China's car-free campaign must extend to officials

QI GE

CHENGDU, Sep. 24

China experimented last week with a campaign urging citizens in 108 cities to take the bus and leave their cars at home. City leaders set the example by riding buses or bicycles, or walking to work, for the whole week. In addition, each city was to come up with at least one "green traffic measure" intended to improve transportation conditions.

These "car-free days" were aimed at raising public awareness of the need to protect the environment, improve traffic congestion and save energy. However, it appears that the officials' good intentions were not appreciated by the public, as the Internet was rife with complaints throughout the week.

A common complaint on major Web sites was that there are far too many official cars on the streets, placing a real drain on state resources. If the number of cars used by officials is not cut down, car-free days will be only a show, with little effect on saving energy or improving the transportation situation, the netizens said.

Similar experiments with car-free days in Western countries have brought similar waves of complaint from citizens who feel they are inconvenienced by the exercise. According to a report in the "Economic Daily" of Paris, 99 French cities carried out a campaign to reduce the use of cars in 2002; in 2003 the number dropped to 72, and in 2005 the number was only 50. Berlin, the capital of Germany, and Rome, the capital of Italy, as well as other major European cities abandoned their car-free campaigns a few years ago in the face of public complaints that they caused a lot of trouble and accomplished nothing.

The complaints of the Chinese public are different from those in other countries, however. Many Chinese think that the key to improving transportation in cities is to reform the use of cars among Communist Party and government officials. If officials' cars could be reduced by half, the effort to deal with congestion, pollution and energy would be made easier, they say. There would also be less corruption if public money were not to be spent on cars.

Some netizens made fun of a Sept. 16 news report published in a number of local media saying that "officials were taking the lead in making good use of buses and bicycles to go to work." The netizens argued that many ordinary people living in cities were taking buses or bicycles to work all the time -- demonstrating that the public is in fact taking the lead in this no-car campaign. The number of private cars is still limited, they point out, while the number of official cars is burgeoning.

According to reports in the state-run media, the number of officials' cars in China has reached 3.5 million. Each year, public expenditure on cars is as high as 300 billion yuan (US$40 billion), which is higher than the military budget and higher than the total budget for education and medical care. Last year the media reported that the number of cars belonging to local governments grows by 20 percent each year. Last year Xinhua News Agency reported that Beijing had at least 490,000 official cars.

The national television station, CCTV, once reported that cars occupied by officials in Beijing took up 80 percent of the road space. The current high cost of gas, various road tolls and traffic fines mean that many families are careful in using their private cars. But since all these expenses are covered by the government in the case of officials, they need not be concerned about these costs.

In many countries, the management of official cars is extremely strict. In the United States, for example, there are strict rules governing the purchase of government cars, and mandatory reports on their use. For security reasons, the president, vice president, secretary of state, secretary of defense and a few other top officials are authorized to use official cars. Other high-level officials -- including government department heads, congressmen, governors and mayors -- drive their own private cars to work. Michael Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York City, reportedly takes the metro to work every day.

South Korea was able to greatly reduce traffic congestion by introducing reforms on the use of official cars. In Finland, only the prime minister, minister of foreign affairs, minister of the interior and minister of defense are provided with official cars and drivers.

By comparison, in China there are 3.5 million official cars at an annual cost of 300 billion yuan. This is a heavy burden on a country that is not very wealthy. Cities like Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou are the exception; behind the scenes of prosperity in these cities are hundreds of millions of farmers living in poverty. The workers and unemployed people in the poor areas represent the "real" China. Imagine how many people could be raised out of poverty with 300 billion yuan.

This careless use of public funds for cars is a kind of hidden corruption. It reveals a selfish, indifferent and irresponsible attitude on the part of Chinese bureaucrats, no matter how enthusiastically they participate in weeklong car-free campaigns.

--

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/society_culture/2007/09/24/commentary_chinas_carfree_campaign_must_extend_to_officials/

(Qi Ge is the pen name of a freelance writer based in Chengdu, Sichuan province. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Qi Ge.)

Time for the Chinese Communist Party to change its name

TIE LIU

BEIJING, Sep. 17

The Chinese Communist Party's 17th Party Congress will take place in Beijing next month, which is a key event for all who are concerned about China's future and development. I would like to offer some important and necessary suggestions to those participating in this critical Congress.

Considering both the history and the reality of China, for the sake of the nation's rise and long-term peace and stability, the Chinese Communist Party should change its name to the Chinese Democratic Party or the Chinese Social Democratic Party.

The CCP supposedly follows Marxism, but even its founders, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, had already abandoned communism in their later years. They disbanded the Communist League, and never founded a Communist Party. Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Marxism, is supposed to have said, "I planted the seed of a dragon, but it turned out to be a flea."

But Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, for their own political purposes, picked up the ideas of class struggle, violent revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and used them to build their communist parties into forces of violence and dictatorship. They started revolutions aimed at eliminating private ownership, and established social systems that rejected advanced productivity.

However, the bourgeoisie and private ownership, which represent advanced forms of productivity, cannot be eliminated by violence. For scores of years, China carried out violent revolutions including the 10-year land reform (1927-1937, also known as the 10-year civil war), the 3-year revolution (1945-1949, also known as the second civil war between the Kuomintang and the CCP), and violent movements for land reform, nationalization of property and the establishment of collectives after 1949.

Although many people died during those periods, the system of private ownership was never eliminated. As a matter of fact, it now exists everywhere in China and is much stronger than before 1949. It is destroying the barriers set up by the communist movement.

Today's biggest group of "bourgeoisie" is made up of communists who hold the ruling power, and thousands of real capitalists who became rich under China's "opening up" policy. The Chinese word for "communism" means "sharing property equally." The Communist Party is not wise to keep this name, as people are wondering whose property the authorities want to share equally, the former or the latter?

Also, sharing things equally implies violence, dictatorship and instability. If the ruling party continues to be referred to as the "party to share property equally," it will be an open provocation to a stable and unified state. It goes directly against President Hu Jintao's professed ideals of people-oriented government, establishing a harmonious society and taking a scientific approach to development.

Moreover, the revised Chinese Constitution now clearly stipulates that private property should be protected.

Secondly, the Chinese People's Liberation Army should change its name to the Chinese People's Defense Army. The original name implies a state of civil war, class hatred and oppression. Otherwise, why should it be called the "liberation" army?

