Monthly Archives: August 2009

WSJ: China to Revise Policy Toward Peddlers

Original link:

I applaud to this new development in China. It is towards to the right direction. I also applaud to WSJ for bring us this kind of truly faithful reports. Keep up the good work!

Leave a comment

Filed under China, Media Watch

Book: Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China’s Territorial Disputes




“China’s communist government inherited territorial disputes with all of China’s 14 land neighbors and six sea neighbors. It has also had to manage what Fravel calls three “homeland disputes,” involving Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. Piecing together much hard-to-find information, he shows that in 17 of these 23 conflicts, Beijing has offered concessions, abandoning claims to over 1.3 million square miles of land. In the other six disputes, Beijing has used force. Fravel argues that both types of behavior can be explained by security concerns. Provided the land at stake was not essential for defensive purposes, China offered concessions at times when it needed to break out of diplomatic isolation or gain recognition of its control over domestic ethnic minorities. In the 1990s, for example, Beijing pursued talks and sometimes reached final settlements with Russia (in order to consolidate a strategic partnership), Vietnam (to improve relations with Southeast Asia), India (to gain its acceptance of Chinese control of Tibet), and some Central Asian states (to get their cooperation against separatists in Xinjiang). But if the disputed land was valuable, Beijing was liable to put troops in motion when it saw the security environment growing more threatening: this logic explains the border conflicts with India in 1962 and the Soviet Union in the late 1960s and early 1970s, among others. Fravel’s is an elegant argument that works well to explain Chinese behavior and holds promise for application elsewhere. Although six territorial disputes remain unresolved, including the dangerous Taiwan situation, on the whole, China emerges from this account as a stability-seeking, rather than an expansionist, power.”

Leave a comment

Filed under China, History

Let’s give terrorists the Nobel Prize

There is a WSJ article by Mr. Hugo Restall,

China’s public enemy: The alleged instigator of the Uighur riots doesn’t talk like a terrorist. Demonizing her may backfire on Beijing.

First of all, this article seems like the one I saw before about the Dalai Lama who was responsible for the Tibet riot with dozens of innocent bystanded murdered by terrorists. Again, there was an article saying that China shouldn’t accuse the Dala Lama being responsible for it would backfire. etc.  I sure didn’t see demonizing Bin Laden backfiring on Washington.

In fact, let’s compare Kadeer with Bin Laden.

You can see the parallels here very well.

1. China accused Kadeer master-minded the terroristic attack that killed almost 200 people and injured thousands.

USA accused Bin Laden master-minded the 911 attack that killed thousands.

2. Kadeer denied accusation and according to this article “she doesn’t talk like a terrorist”. Very convincing! Bravo.

Bin Laden doesn’t talk like a terrorist either.

3. Kadeer is a Muslim extremist who want to carve a chunk of land within China for her dream of Islam country.

Bin Laden wants to kick white man out of Middle east and want to enforce Islamic rules on all the land Muslims lived on

4. Kadeer financed terroristic organizations which are recognized by the UN. These terrorists have murdered hundreds of people in the most brutal and barbaric ways, including burning and beheading.

You can see the parallels here on how Bin Laden kills people.

The list goes on and on and I don’t want to bore you.

But the differences are there too.

USA sees Bin Laden as enemy of the world and advocate everyone to rise against Islamic terrorist.

But wait!. USA doesn’t want anyone to go against terrorists who are killing Chinese. Why is that? Isn’t terrorists just terrorists?

It appears to me that the White Man here distinguishes the bad terrorists from the GOOD terrorists.

The Good terrorists are those who murders anyone but the Americans and their friends while the BAD terrorists just kills anyone including Americans.

You see, unfortunately, no matter how smart the scheme is. Let’s put aside the evilness of the scheme is that good terrorists eventually turns bad.

Just like Bin Laden shook the hands of Rumsfeld before. Hussein was once a friend of USA as well. Both turned bad and one of them spetacularlly bad.


Filed under China

Global Peace Index 2009

Let’s move to New Zealand!

Oooooooops! US (83) and India (122) are behind China (74), this cannot be true… How come we the two biggest democratic countries are behind evil China? “Freedom of speech” rules! Damn those stupid indexes!

Leave a comment

Filed under China, Fun, Politics