The Chinese and Myanmarian regimes are both basically hardline dictatorships, both deeply paranoid.

Yet China's rulers have welcomed disasater assistance while the Myanmarian government has done everything they could to keep them out.

Why the difference?

And why does the Myanmarian government assume that other countries would only be sending in disaster relief workers in order to overthrow it? Don't they realize that nobody would be insane enough to try to stage a coup in a country recovering from a typhoon?

I just don't understand why this state is taking such a cataclysmic choice when the Chinese are being sane about the situation.

(Edited to remove the term that pointlessly derailed the thread. Everybody happy now?
:rolleyes

[ 24 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Why the difference?

---

quote:

---

And why does the Myanmarian government assume that other countries would only be sending in disaster relief workers in order to overthrow it? Don't they realize that nobody would be insane enough to try to stage a coup in a country recovering from a typhoon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

I just don't understand why this state is taking such a cataclysmic choice when the Chinese are being sane about the situation.

---

This is an agenda-free thread.

But I'll defer to the other one, which I hadn't known of until Spector kindly linked to it.

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I don't have any premises, just questions.

This is an agenda-free thread.

But I'll defer to the other one, which I hadn't known of until Spector kindly linked to it.

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

---

quote:

---

The Chinese and Myanmarian regimes are both basically police states, both deeply paranoid.

---

There's little reason to believe this is true of China. "Police state" may be a fair characterisation, but from that premise it's wrong to deduce that the population must be seething with discontent and ready to revolt!

As for why, I think we have evidence enough even from mass media. The Chinese authorities are doing something to help their people in this disaster. Indeed most of their people have benefitted from government acts, over the last decades, although clearly at the expense of tens of millions of others in China.

It isn't said out of any assumption of "Western" superiority. And you know it.

Any state that uses censorship and police suppression of public protest can fairly be called a police state. There's no pejorative in it.

And of course China and Myanmar are very different states.

Lighten up.

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Any state that uses censorship and police suppression of public protest can fairly be called a police state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The term "police state" carries no racial significance whatsoever. It's been applied to dictatorships all over the world (including those the US backed as "bulwarks against communism").

---

The point is not that the term has a racialist connotation. It is the manner in which it is used. For example, we have had similar conversations about women politicians being described as "screechy." The word itself is not sexist, but how it appears in the discourse reflects a sexists set of assumptions and biases. Simply calling China a "police state" is innacurate and simplistic, and reflects, as Catchfire points out, traditional racists reductivist paradigms (the mindless mass of automatons in the grips a ubiquitous police who control every thought and action, better known as the "yella peril" of yore) about complex political processess that are built into the propoganda motif being parlayed by China's enemies, who would be China's enemies regardless of the manner in which it is governed.

China is not run by the police or the army. It is run by a civilian body that has a firm grip on the police aparatus, and uses it to enforce its power. More correctly China is an oligarchy, not a "police state."

A "police state" is a state that is run by the army or the police. Stalin's Russia was not a police state, nor was Hitler's Germany. This is true, even if the Cheka (NKVD/KGB) or the Gestapo had inordinate power, and were used ruthlessly by the civilian government. Pinochet's Chile, however, was a police state.

Furthermore, "police states" are charachterized by the police or the military making decisions without reference to the civilian leadership, where they become enforcers and judge and jury.

This is not the case with China, which has a clearly superior system of courts that are not controlled by the police or the military, but by the civilian government. The police do not make up the laws. They merely enforce them on behalf of the legal code, which in itself is aimed at targetting dissent.

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

The point is not that the term has a racialist connotation. It is the manner in which it is used.

---

Oh ya, and anyone who bothers to read the context and considers the source HERE would know that's not the intent HERE. The idea of giving some benefit of the doubt to others though is never even considered here.

quote:

---

This is not the case with China, which has a clearly superior system of courts that are not controlled by the police or the military, but by the civilian government. The police do not make up the laws. They merely enforce them on behalf of the legal code, which in itself is aimed at targetting dissent.

---

Even more laughable. This "superior system of courts" is nothing more than kangaroo puppets for the same "civilian" government which mandates the police go after dissenters. Why else do they do it? Similar patterns are emerging closer to home and noone on the left would consider it unusual to warn of a "police state" rising here. Noone at all serious says its just some bad cops doing it for their own immediate ends.