Who does the PLA still need to liberate today? Are they workers, farmers or intellectuals? Through many years of fighting and plundering the revolution overthrew the dictatorial Kuomintang and the corrupt regime of Chiang Kai-shek. Then, through violence, it stole the property of the bourgeoisie, confiscated the land of the landowners, and liberated the oppressed, enslaved and suffering ordinary people. Do these people need to be liberated once again?

Or does the PLA intend to liberate people all over the world? In the past, Mao Zedong deceived the Chinese people by telling them that two-thirds of the world's people were living "in deep water and hot fire." But since China opened its doors, its people began to realize that those living in capitalist countries have far better lives than people in socialist countries. (The Chinese people now realize that Mao's comment was actually only referring to the "deep water" of swimming pools and the "heat" omitted by central heating.) Nowadays, not even a 3-year-old would buy this lie.

Or does the PLA want to liberate Taiwan? Taiwan has always been part of China's territory. Chiang, who took the KMT to Taiwan, has passed away, and his descendents now are mostly common people. Meanwhile, the formerly dictatorial KMT has lost power to the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan, which has an elected government today. Does this need to be destroyed by means of war?

Moreover, are the people living in Taiwan still oppressed today? In 2005 I went to Taiwan for a two-week visit. From that trip, I realized that ordinary people there enjoy much better lives than people in mainland China. An ordinary worker's monthly salary in Taiwan is no less than NT$15,000 (about 3,750 yuan, or US$450).

The so-called Taiwan issue is merely an issue of different political systems. This should not be resolved by means of war, but by competing in serving the people well and developing a better economy. Therefore, it is not an issue of liberation; it is an issue of unification between two political systems. We can only solve this conflict through negotiation, dialogue and reconciliation. Take the case of West and East Germany, for example. Didn't they accomplish unification without the use of guns or bombs?

--

(Tie Liu is the pen name of a writer in Beijing. He formerly worked for the "Chengdu Daily." This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Tie Liu.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/09/17/commentary_time_for_the_chinese_communist_party_to_change_its_name/

Democracy with Chinese Communist characteristics

GUAN JIAN

BEIJING, Sep. 12

For the first time ever, the Chinese Communist Party has made public the list of delegates to its 17th Party Congress, which will convene on Oct. 15. Moreover, in newspaper articles and television broadcasts it has emphasized the democratic process by which delegates to this Congress were chosen. All this publicity makes the whole exercise seem quite serious. Actually, the Party has never released the list of delegates since 1949. This is truly unprecedented.

As to whether or not the selection of delegates was truly democratic, the CCP's Organizational Department claims it was, and no Party members have said it was not. This is not easy for an outsider to judge.

However, the propaganda surrounding the Congress has been similar to that which preceded the National People's Congress -- the focus in selecting delegates has been on "model workers" and "advanced personnel." The emphasis is on their outstanding work performance, not their political perspective. This ensures that, even if they are chosen through a democratic election, the chosen delegates will be in political accord with the CCP's top leaders. This is in direct contravention to the democratic principle that Party leaders should be accountable to the Party Congress. Instead, the Congress is accountable to the Party leaders.

As a matter of fact, ahead of this Congress, as always, the top officials of the CCP are locked in a keen power competition behind the scenes. They must work out the distribution of power ahead of the Congress, so as to ensure unity among the 2,000 delegates. Then they will conduct the performance of "inner Party democracy."

For the past five years the people have observed the performance of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, and realized that they will not voluntarily carry out any political reforms. Therefore, pressure must be brought to bear on them to implement reforms. A debate on reform has been taking place ahead of the Party Congress, along with a debate on the guiding ideology of the CCP. Yet consensus has already been reached on the issue of democracy within the Party.

The power of the leftist faction within the Party has largely declined. Some open-minded members have suggested that the Party carry out contested elections. Some have suggested an even more radical change -- that Party leaders should be accountable to the Party Congress, and that a regular system should be implemented with fixed terms for delegates and annual meetings.

The CCP promotes individuals designated as "model workers" and "advanced personnel" as a means of avoiding real political discussion. The tradition of avoiding political confrontation is well established within the Party. Therefore, in order to avoid the issue of "inner Party democracy" and other issues, delegates' political positions are not considered prior to the Party Congress. Only their work performance is judged to determine their "advanced nature" and justify their selection as delegates to the Party Congress. Any Party member who has no links with corruption can be considered "progressive" and can meet the qualifications to be a delegate. Being free of corruption is a rare and outstanding quality among Party members nowadays.

By setting such qualifications, the Party is able to round off any rough edges among the delegates and ensure that they embody the "Party heart" and remain politically attuned to the central leadership. The requirement to conform to the official Party heart destroys individual passion and political idealism -- these eventually fade away into depression. "Individual progressiveness" replaces positive political ideals and ambition.

Fang Lizhi, the famous physics professor who was exiled to the United States after the 1989 democracy movement, used to encourage young people to join the CCP and invest their idealism and passion into transforming the Party. However, under the current reality of the CCP, the success rate of this strategy is very low.

It is important that the CCP establish the principle of making the Party leaders accountable to the Party Congress. Progress toward the so-called "democracy within the CCP" could have a real impact on China's democratic reforms. The key is whether or not the Party can change the tradition whereby the entire Party membership is subordinate to the Central Committee of the Party. Instead, the entire Party membership should be accountable to the Party Congress. This would be in keeping with the spirit of Marxism, the Chinese Communist Party's Constitution and the principles of democracy.

--

(Guan Jian is the pen name of a commentator on China affairs for New Century Net. He is a former researcher at an institute of state economic reform. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Guan Jian.)
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/09/13/commentary_democracy_with_chinese_communist_characteristics/

Resenting the rich

WU GAOXING

LINHAI, Sep. 10

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/09/10/commentary_resenting_the_rich/

Chinese writers are engaged in a battle of the pens over the issue of widespread resentment toward China's newly rich. Mao Yushi, a well-known scholar and economist who is considered a man of conscience, sparked this debate with a widely read article titled, "Speak for the Rich and Do for the Poor."

Mao has earned high regard for his acts of political courage -- signing an appeal for the Tiananmen Mothers group, speaking out on behalf of a jailed writer and critic, and siding with a private entrepreneur who was being framed. He is also credited with providing financial support to prisoners of conscience. For awhile he was on a government black list banning his name and comments from the media.

But his recent comments are untimely and out of synch with the social reality.

Mao seeks to defend the wealthy from the people's resentment, but in present-day China there is no need to indiscriminately do so. The rich in China are privileged, the poor are underprivileged. Most social resources, as well as the power to legislate and even the right to speak out, are in the hands of the rich and powerful. The legislative bodies let wealthy special interest groups dictate their laws and policies. It is the poor who suffer from unjust treatment.

