China Must Reform or Die.

[CardSharp]

As the newly promoted Political Commissar (PC) of the PLA's National Defense University, (a rank just one level shy from the CMC). Lt General Liu is once again delivering his provocative view on the same theme since his Chengdu Air Force days -- embracing US-style democracy or accept a Soviet-style collapse.

Lt General Liu's free airing of provocative views on both foreign and domestic issues, especially his calls for political reform and the freedom of expression, is unprecedented. Thus far, his views not only strengthen his career but also allowed him to became one of the most covered personalities by the PLA-watching community in the West. He was a visiting scholar at Stanford University from 1986 to 1987, a fact might help to explain his "Pro-Western" view.

In addition of being the PC for the National Defense University, Lt General Liu is also serving as a member of the CCP's Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection, China's top anti-graft watchdog.

A Chinese two-star general has warned his conservative Communist Party masters and firebrand People's Liberation Army colleagues that China must either embrace US-style democracy or accept Soviet-style collapse.

As officers of similar rank rattle their sabres against US aircraft carriers in the Yellow and South China seas, General Liu Yazhou says China's rise depends on adopting America's system of government rather than challenging its dominance off China's eastern coast.

''If a system fails to let its citizens breathe freely and release their creativity to the maximum extent, and fails to place those who best represent the system and its people into leadership positions, it is certain to perish,'' writes General Liu Yazhou in Hong Kong's Phoenix magazine, which is widely available on news stands and on the internet throughout China.

The fact of General Liu's article suggests China's political and ideological struggles are more lively than commonly thought, ahead of a rotation of leaders in the Central Military Commission and then the Politburo in 2012.

''The secret of US success is neither Wall Street nor Silicon Valley, but its long-surviving rule of law and the system behind it,'' he says. ''The American system is said to be 'designed by genius and for the operation of the stupid'.

''A bad system makes a good person behave badly while a good system makes a bad person behave well. Democracy is the most urgent thing, without it there can be no sustainable rise.''

General Liu was promoted recently from deputy political commissar of the PLA Air Force to political commissar of the National Defence University. His father was a senior military officer and his father-in-law was Li Xiannian, one of Chinese communism's ''Eight Immortals'' - and a one-time president of China.

While many of China's ''princelings'' have exploited their revolutionary names to amass wealth and power, General Liu has exploited his pedigree to provide protection to push his contrarian and reformist views.

But General Liu's latest writings are extraordinary by any standards. His article urges China to shift its strategic focus from the country's developed coastal areas, including Hong Kong and Taiwan - ''the renminbi belt'' - towards resource-rich Central Asia.

But he argues that China will never have strategic reach by relying on wealth alone. ''A nation that is mindful only of the power of money is a backward and stupid nation,'' he writes. ''What we could believe in is the power of the truth.

''The truth is knowledge and knowledge is power.''

But such national power can only come with political transformation. ''In the coming 10 years, a transformation from power politics to democracy will inevitably take place,'' he says.

General Liu inverts the lesson that Chinese politicians have traditionally drawn from the collapse of the Soviet Union - that it was caused by too much political reform - by arguing that reform arrived too late.

Since 2008 the Communist Party has steadily tightened the political screws to stifle dissent.

Many Chinese are concerned that reforms have been blocked by powerful military, security, corporate and family groups that benefit from the status quo.

General Liu was famously outspoken until he stopped publishing his essays about five years ago.

It is unclear how his latest article appeared and whether he has backing within the system.

Last year Hong Kong's Open magazine published a leaked report of one of General Liu's internal speeches which raised the taboo topic of how some generals refused to lead troops into Tiananmen Square in 1989.

General Liu returned to the subject of Tiananmen in his Phoenix article, saying ''a nationwide riot'' was caused by the incompatibility of traditional power structures with reform.

What do you guys make of this?

 

[Nomenclature]

Actually I've been thinking about posting this for a few days now. As I've mentioned in another thread, I think he's very naive about democracy, government or history, which is typical of Chinese 'liberals' of his age.

I do think it's imperative for China to begin some degree of reform, most importantly local elections, judicial reform, free press, privatization and a serious effort to clamp down local protectionism and integrate the country. But I believe reform at the highest level should wait until the later generations come into power.