Calling China a police state, is sloppy semantics, weighted for political effect, and nothing to do with enhancing understanding.

I am interested in examining how things work, not grunting and burping monosylabic approval of this or that. For example, the questions is, why does China behave differently from Myanmar? Could it be because the system of government is different?

Could it possibly be that they operate differently, and that the Chinese government has its reputation staked on the well being of its citizens in a symbiotic relationship, not simply the heft of the clubs they use to enforce order? Could it be that it feels that it actually has to "deliver" on key social issues in order to cement the social order? Far be it from me to suggest that the government, and the PLA, is made up of Chinese people who care about Chinese people?

PS: why do all your posts end up mostly being off-topic rambling about the underlying agenda of the people who are posting, and not the topic of discussion?

PSS: you are stalking me again, I quite pointeldy was speaking to Ken Burch, and not you, yet you bitch about me stalking you. I quite pointedly did not respond to you, in fact. But if you insist on engaging me directly, I will take it as my perogative to respond, as tedious as that is.

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is China allowing US troops into their country to deliver aid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is China allowing US troops into their country to deliver aid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Meh. You are right. Its all the same, any government we don't like that is opressive of anyone, and has a police force is a "police state." Fuck definitions, they are useless... "burp", "slurp", "grunt"....

On the other hand Ahmed Karzai's Afghanistan is an "emerging democracy."

---

Ok, shoot... what is your definition of "police state" and then having answered that, how does it usefully enter into the discussion about the differences between the behaviour of the two governments in question?

Ken has dramatically demonstrated that the factor of wether or not China is a "police state" is irrelevant to the behaviour of the government, since, they are operating completely differently in similar circumstances. In fact behaving more or less the way the US did when it had its recent natural disaster when the levy broke.

So, either the definition you are using for "police state" does not fit the facts, or it is irrelevant to the topic completely. If the actual behaviour of the government in question is not at issue when determining if the government is a "police state" or not then what does the term mean?

Clearly, there's no such thing as an authoritarian state the Left HAS to support in the name of some larger tactical purpose.

I also don't believe that all dictatorships are the same. So, in the present context, is the term police state useful or relevant here? Does it have any bearing on the differences between the Chinese reaction to a natural disaster, and the Myanmar one... or the recent one in the USA?

From either of you, I would like to see where I can find a qoute, where you describe Karzai's Afghanistan as a "police state". And if there is not one to be found, I want to know why this language is the one you are using in the case of China but not Afghanistan?

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Nobody needs or depends on either the Burma government or even stability there. Many of its people quite possibly are waiting for the chance to overthrow it. Other countries have little interest in it. As such the regime is fairly fragile.

China on the other hand is much more powerful. Most of the rest of the world is literally invested in a stable China. Most Chinese are seeing enough progress that they are as well. There is widespread consensus that China is making some progress towards greater accountability with its people, and that the lives of its citizens are, for the most part, improving. In this sense China has few enemies both at home and abroad and little appetite for any destabilizing force. While people there are not happy with many aspects of the regime, they see little need for immediate change, preferring a slow evolution. As well many that I speak to have little faith that any rapid change would necessarily bring either stability or an improvement on what they have now. The Chinese are fiercely nationalistic (and that includes many of those of ethnic minorities). Many fear a breakup of the country if the Communists were overthrown and so for the most part they push for individual reforms rather than any wholesale upsetting of the applecart. As well the Chinese experience with foreign interference-- even when they were enduring the worst of times has been quite negative.

Many Chinese also given their experience are simply a-political desiring nothing to do with politics preferring to focus on individual policies while avoiding the idea that grand regime changes accomplish that much, Seen from a Chinese perspective, these grand regime changes rarely brought anything that good and usually in the end nothing much changed. There are also many who have a great deal of respect for certain leaders they have had. The more negative aspects of the Communists are unknown to many and simply do not fit in with priorities. The Communists have not been uniformly negative. They have stabilized and re-unified the country following overwhelming control by foreigners and warlords. The have returned China to a position where it does not fear military aggression by other countries. They brought significant progress in equality for women. They have made significant strides in education- more than any previous Chinese government. The average Chinese is probably better off at this time than any previous time and they have considerable hope that this will improve. Not only is there no comparison to Burma, Chinese people are more hopeful and better off than most East Europeans were under the communists. As far as those more authoritarian sides of the Chinese government- for the most part people adapt and have learned how to stay away from trouble - they do not live in fear of their government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I am not saying you said that Ken. I am simply demonstrating how the language enters into the propoganda motif of the establishment, and its agenda.