Scholar Mao has pointed out that under the current system, the benefits enjoyed by the rich are not guaranteed. He argues that their benefits should be protected, saying that only if property is protected can the poor become rich. Based on these comments, we do not wrong Mao if we view him as a spokesperson for the special interest groups. Whatever his original intention, he has drawn a great deal of criticism for his position on this issue.

Certainly there are cases where the rich are bullied by the powerful, but they are rare. It is important to stand up for a rich person who faces injustice, but this does not mean we should speak up for all the rich. If a corrupt official is treated unjustly we should speak up for this official. But if someone advocates standing up for all corrupt officials, it will definitely arouse antipathy from the people. Whether rich or poor, we should speak up for people whose human rights are violated or whose legitimate property rights are denied.

At present there is a serious gap between rich and poor in China. The reality is that most wealth comes from power and most poverty results from a lack of power.

U.S.-based Chinese scholar Xue Yong commented wisely when he said the Chinese people do not resent wealth gained through legitimate means; what they resent is wealth gained through unscrupulous means. For example, Yao Ming, the famous Chinese basketball player in the United States, is extremely rich, but the Chinese people do not resent him.

By contrast, many officials have become wealthy through the abuse of power -- as have the businessmen and others who ally with them. We must therefore consider the causes of polarization between the rich and the poor, rather than criticizing those who resent the current situation.

Apologists for Chinese entrepreneurs, including Mao, emphasize their contributions to China's economy and society as well as the difficulties they face. However, these comments are untimely and inaccurate.

Managers of enterprises are not all entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are those who discover new products, create new technologies, open new markets, discover new resources and establish new economic organizations. They do innovative work and they take risks. In democratic countries with equal opportunity, entrepreneurs can become heads of companies by establishing a business, bearing risks and becoming rich through their own efforts.

But the situation in China is rather complicated. Many "entrepreneurs" are the heads of state-owned enterprises, assigned because of their official standing and administrative rank; or managers in state-owned monopolies such as the electricity and water industries; or children of important leaders whose status gives them free reign in the business sector; or government officials who start their own businesses.

In the 1980s there was a saying, "no work, no wealth." Now it has become "no power, no wealth". Under this circumstance, those who work are not comfortable with Mao's assertion that "entrepreneurs" are the main producers of wealth.

Mao has indicated that the wealthy deserve sympathy because they have to pay various taxes and deal with arbitrary government officials -- flattering them, giving them valuable gifts, treating them to meals and providing them entertainment. However, business people are clever; they would not do any of these things at a loss to themselves.

Without such contacts with government officials, how could real estate developers get land? Without back-up from political figures, how could tycoons get billions in bank loans? Without giving presents to the officials in the tax office, how could entrepreneurs avoid paying taxes?

The rich are not bullied by the government. That was once the case, but it is long past. Ever since General Secretary Jiang Zemin introduced his theory of "three represents," money and power have been joined together. The company heads have all joined the Communist Party and become the "new social class" that supports one-party dictatorship.

It seems that Mao, a man of conscience, originally intended to deflect people's resentment away from the wealthy class, but has ended up defending a system that polarizes rich and poor. This is really unexpected from a scholar of his standing.

--

(Wu Gaoxing is a freelance writer on Chinese economics and politics in Linhai, Zhejiang province. He is a former middle school teacher, lecturer and director of the Political Research Department at Taizhou's Supply and Sale School. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at http://www.chinaweekly.com. ©Copyright Wu Gaoxing.)

One China, two election styles?

YU CHENGYU

DANDONG, Sep. 6

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/09/06/commentary_one_china_two_election_styles/

It is more than half a year before Chinese Taiwan holds its "presidential election," but the candidates of the Democratic Progressive Party and the Kuomintang are already competing on the public stage. DPP candidate Frank Hsieh and KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou frequently appear on public occasions to promote their platforms on how to govern Taiwan, deal with cross-strait relations and ensure the well-being and prosperity of the populace.

The two have to respond to questions from the people. In addition, they reveal each other's shortcomings and try by all means to boost their popularity with the public. This vigorous campaign style reveals that the people truly possess the right to select their political leaders, who are in reality public servants.

In mainland China, it is also transition time for the high-level leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. The Party's 17th National Congress will open in Beijing on Oct. 15, during which a new Standing Committee will be formed. However, such details as the number of committee members, who is leaving and who is joining, are unknown to ordinary Party members, let alone the general public. The candidates' names remain a secret.

The public can do nothing more than ask and spread rumors about who will leave and who will stay on the powerful Standing Committee. The only thing the public knows is that, in a long list of items published as the Party's "guiding ideology," there is one new idea included -- General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Hu Jintao has proposed that the Party adopt a "scientific outlook on development."

At one time, a powerful figure in mainland China described Taiwanese democracy as a "farce." Now, someone else in mainland China says that the politicians in Taiwan are not practicing democracy but playing tricks on the public.

However, what would most mainland Chinese people choose -- if they had a choice -- between the mainland style of keeping everything secret and Taiwan's style of "playing tricks on the public"? I am not sure what the rest of the people would say, but I myself do not prefer the former.

What makes the Chinese people sigh is that apologists for China, in discussing controversial issues, always explain the "national situation" or describe it as being unique because of "Chinese characteristics." Why cannot they apply this theory to the difference between the selection of leaders in the mainland and Taiwan?

Isn't it true that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China? If so, both should share the same "national situation." Nevertheless, the small Taiwan enjoys its vigorous election campaign, while the great mainland continues its practice of keeping secrets. Those who advocate one "national situation" and justify it by saying it represents "Chinese characteristics" should be ashamed about this.

--

(Yu Chengyu is a retired scholar and former teacher of Marxist theory. He is a former vice principle of the Party School of Fengcheng County in Liaoning province, and former director of the Philosophy Academy of Dandong city. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Yu Chengyu.)

How long will 'Made in China' continue?

FANG JUE

NEW YORK, Aug. 30

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/economics/2007/08/30/commentary_how_long_will_made_in_china_continue/

The United States needs to take powerful action to stem China's irresponsible economic expansion. In the past half year Western countries have been resisting Chinese products -- which are cheap but often of poor quality and sometimes unsafe. From toxic pet food to polluted aquatic products, from unsafe toothpaste to unsafe vehicle tires, Chinese products are failing to meet Western standards.

