[The 4th Media editor’s note: The dialogue below was done among three regular participants (XinMing, Allen and Maitreya of ChinesePerspectives@hiddenharmonies.org. The 4th Media believes this informal dialogue a quite helpful reference on the said issues they toughed upon. Due to its informalcy, the dialogue is quite honest. So a couple of their expressions may sound strong and controversial. However, The 4th Media still believes this informal chat is an insightful therefore quite helpful dialogue for our global readers]
An informal but honest and insightful dialogue
I have been accumulating and reading through various publications from the US State Department concerning China and Hong Kong.
The extent of arrogance, misinformation, historical revisionism, mis-statements, outright lies and only God knows what else, is both breath-taking and overwhelming.
It is so extensive and pervasive that it’s almost a hopelessly daunting task to just read through the stuff.
In reading the State documents, it seems apparent the US has simply replaced the UK as the colonial master of Hong Kong, and has reached in with tentacles that pervade every section of law, government and commerce.
According to these documents, the FBI and CIA are deeply-entrenched, as are dozens of US government agencies and literally hundreds of US-based NGOs.
These reports pride themselves on listing public demonstrations – no doubt caused by one or another US agency; they crow about HK “freedoms”, persist in referring to the Tiananmen Square ‘massacre’, and are all deliberately written to present a totally false image to the world.
It is almost unimaginable that this would be possible.
The US spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on items related to China generally, all listed in US government publications as “assistance”.
Only deeper into a report does one discover that this assistance is not actually given to China, but as cash allocations to various US-based NGOs and universities, to carry out various undefined “projects”, but usually listed under headings like ‘law and order’ or ‘democracy promotion’.
They also specify that much of this cash is provided to domestic Chinese NGOs – i.e. US NGOs formed in China – but whose identities cannot be disclosed due to potential repercussions.
They also tell us that this money is often spent in areas where the Chinese government has not shown sufficient “commitment” for reform or change.
The State Department openly boasts about the extent of interference in China, Hong Kong and Tibet, couching all the descriptions in flowery phrases of high-mindedness and good intentions toward the people.
Here is one example, extracted from:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/afdr/2010/eap/129762.htm
China: Advancing Freedom and Democracy
“The United States supports programs to increase popular participation in government and foster the development of local elections. U.S. programs support grassroots democratization efforts through training elected village officials and deputies to local legislatures.
The U.S. government supports projects that increase the capacity of independent nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to address civil society and governance issues, expand access for marginalized citizens to legal services, and enable citizens to provide input individually and collectively into public decisions.
U.S. officials frequently raise concerns with the Chinese government over restrictions on NGOs, emphasizing the important contributions NGOs can make in developing a vibrant civil society.”
These bastards sound almost benign.
XinMing
_____________________
Agreed…
But beyond money and control … there is something more going on I think.
The rhetoric of “freedom” is indeed powerful.
It has currency throughout the world. Muslims wave the flag against the West. Chinese wave that flag against Western and Japanese imperialism.
However, freedom per se has no meaning. It simply stands for something else that people feel passionately about.
The problem with Freedom today is that it has been hijacked to stand for a specific political interest.
In general, freedom per se mean anything. We are all slaves to so many things (that’s why we have “laws”, that’s why we have “money” – to constrain utterly free anarchist behavior).
So what “freedom” do you want? The sense of what needs to be freed is based on people’s often unarticulated sense of what is right – which is derived from a sense of history, of possibilities, etc..
This is where Western propaganda wins. Freedom means local election, means using facebook and twitter, means reading Western propaganda, etc.
Liberation from the incessant and suffocating Western ways of looking at history, of assessing the human condition, of what is possible must start with understanding the empty rhetoric of “freedom.” in my opinion.
Freedom means nothing. Understanding what you want to be freed – why – is the key to freedom. Otherwise you will just be manipulated.
I’ve been meaning to write a law review article on that for the last few months, focusing on “freedom of speech,” and I am going to re-dedicate myself to that the first half of this year…
Allen
______________________________
Yes … and about the London Olympics – it too had security guards, military hardware (so much more!), cameras, much rules and regulations just for the games, etc. Yet there is more “freedom”?
Of course, what they really mean is: we have no rules against protesting against Tibet, or China. See? So we have more “freedom.”
That what “freedom” has become: so wrapped up with one particular political interest, one narrative of history… having nothing with “freedom” per se.
Allen
_________________________________
Allen, you are precisely correct, and this topic really needs to be examined and stated, to be seen for what it is.
You are right in saying that the expression is meaningless, and it really is surprising that it is, as you stated, so powerful and has so much currency in the world.
An article in the UK Telegraph prior to London’s Olympics told us that London’s event wouldn’t be as grand as that of China, but we have something better – “freedom”.
I think we need to stop running scared from this word. If it really is meaningless – and it is – then it needs to be exposed for what it is. We should be able to bring it out of the dark and into the light, and take away its power.
This word, or expression, has been on my mind for a long time as a term so overused that it has lost all meaning, but has somehow managed to be equated with a package of everything that is good, and has thus acquired an extraordinary amount of emotional baggage.
But there has to be a way to disembowel it.
Xin Ming
_______________________________
Yes … and about the London Olympics – it too had security guards, military hardware (so much more!), cameras, much rules and regulations just for the games, etc. Yet there is more “freedom”?
Of course, what they really mean is: we have no rules against protesting against Tibet, or China. See? So we have more “freedom.”
That what “freedom” has become: so wrapped up with one particular political interest, one narrative of history… having nothing with “freedom” per se.
Allen
__________________________________
In a very short nutshell, this is how this thing works:
The party that is stronger, will ALWAYS want a country/society to open up. This is why:
1. The US wants China to be more transparnet about its military budget.
2. The US wants China to open up more sectors to private investment and relax FDI rules (Since local companies will not be able to compete with MNCs, the latter will make a truckload of profits)
3. The US wants China and Russia to be lenient towards international NGOs.
4. The US wants China to allow unfiltered internet access… And so on and on…
5. And to take an example from history, this is also why the British wanted China to open itself up to importing Opium, in the name of “Free Trade”, as The Economist put it:
Supporting a free-for-all situation is always in favor of the stronger party. It’s basic common sense – If I am stronger than you (and if we both know this), it is in my interest that you are transparent, and in your interest (and against mine) that you are opaque. It is always in the interest of the weaker party to hide the true extent of its strength (or weakness). This is the point that was realized by Sun Tzu ages ago. If you’re weak, you always have to strive to appear stronger, and in today’s world, this means restricting access and rolling heads.
For the stronger party, this represents a wonderful situation.
In the name of democrcy and human rights, any country can be pressured to open up.
And when that happens, the entire platoon can move in: MNCs, NGOs, the media, Hollywood, previously-blocked websites – the lot.
Maitreya