I also don't believe that all dictatorships are the same. So, in the present context, is the term police state useful or relevant here? Does it have any bearing on the differences between the Chinese reaction to a natural disaster, and the Myanmar one... or the recent one in the USA?

From either of you, I would like to see where I can find a qoute, where you describe Karzai's Afghanistan as a "police state". And if there is not one to be found, I want to know why this language is the one you are using in the case of China but not Afghanistan?

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Being engaged and aware - visiting and getting to know its people and allowing them to visit and get to know us is helpful to both sides.

Buying only from more ethical companies with respect to employer and environmental practices. There is quite a range there as there is anywhere else. The same advice applies equally to the United States or trade within our own country. This is about being good neighbours here and abroad.

In moments of difficulty contributing to international relief is positive for all people. And it sends a good message to that country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
The answer to the question is the simple one: China is not threatened or vulnerable. This has really nothing to do with any value judgments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:

There you go again. Avoid substantiating your own much wilder assertions, or even addressing the others guys points, by simply shifting the ground and demand that others answer YOU. Again. Like, is there any reason at all to even Suspect that other leftists like ourselves aren't in fact critical of Karzai's regime? Have we for examnple spent endless hours here trying to downplay or explain away this colonial adventure as being somehow different than -ahem- others? No, I didn't think so.

---

It's not about being critical, or not. Its about how the language we use functions in the discourse, and what agenda that language serves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
I do not think that we need to be chilled form speaking and debating about issues and I don't think it is necessarily helpful to assume racism as being at the core of any critical comment- but awareness is essential.

---

I will not forget that the best Canadian History teacher I ever had came-- yes with biases etc. from Pakistan. Outsiders can provide a very useful voice provided that those outsiders don't become convinced that their perspective is superior. Some biases and experience is in fact very useful. Canada in particular (but other countries as well) can offer perspectives and experiences both positive and negative on regionalism and multi- cultural views.

I don't think I am missing the source of our thought-- but I am not as convinced as some here are that it is entirely meritless. I have many Chinese friends (in fact more than Western ones at the moment). I am very political. I also find their perspective on internal Canadian affairs quite interesting and informative although it is no more lacking in biases than my own. As uncomfortable as debate can be at one time I would never want to limit debate to the truly impartial otherwise we would have a silent world with few shared ideas and experiences. I have no trouble wading into Chinese historical and current debates any more than Western ones with my Chinese friends and none of them have ever suggested that they would prefer that I shut up. In fact I am quite happy that they regard my outlook as both different and interesting and they see no need for me to agree with them on every turn. They also do not feel compelled to toe any Western political convention either. Every Saturday, I have a friendly shoot the shit conversation with a Chinese friend and we enjoy talking politics whether we agree or not.

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
I don't like to assume racism even where there are strong cultural biases. After all- ANY comment sourced in the West will be biased and that does not make it illegitimate or unworthy of expression.

---

Precisely.

It is not "assuming racism". Catchfire no where accused anyone of racism. What he said was that there was a latent bias inherent in the manner in which China was being discussed, in terms of the charachterization of China as a "police state," which he opined was very similar to past motifs about the "yellow peril."

If I hadn't actually called Afghanistan a police state here on babble, it's because I believed that everybody else had already made the point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
If I hadn't actually called Afghanistan a police state here on babble, it's because I believed that everybody else had already made the point.

---

Interesting.

Your saying then, that in a political environment where a point is already well covered, it is not really necessary to reiterate the same point, that others are makings?

So for instance, one might legitimately say, given that nearly entire multinational coroprate media aparatus is denouncing China as a "police state" or vilifying (more or less justly) Robert Mugabe, our interests might be better served by directing our attention toward other topics that are not so well covered, such as the occupation of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or pointing out features of those disputes that are not so well covered in the mainstream media such as the interests of other major international political players involved and that such could not be construes as approving of Chinese policies aimed at quashing dissent, or Robert Mugabe's election rigging?

Very interesting.

[ 23 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

And you're missing an important point: When "corporate media" denounce the Chinese or Zimbabwean governments, they are doing so in the name of imperialism.