The biggest recent news was the recall of 20 million toys made in China by Mattel, the largest U.S. toy company. Some toys were found to contain lead, and others had small parts that could be swallowed by young children. This trend of rejecting substandard Chinese goods is likely to continue for some time, and to impact China's irresponsible economic expansion.

This recalls the situation when former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping ordered the army to repress the peaceful student protests on June 4th, 1989, in Beijing. His intention was to maintain his position as paramount leader. Deng established an important concept through his actions, however: As long as China develops and grows stronger, it need not fear sanctions or attacks from Western countries, or abandonment by them.

In early 1992, during his famous trip to southern China, Deng condensed this concept into one sentence: "Development is the absolute principle." This principle became the motto for the third generation leadership under former President Jiang Zemin and continues for the fourth generation leadership under current President Hu Jintao.

This "absolute principle" shows that the Communist Party's greatest asset in deterring China's transition to democracy is the rapid growth of the economy. This economic growth is mainly export-led. That is to say, the direct impact of U.S. rejection of Chinese products will be to slow China's rampant exporting impetus.

U.S. workers are under no obligation to sacrifice their job opportunities in return for problematic Chinese products that harm U.S. consumers. U.S. enterprises are under no obligation to sacrifice their own benefits in return for dealing with corrupt Chinese bureaucrats and rich people. The U.S. government is under no obligation to sacrifice its country's interests in return for China's developing anti-satellite weapons and intercontinental missiles. Furthermore, U.S. security organs are under no obligation to sacrifice their own duties in return for all types of Chinese spies in their country.

If China's export momentum is slowed, U.S. workers can have more job opportunities, U.S. enterprises can make more reasonable profits, the Chinese communist regime's military funds will be reduced and Chinese spies will find it harder to carry out their underground tasks.

For a long time, U.S. enterprises that earn profits from trading with China have lobbied the U.S. government, Congress, and leadership of states and major cities in favor of the Chinese Communist Party. But growing opposition to poor quality Chinese imports will diminish these voices singing the praises of China's economic miracle.

In addition, some insightful Americans will begin to reevaluate this seriously defective economic miracle, as well as China's worldwide ambitious diplomatic strategies and its potential threat in terms of military expansion.

Some Americans have advocated economic dialogue with China and disapproved of legislation and sanctions aimed at reshaping China's economic behavior. In practice, various Sino-U.S. economic dialogues have achieved no substantial results, nor do they promise substantial results in the foreseeable future. When dealing with such issues as the low exchange rate of the yuan, the piracy problem, the granting of approval to enter China's market and export subsidies, the Chinese government has always considered its own benefit. It has no intention of finding fair and timely solutions to these problems, preferring to engage in "shadowboxing" with the United States.

Some U.S. companies have begun to resist the irresponsible economic expansion of China. This will encourage those who think the United States should respond to China's economic wrongdoings with legislation and sanctions. Eventually most U.S. consumers and voters will follow and support these actions.

Communist China is actually not strong enough to win an economic showdown with the developed countries. Therefore the developed countries, led by the United States, should deal with China based on strength, not just on dialogue. Any Sino-U.S. dialogue should be based on strength rather than goodwill.

The Chinese government is finally growing nervous about U.S. rejection of its exports. Premier Wen Jiabao held a meeting of the State Council to demand improvements in the quality and safety of products for export. Ministry-level officials in charge of product quality and safety have declared that these are not only economic issues but also critical political issues.

The rejection of China's goods by U.S. companies is more effective than official channels of Sino-U.S. dialogue. In this world, compared to development, strength and action are even stronger absolute principles.

Recent history should not be forgotten: The Soviet Union launched comprehensive reforms after 1985 largely because of its poor economic situation. Thus Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev was willing to explore "new thinking." However, after 2005, Russia's democratic transition was reversed. One major reason for this was that the country's economy improved and President Vladimir Putin was more willing to revert to authoritarianism.

Likewise, the major reason for the ongoing rejection of democratic reforms by the third generation leadership under Jiang Zemin and the fourth generation under Hu Jintao is that China's rapid economic growth has provided plenty of financial resources for the Communist Party. As long as the developed countries are willing to assist China's rapid economic growth and maintain its position as the world's factory, China will never become a democratic country, nor will it ever be a "responsible stakeholder" in the world.

--

(Fang Jue is a political activist and freelance writer living in the United States. He was a former government official in China and worked in the Politics Research Institute of China's Academy of Social Sciences. He was a visiting scholar at the Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University in 2003. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.chinaeweekly.com. ©Copyright Fang Jue.)

Untying the knot of Sino-Japan relations (Part 3)

YUAN CHEN

TOKYO, Aug. 23

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/23/commentary_untying_the_knot_of_sinojapan_relations_part_3/

Throughout history, there have always been conflicts between neighboring countries. Russia seized land from China; India always regarded China as a potential enemy. If we take into account all past conflicts China has had with Korea, Vietnam and other countries, it would be endless and difficult to clear away all the debts left by history. The result would be that we would hate other countries or other countries would hate us.

Many countries grew large by attacking and invading others' lands. China is no exception. After fighting for hundreds of years, China secured its current borders as a united, multi-ethnic country.

Every country's history inevitably contains blood, tears and hatred. Rather than seeking revenge against each other, we should acknowledge each other and accept the current situation. We need to forget the hatred in order to establish a harmonious world which serves our mutual interests.

Actually, even when the war with Japan had just finished, China, under Chiang Kai-shek, already returned good for evil. So why can't we do it today? Today's situation has changed and we seem to have the opportunity to establish a more reasonable and just world. The European Union is an example of this.

Between China and Japan, Japan does not harbor hatred; only China does. If the Chinese people can abandon their hatred, there will be no emotional barrier between the two. Japan had reason to hate the United States because of its disastrous air attacks and atomic bombs. Japan had reason to hate the Soviet Union because it broke its treaty, kept Japanese prisoners of war, and invaded four Japanese islands. But Japan only has debts to China, for the 14 years of invasion, the Nanjing Massacre and the chemical experiments it conducted in China. Yet China treated Japan with grace, giving up indemnity payments, raising Japanese orphans and returning prisoners of war.

All the historical hatred was created by Japan. China did not bomb Japanese territory. Although it is natural for the Chinese to hate Japan, I still think it's better to let the hatred go. This is because hatred is not productive and cannot last forever. It is not wise for us to rigidly focus on a few dead people, the war criminals.

When the Manchus invaded China, they were much crueler than the Japanese, killing 70 to 80 percent of the Chinese people at that time. They never apologized for that. But what has happened now? The Manchus are part of the big family of China.