It may be prejudice on my part, but I don't trust leaders and thinkers of Liu Yazhou's generation. Growing up during the height of Mao's personality cult and deprived of the chance from formal education, I found liberal intellectuals of that generation largely incapable of thinking analytically or engaging in nuanced discussions. That combined with a profound and deep-rooted hatred for Chinese culture is a recipe for disaster.

 

[huzihaidao12]

naive? No, not simply that he is an interest group representatives. China's current system of public ownership, at least in law. While some interest groups control the state property, but it is not sufficient protection, the need to "reform", so the law of public property will be "legal" as their private property, and have legal protection. This is a "naive"? NO, absolutely not.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

I hate to say this but I told you so.

 

[huzihaidao12]

I hate to say this but I told you so.

You say that a joke?

 

[Jade]

China has done extremely well with its current political dispensation. I see no reason why China should embrace democracy. On a lighter side, a democratic China would certainly be boring

 

[Nomenclature]

I hate to say this but I told you so.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you see, one can sometimes arrive at the correct conclusion by all the wrong reasons.

 

[CardSharp]

Actually I've been thinking about posting this for a few days now. As I've mentioned in another thread, I think he's very naive about democracy, government or history, which is typical of Chinese 'liberals' of his age.

I do think it's imperative for China to begin some degree of reform, most importantly local elections, judicial reform, free press, privatization and a serious effort to clamp down local protectionism and integrate the country. But I believe reform at the highest level should wait until the later generations come into power.

Yep, hat tip for telling me about him and I completely agree with your list of reforms.

-Local governance is poor compared to higher government, local elections would stop the exploitation and nepotism (need good framework though).

-An independent judicial is one of the few things I admire about the American system, China's judicial system is woeful.

-China's press treats the reader like children, it is terribly afraid to tell the public anything even remotely sensitive. Results in a whole generation of readers who will see the world askew.

-Economic reform goes without saying. China's current model is not going to work in the coming years.

It may be prejudice on my part, but I don't trust leaders and thinkers of Liu Yazhou's generation. Growing up during the height of Mao's personality cult and deprived of the chance from formal education, I found liberal intellectuals of that generation largely incapable of thinking analytically or engaging in nuanced discussions. That combined with a profound and deep-rooted hatred for Chinese culture is a recipe for disaster.

I have noticed the same thing in some of the writers and film makers in Canada of that generation. In their teen years these liberal artists almost universally embraced Mao's personalty cult and only to make a 180 in their later years and fill the democracy advocate niche in western media.

You can see this particular pathology in a Canadian film called Sunrise Over Tiananmen Square by Shui-Bo Wang. Typical story, zealous and violent red guard when he was young, rabid anti-party anti-china activist later, cashing in huge on Tienanmen.

http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=thrT8hmh8CI (replace the (dot) if you feel like watching it, I don't want to embed it here)

another example is Jan Wong
Jan Wong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third generation well off Chinese girl who actually flew back to China to take part in the Cultural revolution. Fervent Maoist, she rats out a fellow student for asking about defecting to west. Now writes some of the most hateful articles for China as correspondent for the Globe and Mail.


I've always thought they were a unique over-seas Chinese phenomenon but if these liberal thinkers in China are the same way, I wouldn't trust them to run the country. This fascination with the west has to stop. No more slavish imitation, no more associating foreign items with status, no more associating western liberalization with progressive thinking. I've lived the majority of my life in Europe and NA. Trust me it isn't as pretty up close as they think.

(btw if you don't mind, are you older or younger than that generation?)

 

[huzihaidao12]

Yep, hat tip for telling me about him and I completely agree with your list of reforms.

-Local governance is poor compared to higher government, local elections would stop the exploitation and nepotism (need good framework though).

-An independent judicial is one of the few things I admire about the American system, China's judicial system is woeful.

-China's press treats the reader like children, it is terribly afraid to tell the public anything even remotely sensitive. Results in a whole generation of readers who will see the world askew.

-Economic reform goes without saying. China's current model is not going to work in the coming years.




I have noticed the same thing in some of the writers and film makers in Canada of that generation. In their teen years these liberal artists almost universally embraced Mao's personalty cult and only to make a 180 in their later years and fill the democracy advocate niche in western media.