I(and, I think most of those people who are just ordinary activists who have denounced those regimes) do so in the name of humanitarian universalist socialist values.

We are not the same as the corporate media.

[ 24 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 24 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 24 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

I(and, I think most of those people who are just ordinary activists who have denounced those regimes) do so in the name of humanitarian universalist socialist values.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Among socialists, yes(at least I hope so).

Among the rest of the human race, I think they can be, since socialist values are basically the values of common human decency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Was the use of this one phrase really worth derailing the whole thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

That brings up an interesting question: Are socialist values universal?

---

Yes it is another thread. And I think the erosion of social democracy in Canada(and U.S.) since the 1980's or so has been done by stealth not any particular upfront political campaign or clearly laid out plan for the new capitalism.

But one thing we do know is that the agenda for nouveau capitalism was off to a bad start beginning with Milton Friedman and Chicago School of Economics plan in the USA itself. The plan was so unpopular that even the madman, Richard Nixon, refused to carry through with the plan due to his recognizing that NeoLiberal voodoo and democracy are really very incompatible. Next stop for the whackos was Pincohet's Chile. And the ideology failed after just 16 laps around the track.

Most Canadians approved of socialized medicine. A Liberal prime minister felt obligated to implement the CCF's plan for universal medicare. It was either that or allow another government to do it for them.

If we observe the history of the Conservative Party in Ontario, as but one example, they enjoyed widespread voter support over several decades. They ran on campaigns promoting strong public ownership policies wrt several important aspects of our economy. And they were wildly successful as a result over the course of a cold war.

Municipal plebiscites putting the question of hospital privatization to Canadians have been mostly unfavourable to the neoLiberal agenda. And so our two old line parties have had to resort to privatizations by stealth, ie 3PPP's and now the Liberal's privatization by stealth version of it in Ontario, AFP's.

And various NeoLiberal experiments in deregulation have and continue to produce bad results around the world where tried, including the U.S. and Canada. Deregulation is a key plank in the capitalist agenda along with globalization. And the latest result has been a terrible food crisis global in scope in addition to several other bad results in key areas of N American economy as well as other developed and developing economies. They are proving that key aspects of the NeoLiberal agenda do not work, and they are not working now on a global scale.

[ 25 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

But, what is interesting about the question is the way you identified that our prejudices against China ("deeply paranoid"? "Police state"?) can be generalized across the entire Asian world. I've even heard it said that China's efforts in their earthquake relief is simply a smoke screen to make the Western world think they've "cleaned up their act" so that they can continue their sinister work. This of course, means that if China does nothing, they're evil. If they do something, they're evil.

Burma, an "insane" state in your words, is objecting to hostile foreign military being placed in their country as a premise for aid work. Is Burma supposed to believe that America suddenly cares about Burmese people now? Obviously, it would be nice if the regime put their people in front of their own interests to stay in power, but that's hardly a trait they would have learned from the West. As Spector wondered on another thread, how would America have reacted to China's demands that they put foreign troops in New Orleans, an embarrassment and tragedy for any developed country, let alone the world's most powerful. Or, to a lesser extent, what about England's capacity to deal with the Yorkshire floods last year, which decimated the homes of thousands of the country's poorest? Are they too being "insane"?

The Myanmarian junta cooperates with the US on military issues and allows foreign oil exploration.

There is nothing socialist or progressive in the existing Myanmarian regime.

And if the issue was military ships, the junta could just have said "leave the military ships offshore and only send civilian aid workers into the interior". Everyone that was offering aid would gladly have agreed to that. The sole motivation of the aid offers was to stop people starving.

Snark aside, your last statement, like your OP, is typical of the kind of media we've seen over the last couple years--I first saw it with the Globe & Mail's alarmist "CHINA RISING" series about two years ago. That is, we are all suddenly experts now on China, now on Myanmar. I'm not an expert on Burma, and I am aware of the corporate ties of the Burmese "junta" (Why don't we call Iraq a 'junta', incidentally?). But I might conjecture based on the Burmese reaction that the "junta" might be afraid that America might extend its corporate influence beyond helpfulness to the current administration. Dictators, after all, are useful only up to a point, and dictators know this, especially those who have been attracting a whole lot of bad press lately (even pre-earthquake).

What makes you so sure that the U.S. has no interest in "liberating" Myanmar?

If I sounded like that, that wasn't my intention.