Hatred is like firewood; once it is sparked, disaster could follow. In this sense, Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe's ambiguous attitude toward visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, which prevents fire from breaking out, can be seen as a helpful strategy that will allow both sides to seek a compromise.

Regarding the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere proposed by Japan, the concept is not bad. The problem is that Japan has always wanted to be the leader of such a scheme and forced others toward this goal. Now regional integration and globalization have become world trends. Whether or not this can happen in East Asia depends on the relationship between China and Japan. It only hurts both sides if diplomatic issues are handled emotionally.

To untie the knot between China and Japan, some have suggested a policy of "remembering the past and looking toward the future." However, I don't think this mindset will work. This is like the situation of a husband who discovers his wife has had an affair, but both want to keep the marriage. To prevent it from happening again, the husband continually reminds the wife by saying "remember the past and look ahead." Do you think the couple can live happily? Such a slogan may be useful and necessary domestically. But as the victim in its relationship with Japan, I don't think it's wise for China to remind Japan of this unhappy history too often.

It has been more than 60 years since China and Japan have been dealing with this knotty history. Sixty years after the Manchu invasion an era of prosperity under Emperor Kangxi began in China. The people leading Japan now are the generation born after the war. Whatever views they have of the war, they are not themselves responsible for it. If China wants to make friends with Japan, China needs to be a friend first. If we constantly remind a friend of the debts his grandfather or ancestors owed us, the friendship will not develop. Even if he apologized, would it come from the heart?

It has been 20 years since I immigrated to Japan in 1987. At first I felt most Japanese were very friendly. Then Sino-Japan relations began to worsen when a Chinese official requested the Japanese people to "remember history and look ahead." His scolding tone made the Japanese sound like criminals and the Chinese their victims, as if the Japanese people should bow their heads in front of the Chinese indefinitely. If we look ahead like this, there will be no future at all.

Japanese people have good memories; they don't need to be reminded of history. Every year, on the anniversaries of the atomic bombs or the end of the war, they hold grand ceremonies, much more serious than those the Chinese have. It is the Japanese people's business to decide what they want to remember. When relieved of outside pressure they will come to their own conclusion.

Under current circumstances, it is not difficult for Chinese people to be patriotic. But to consider the country's problems objectively is not necessarily easy. Those who have smashed Japanese shops and thrown tins at Japanese sports teams are not open-minded. Such people prefer the safe route of sticking to the conventional "standpoint," thus choosing less freedom. My views may subject me to criticism from such Chinese patriots, but in this instance I welcome it.

--

(Yuan Chen is the pen name of a Chinese scholar who has lived in Japan for 20 years. He is also a freelance writer on China's politics and current affaires. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.newcenturynews.com. ©Copyright Yuan Chen.)

Untying the knot of Sino-Japan relations (Part 2)

YUAN CHEN

TOKYO, Aug. 22

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/22/commentary_untying_the_knot_of_sinojapan_relations_part_2/

Japanese leaders' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where war criminals are enshrined, are criticized by China on the grounds that the visits represent a militaristic attitude. The Yasukuni Shrine is a place for mourning the dead. It is a bit farfetched to say that visiting the shrine means the revival of militarism. Even if the name tablets of the Class A war criminals are removed from shrine, most of the tablets will remain and thousands of Japanese will continue to visit the Yasukuni Shrine each year.

To decide whether or not militarism is reviving in Japan, we need to look beyond acts of mourning the dead. More importantly, we should evaluate the country's present military capabilities and war preparations.

Judging from its current situation, Japan doesn't look like a county ready for war. There is no such atmosphere in the country. There are few soldiers and few politicians with a military background. Moreover, Japan always insists on remaining nuclear free.

Japan has strong economic power, which enables it to have high-tech military capacity, but it is no longer a country that can initiate a battle alone. There are still U.S. troops stationed in the nation. At most Japan can only support the military actions of others; for example, it sent troops to support the United States in the Iraq War.

Japan invaded China, so it makes sense for China to worry that Japan might do it again sometime. It's good for China to be prepared for this. But it doesn't make sense for Chinese people to oppose the revival of Japanese militarism by opposing Japanese visits to the shrine. Visiting or not visiting the shrine will not determine the revival of militarism. It could be more dangerous if Japanese leaders decided to review the country's military power but refrained from visiting the shrine. It is not logical to oppose the shrine visits because one opposes the revival of militarism.

In addition, many Japanese people hold the view that dead people can be released from blame. They think that once criminals are punished, their cases are closed. The most we can do to a murderer is to kill him or her. The victim's family cannot do anything else even though they may still feel resentful toward the murderer. It is human nature for the murderer's family to set up a name tablet to mourn the murderer who was punished by death. As long as the murderer's family doesn't try to reverse the verdict, the victim's family should just let it go.

In the case of Japan, its Congress accepted the Potsdam Agreement in 1951, acknowledged the Tokyo Trial, and signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty. They haven't regretted accepting all those agreements.

Regarding the fact that a group of Japanese, including some politicians, had the tablets of the Class A war criminals secretly brought to the shrine (in 1978), we cannot explain this as an attempt to revive militarism. In fact, some Japanese people don't think that the war was completely wrong, and don't think that the Tokyo Trial was fair, but they still accepted the result of defeat.

Why can't we Chinese just learn from the Americans, who take this matter lightly? It is not worthwhile for China and Japan to keep up this diplomatic battle only for those few Class A war criminals, who are dead.

It is reasonable for international society to punish war criminals if they commit crimes against other countries. But the countrymen of the criminals should be able to decide themselves how they will treat the criminals. In Japan, there is no law banning the people from visiting the shrine. Every Japanese citizen, including the emperor, has the freedom to decide whether to visit the shrine or not. It is the decision of the Japanese government whether or not to make an official visit to the shrine. China and other countries cannot decide that for Japan.

After all, it is the Japanese people's own business to decide whether to visit the shrine or not. Actually, the Japanese people among themselves have different points of view too. For example, Showa Emperor Hirohito did not approve of putting the tablets of Class A war criminals in the shrine and refused to visit it afterward.

Once an outside country gets involved in the issue, it becomes a confrontation between race and race, and the matter of visiting the shrine becomes a test of patriotism. As a result, those Japanese who actually oppose such visits have to keep silent, which is a common situation today.

(To be continued)

--

(Yuan Chen is the pen name of a Chinese scholar who has lived in Japan for 20 years. He is also a freelance writer on China's politics and current affaires. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.newcenturynews.com. ©Copyright Yuan Chen.)