You can see this particular pathology in a Canadian film called Sunrise Over Tiananmen Square by Shui-Bo Wang. Typical story, zealous and violent red guard when he was young, rabid anti-party anti-china activist later, cashing in huge on Tienanmen.

http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=thrT8hmh8CI (replace the (dot) if you feel like watching it, I don't want to embed it here)

another example is Jan Wong
Jan Wong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third generation well off Chinese girl who actually flew back to China to take part in the Cultural revolution. Fervent Maoist, she rats out a fellow student for asking about defecting to west. Now writes some of the most hateful articles for China as correspondent for the Globe and Mail.


I've always thought they were a unique over-seas Chinese phenomenon but if these liberal thinkers in China are the same way, I wouldn't trust them to run the country. This fascination with the west has to stop. No more slavish imitation, no more associating foreign items with status, no more associating western liberalization with progressive thinking. I've lived the majority of my life in Europe and NA. Trust me it isn't as pretty up close as they think.

(btw if you don't mind, are you older or younger than that generation?)

You may be totally unaware of China, I mean real.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

As for privatization, you can see the results of the Soviet Union, he is definitely not a panacea.

 

[CardSharp]

You may be totally unaware of China, I mean real.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

As for privatization, you can see the results of the Soviet Union, he is definitely not a panacea.

You're right this is just me watching China from afar, but for things like privatization, it doesn't have to be disastrous. China is not the USSR and the next generation of leaders aren't Gorbachev.

 

[Nomenclature]

naive? No, not simply that he is an interest group representatives. China's current system of public ownership, at least in law. While some interest groups control the state property, but it is not sufficient protection, the need to "reform", so the law of public property will be "legal" as their private property, and have legal protection. This is a "naive"? NO, absolutely not.

Yeah. Sometimes I feel the current Chinese system isn't going to last much longer and there are wolves all around it.

I mean, even Mao Xinyu said recently he's interested in getting into politics. And you know he has about zero chance to do that under the current system. He looks completely clueless but sometimes I recall a character from one of Gu Long's Wuxia novels named Tang Que (唐&#32570.

Also, what is Bo Xilai trying to achieve? Under the current system he's too old to become a national leader for two full terms starting in 2012. So what is his agenda?

And what are all those outspoken PLA generals trying to do? I mean recently they just pop up like mushrooms. Is some faction within PLA trying to play a bigger roles in the next government?

The last and current generation of leaders obviously don't have much faith in the system. None of their sons and daughters are in politics. They're all in business being CEOs of major SOEs. What is their plan for the future of China?

There really are a lot of wolves nowadays.

 

[huzihaidao12]

You're right this is just me watching China from afar, but for things like privatization, it doesn't have to be disastrous. China is not the USSR and the next generation of leaders aren't Gorbachev.

At least domestic people against privatization, I mean the people, not the number of interest groups. If privatization is likely to cause confusion, is not conducive to China's development. The actual situation in China is getting better, all, some things are actually just as news of a more open and exposed the more. The actual situation is getting better. Really needed is two, public opinion and the legal system, the other can be developed in China for at least another 20 years, and then look at need.

 

[huzihaidao12]

btw, have you seen a group of hungry dogs fighting over food it? That is the great temptation of personal gain, Whether Chinese leaders is Gorbachev or not , It will cause great confusion. Do not hurry, we further developed 20 years. Internally, a higher standard of living and the People's quality, outside, with enough force to deter any interference forces, and then can be more big changes.

 

[CardSharp]

btw, have you seen a group of hungry dogs fighting over food it? That is the great temptation of personal gain, regardless of Chinese leaders is not Gorbachev., It will cause great confusion. Do not hurry, we further developed 20 years. Internally, the quality of a higher standard of living and the people, outside, with enough force to deter any interference forces, and then can be more big changes.

I was actually not talking about privatization specifically when I said

-Economic reform goes without saying. China's current model is not going to work in the coming years.

I was thinking about diversifying manufacture and reducing export dependence. The world has too much excess production capacity in my opinion.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

You say that a joke?

I can say it any damm way I please, they call it freedom of speech.