it were truly threatened, would that network have grown (and IS STILL GROWING) that rapidly?
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReport
qying
5/11/2012 11:39 AM GMT+0200
The writer 's view was outdated : the short lives of Qin and Sui dynasties have undergone lots of new scrutinies as new evidences are being unearthed recently. Not the communist elites , but rank and files of Chinese have formed different views towards the Qin Shi Huang .,namely the first emperor of Qin dynasty. While for a long time the classroom version of the 1st emperor under the communist guidance used to be that the emperor was a killer -- tyrant.
The comparative study of Qin and Sui with the communist China is not correctly done. Long and short lives are not a symptom of righteous. The Han and Tang dynasties enjoyed much longer life, but Han emperor killed as much his subjects, and the most able Tan emperor killed his brother and family to usurp state power.
In your logic, the China's KMT--nationalist party government must have been much more worse, for it only ruled China for 20 or so years.
As for the deliberation of the meaning of China, your argument is kind of pedantic. When Bush led US troops into Iraq , all the media said it was a US invasion. Is it necessary to say that many US people were against it?
RecommendRecommended by 5 readersReplyReport
beancube999
5/11/2012 11:20 AM GMT+0200
Should Obama play hard ball with Wall St tycoons who are connecting tightly with those hardliners in China? Zionist CIA are also betting on it hoping that Obama will become a single termer right now.
RecommendReplyReport
tominkuwait
5/11/2012 8:52 PM GMT+0200
Looney bin heard from. Don't need any more conspiracy wack job comments. These comments are at their quota.
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReport
FirstAdvisor
5/11/2012 10:27 PM GMT+0200
nutcase tommy in arabland --
People who plan and even plot together are not necessarily committing the crime of conspiracy, which is a plan to commit a crime. Indeed, it is entirely normal for groups of people to plan their group actions. This is commonly called organization and management. Your hyper-defensive reaction that presumes that every description of planning must be an accusation of conspiracy is irrational and probably schizophrenic paranoid delusions. Aside from that, you are obviously remarkably lacking in basic IQ points.
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReport
facefault
5/12/2012 2:59 AM GMT+0200
@FirstAdvisor: so you're saying the implication that the CIA is a) controlled by Zionists, b) wants to stop Obama from having a second term, and c) wants increased Wall St-Chinese government connections is *not* ridiculous?
RecommendRecommended by 1 readerReport
FirstAdvisor
5/12/2012 9:42 AM GMT+0200
facefault --
On second reading of the original comment by beancube, I'm forced to concede you've got a strong message there. I was clearly precipitous in my knee-jerk response, caused by the excessive irritation tommy evokes in me. What I do say, repeatedly for a long time, is that reasonable proposals of CIA involvement in some events on the global stage are not automatically 'conspiracy theories', or even paranoid. The plain fact is that we know the CIA does operate on an international basis. That's their job, what the American electorate pay them to do. I do get weary of some posters yelling 'conspiracy theory!!' every time someone mentions the workings of the CIA, and my skepticism led me to leap before I looked on this occasion. Blame it on tommy, whose own knee-jerk responses are especially obnoxious.
RecommendReport
没有评论:
发表评论