Untying the knot of Sino-Japan relations (Part I)

YUAN CHEN

TOKYO, Aug. 20

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/20/commentary_untying_the_knot_of_sinojapan_relations_part_i/

A Chinese diplomat once described relations between China and Japan as being extremely difficult. "The two may be on good terms for a couple of days, then relations can just collapse again," he said. The crux of the problem is obvious -- the Yasukuni Shrine.

Aug. 15th marked the 62nd anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II. Neither the Chinese nor Japanese people can forget this day, but they have very different feelings about it. The same is true of the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. Because it includes name tablets for 14 Class A war criminals among the war dead it honors, many Chinese people have strong feelings about this shrine.

Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi went to the shrine to pay his respects for five consecutive years, marking the lowest point in Sino-Japan relations. Current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has taken a milder position by not saying whether or not he will visit the shrine. This allowed Abe to make his "ice-breaking" visit to China last year, followed by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's return "ice-melting" trip to Japan this year.

Has the ice between China and Japan really melted? Will it reappear when the climate changes?

China regards the shrine visits by Japanese leaders as evidence of indifference to the feelings of the Chinese people. But for the Japanese leaders, to say they will not visit the shrine could be to deny their own feelings. So what should the Japanese do?

Japanese intellectuals and congressmen have sought a solution to this problem for years, with little success. It is a complicated matter and is linked to public opinion. There is broad public approval in Japan for visits to the shrine, which was proved by Koizumi's high popularity. It is therefore not practical for China to expect Japan to follow its wishes concerning the shrine visits.

For a long time the Chinese have stressed what they call "standpoint" in relations with outside parties. One's "standpoint" determines whether one is right or wrong, friend or enemy. This is applied to people of different social classes, countries or races. A shared standpoint is like sharing team spirit; it enables people to naturally cheer for the same side. Team spirit is good in sports, but in other circumstances, we have to consider its implications.

Different people naturally have different standpoints. Take the war criminal issue for example. The Japanese think those people made mistakes as a result of doing their jobs in wartime. No country has a law against the crime of "invasion," and these "criminals" were taking action to serve their country. Also, even if the Class A war criminals' names were removed from the shrine, there would still be Class B and Class C criminals, and the problem would remain.

There is also the issue of singling out a few people to take the blame for the war. The war was carried out by the whole country, so how can people put the responsibility on a few people? Even the Japanese emperor was relieved from responsibility for the war; why couldn't the war criminals be treated the same way? What's more, the Japanese admitted their defeat, accepted the Potsdam Agreement, Tokyo Trials and the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The war was finished with these post-war arrangements, so why should Japan be forced to accept the viewpoints of the winning countries?

In recent years China and Japan have been on unfriendly terms. The media have made lots of false or exaggerated reports; Sino-Japan relations will not improve as long as both sides remain mired in emotions.



Agreeing to disagree is one solution. The key point is that people on both sides need to be able to move on. The solution should serve the interests of both countries.

Good Sino-Japan relations will benefit both countries, whereas bad relations will harm both. Japan is a great economic power, with advanced technology and many things worth learning. China can provide Japan with a large market and investment opportunities for surplus capital. There are many advantages to friendly relations. It is a real pity that historical factors are still causing confrontation.

Chinese President Hu Jintao has introduced the concepts of building a "harmonious society" and a "harmonious world." In order to have harmony, we need to first resolve conflicts. This requires an attitude of tolerance and an effort at understanding. We need to understand our relatives and friends, but also our opponents. As Chinese, we understand how Chinese people think, but how do Japanese people think? Doesn't their thinking make sense too?

First, let's consider the issue of blaming a small group of people for Japan's aggression in World War II. Former Japanese Premier Tanaka Kakuei came to China and negotiated resuming diplomatic relations in 1972. When discussing the issue of responsibility for the war between China and Japan, former Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai proposed that only a small number of militarists should be blamed, and that the majority of ordinary Japanese people were victims of the war.

I think all Chinese people would view this as a very friendly proposal. Following a disastrous war in which millions of Chinese people lost their lives, the Chinese side was willing to forego compensation and put the blame for the war on only a few people, who were already dead. That showed that China had forgiven everything. But Tanaka did not accept this generous proposal. Thus it was included only as China's opinion in the Joint Declaration.

The reason China continues to oppose Japanese prime ministers' visits to the Yasukuni Shrine is still related to this issue of placing blame for the war on a small number of war criminals. Japanese who are concerned about Sino-Japan relations have tried to find a way of dealing with this, for example, by removing the 14 Class A criminals' tablets from the shrine, or building another memorial.

If a group of people have done something wrong, it is reasonable to punish them in accordance with the magnitude of their crimes. Even though they confess their wrongdoing, blame should not go to a single individual, or to a small group. That would be against the facts and unjustified. Therefore, if Tanaka had accepted Zhou's proposal to blame the war on a few war criminals, his political life would have been over.

The significance of the location of the name tablets of those few Class A war criminals is very questionable. Moreover, Japanese people's view toward war and war criminals may not change because of this. If the Grade A criminals' tablets were removed from the shrine, it would merely be as a show for the Chinese and Korean people.

Former Japanese Premier Nakasone Yasuhiro first openly visited the shrine in 1985, after the Class A criminals' tablets were moved in, but he stopped his visits due to China's objections. At that time, Sino-Japan relations were in a rare honeymoon period. In later days Nakasone explained that he stopped his visits for the sake of Japan's foreign relations, not for domestic reasons. Originally, the shrine visits had no real significance for China, but after Nakasone's move, refraining from them was treated as a gift for China from Japan. Does China really need this kind of superficial face-saving gift?

(To be continued)

--

(Yuan Chen is the pen name of a Chinese scholar who has lived in Japan for 20 years. He is also a freelance writer on China's politics and current affaires. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.newcenturynews.com. ©Copyright Yuan Chen.)

China bans negative news

WAN SHENG

PARIS, Aug. 17

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/society_culture/2007/08/17/commentary_china_bans_negative_news/

As the Chinese Communist Party's 17th National Congress approaches, the nationwide media -- which is controlled by the Party and has long been its mouthpiece -- is fulfilling its goal of stopping people's mouths. Beijing authorities responsible for the media have issued new bans on reporting negative news. Even watching Phoenix TV, based in Hong Kong and often pro-Beijing, has been deemed illegal.

The ban also covers the Internet. On Aug. 1, over 20 well known Internet media in China, including Xinhua Net, China Net, Sina Net, Sohu Net, Baidu Net and others, appealed to all the Internet media in the country to refrain from spreading "fake news" and to help create a "harmonious news environment."

The vice director of the Information Office of the State Council at the same time stressed that Internet media should study the speech of President Hu Jintao at the Central Party School in June and the theory of journalism based on Marxism, always put the interests of society as their priority, and persist in correctly directing public opinion. The top task for Internet media now is to be ready for the public information campaign of the 17th Party Congress.

As a matter of fact, "negative news" in China has already been filtered or polished by the media mouthpiece of the CCP; it is quite rare for any "negative news" to be actually reported. China's Propaganda Department once sent out documents banning 27 types of events from being reported, including incidents related to disasters, the Falun Gong sect, forced abortion, unemployment, appropriation of farmers' land, and many more. Moreover, any official of the CCP can interfere with the publication of "negative news." According to the Washington Post, Commerce Minister Bo Xilai once banned all negative news reports about Shenyang and Dalian, two major cities in Liaoning province.

Local governments are particularly sensitive to negative news about their regions. It seems that the image of the regions can only be improved by such news bans. Quite often there will be funny "instructions" issued. For example, the city of Nanjing recently held a press conference at which the local government requested all organizations including media not to use the word "fireplace" to describe the city's high summer temperatures.

By contrast, in Western countries even trifling negative news is reported everywhere. The media try every means to get unfavorable information about public figures. Except for occasional silly and funny news in a box or sidebar, "positive news" is very limited.

A country cannot win esteem by playing games to induce flattery from others. Instead, it is won by respecting and protecting its citizens, including the weak and even the dead. Keeping the public uninformed about unexpected developments does not serve the public good; rather it is a seedbed of corruption.

If "negative news" cannot be seen, the people don't know where to direct their sympathy and concern, and civil society cannot hold wrongdoers accountable. If this continues, the lives of the Chinese people will be cheapened. Mainland China might become a heaven by fooling its people into believing they live in the most prosperous country, while people in other countries are all suffering.

The mouthpieces of the CCP create "positive news" in several ways. The first is by covering up the truth. For example, when the late Vice Premier Huang Ju was seriously ill, state media continued to report that he was in good health and attending various events. The second is by deception, as when a news announcer reported that the victims of a disaster were "as happy as if it were New Year when the leaders went to visit them." The third is by making the bad appear good: When reporting the expulsion of corrupt officials from the CCP, the media said it was "safeguarding the advanced characteristics of the Party."

The fourth is by exaggeration. Take the 2010 Shanghai World Expo for example. The CCP has called it "an Economic Olympic Games" with 70 million people expected to participate. The official who said this might have forgotten about the 1999 Kunming World Horticultural Fair, in which the government invested 29 billion yuan ($3.8 billion) and lost 28 billion yuan. We still recall the financial losses Germany faced from the 2000 Hanover World Expo. The French government was clever enough to give up the last World Expo after winning the hosting rights. All these show that the Expo is no longer attractive to foreign visitors.

Regarding "fake news," what are the criteria? China's Propaganda Department has stipulated that when interviewed by journalists, all government officials must bear in mind the Party's principles and obey Party discipline. Figures such as death tolls or economic losses sustained in disasters must be standardized by the central government before they are released to the public.

Guiding public opinion is regarded as the purpose of journalism in China. The highest-level Party mouthpieces are the ones that create fake news, change history, make up fictional stories, distort characters and edit pictures. They also insert political propaganda in the form of "red memories" into news programs.

There is a funny story reported online recently in which Internet readers, or netizens, discovered a fake news report created by the authorities. For the past half year or so, the army newspaper, army journals, and Party newspapers have been propagating the story of a "first generation hero of the People's Republic China" who earned 41 military medals. After carefully checking the cover story of an army journal, one netizen found that many of his medals were actually fake. People's eyes are bright, especially netizens'.

Even though netizens may not be able to reveal all the truth, their online sharing and communication is often judged illegal by the authorities. But which law are they violating? Article 40 of the Constitution says that freedom of speech and the right to privacy are guaranteed by law.

As for the new "news law," we have heard of it but have not yet seen it. It is true that rumors should not be spread by the media, but it is against the Constitution if the authorities arrest netizens or ban online communications. These acts show that China is still under the rule of people, not the rule of law.

At the ceremony to mark the one-year countdown to the opening of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the mouthpiece media of the CCP reached their climax. They will keep on winning the gold medal in restricting journalists; meanwhile, they are preparing to become the all-round champion in creating fake news.

--

(Wan Sheng is a Chinese freelance writer and political commentator based in Paris, France. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . cCopyright Wan Sheng.)

China's anti-corruption campaign deserves support

ZHANG HECI

MELBOURNE, Aug. 13

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/13/commentary_chinas_anticorruption_campaign_deserves_support/

Critics have described the Chinese government's anti-corruption campaign as just for show, batting at flies and letting the tiger go. When Chen Liangyu, a member of the Chinese Communist Party's Politburo and Party secretary of Shanghai, was arrested, some said it was due to Party power struggles, not because of a real effort to wipe out corruption. In my opinion, however, there is something wrong with these comments.

Chen Liangyu has not been sentenced yet. If the sentence is light, some will say that officials always escape serious punishment, or the "Shanghai Gang" is very powerful, or that the two Party factions -- the Shanghai Gang and the Communist Youth League group -- have reached a political deal. If the sentence is heavy, some will say it must be because President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao mean to attack their political opponents. If the sentence is death, some will say it is to kill the potential informant in order to protect some big figure.

I cannot say that these views do not make sense, but there is no need to be so negative. It may be true that as long as we have one-party rule, it is impossible to fundamentally solve the corruption problem. However, this does not justify a totally negative view of the Party's anti-corruption campaign.

Leaving aside the motives of the authorities -- whether they are fighting for political power or trying to maintain their power by dealing with a serious problem -- couldn't there still be positive impact from the anti-corruption campaign? The people are the direct victims of corruption -- robbed directly or indirectly by the damage corruption does to the country. Therefore, the people support the anti-corruption drive.

If the anti-corruption drive is a tool to carry out a Party power struggle, what is wrong with political infighting in the CCP? Unless the result is a Fascist power, infighting can only weaken the Party's rule. If the infighting were between military heads of different regions, the people would be badly affected. But in an anti-corruption fight, no matter what the motive is, the result will be the collapse of corrupt officials. This will not hurt the people at all, so why shouldn't we welcome it?

There may be some people who still believe that the central government is wise whereas local governments are foolish. There may be others who still long to believe in the sacred wisdom of the country's rulers and the justice of its judges. But for the majority, the anti-corruption campaign has provided a good civic education.

Seeing corrupt officials, company managers and village heads fall -- some of them toppled through the efforts of their victims -- they learn that fighting corruption is not just about CCP power struggles or a tactic to win their hearts and ease their complaints. It is also about citizens safeguarding their rights, and the victory of morality and justice. Anti-corruption measures may not produce a democratic society, but they can definitely weaken a despotic society.

Those who desire democracy in China should regard political infighting among top CCP officials as a good opportunity. Competition means restriction. Compared to a monopoly, competition is more beneficial to consumers. Whoever wins the power struggle within the Party will need the approval of civil society, and must be seen to represent morality and justice. No one dares to attack a political opponent who is not corrupt and not associating with evil-doers. This provides operational space for those seeking democracy, as well as a legal and effective way to expand social pressure for morality and justice.

The higher their positions are, the more officials care about long-term stability and the security of their positions. This is why the CCP is stressing stability and harmony today. The Party can see that widespread corruption is a threat to its authority.

Some say that one-party rule is the origin of corruption and that only by toppling the CCP can the problem of corruption be solved. In order to topple the CCP, some think we should encourage its officials in their corruption, hoping it will lead to their destruction. This thinking is very similar to that of Mao Zedong -- to change the people with property into people without property, and force them to take revolutionary action.

Actually, today's China may not have the opportunity to become totally corrupt. If corruption spreads only throughout the food and pharmaceutical industries, then even before the CCP is toppled, the Chinese people might already be poisoned to death, or dead of disease.

The present campaign to protect people's rights is focused on economic rights, and its target is mainly corrupt officials. So it will be hard to progress by supporting civil rights and opposing the anti-corruption campaign.

Corruption is a cancer China cannot overcome. No matter what the motive, as long as the CCP deals with corruption it is beneficial for the country and the people and should be supported. What's more, if the CCP continues its anti-corruption campaign, it will eventually strike a fatal blow to the dictatorial and despotic political system.

The Chinese people should be confident. As part of the worldwide advance toward democracy, the Chinese people should support what they think is right and oppose what they think is wrong, without fearing the Party.

--

(Zhang Heci is a Chinese scholar and freelance writer based in Australia. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Zhang Heci.)

Is China fighting corruption or resisting the rule of law?

FANG JUE

NEW YORK, Aug. 9

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/08/09/commentary_is_china_fighting_corruption_or_resisting_the_rule_of_law/

Chen Liangyu, the disgraced former Communist Party secretary of Shanghai, has been expelled from the Party and turned over to judicial authorities for detention, a deputy secretary of the Party's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection announced late last month. Rather than a significant achievement in fighting corruption, this is a major violation of the rule of law.

China's Politburo had decided the previous week to turn Chen, who is accused of corruption, over to the judiciary. Later the Party carried out the decision. According to China's criminal law, only public security or national security officials are authorized to have a suspect interned, and only the State Procurator's Office is authorized to approve the arrest of a suspect. No other authority, organization or institution is authorized to send anyone to the judiciary for detention.

During the Cultural Revolution, anyone labeled a revolutionary or belonging to a rebel organization could send a counter-revolutionary to public security officials for detention. Sending someone for judicial detention is the modern version of this practice. Both are against the rule of law. In this respect, the Chinese Communist Party is keeping pace with the times.

Enough evidence has already emerged against Chen to warrant his arrest and detention by the proper authorities. Whether arrested by the procurator or taken into criminal detention by the public security department, a suspect is always investigated while in custody. However, the Politburo insisted on first conducting its own investigation of Chen, under the Party's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. From the time Chen's case was "put on record" last September until he was sent to judicial detention in July, it took 10 months.

This raises the question: Did the Politburo and the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection obstruct justice?

Under China's system of "socialism with Chinese characteristics," senior officials are not subject to the rule of law. If a top official is suspected of corruption, he is first "investigated" by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, after which the Politburo will decide whether or not to turn him over to the judiciary for trial. In effect, high-level officials of the Communist Party enjoy the ancient privilege of being held above the law, even in this new age of "socialist modernization."

The Politburo and the commission aim to maintain the stability of one-party rule under the Communist Party. They consider the balance of power between factions within the Party before deciding how to handle high-level corruption cases. They decide which details of the alleged crime to expose and what to release to the public, and they control the verdict of the court.

Under this system, many high-level officials guilty of serious corruption have been sheltered, many facts have been covered up, and the majority of suspects have enjoyed delayed investigations. This is a major reason why there are more corrupt personnel and more serious corruption cases among high-level officials in the Chinese Communist Party.

The Party's Discipline Inspection Commissions at various levels came into being in December 1978. From birth they were allergic to the rule of law: they attempted to change the treatment Party officials would receive when accused of a crime by allowing the Party, rather than the judicial system, to handle their cases. Over the past 30 years, the Party has become more and more corrupt, which shows that the inspection committees are not serving their purpose. As Deng Xiaoping said, we must "seek truth from facts."

To curb and clear up corruption, we should eliminate all levels of Discipline Inspection Commissions and let the judiciary conduct all investigations and trials of suspects, including high-level officials. To achieve this, we must also eliminate another body that obstructs the rule of law -- all levels of Political and Law Committees. If these committees continue to manipulate China's public security and national security departments and supervise procurators, lawyers and courts, they will inherit the present role of the Commissions for Discipline Inspection, and continue sheltering, covering up and silently approving corruption.

--

(Fang Jue is a political activist and freelance writer living in the United States. He was a former government official in China and worked in the Politics Research Institute of China's Academy of Social Sciences. He was a visiting scholar at the Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University in 2003. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Fang Jue.)

How Chiang Ching-kuo shaped history

FU GUOYONG

HANGZHOU, Jul. 25

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/07/25/commentary_how_chiang_chingkuo_shaped_history/

Last week, on July 15, Taiwan marked the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law. On that day, the elderly President Chiang Ching-kuo declared an end to the 38-year martial law era initiated by his father, President Chiang Kai-shek.

During those years, the Taiwan Garrison Command had the right to enter people's homes to check their household registry; to inspect books, newspapers and magazines; to stop public parades, strikes and assemblies; to ban associations; to restrict citizens' entry and departure from the country; to open, read or confiscate citizens' personal letters and telegrams; and even to try citizens in military courts. The people were deprived of most of their basic Constitutional rights during the martial law period.

Actually, the rescinding of martial law did not come all of a sudden. On Sept. 28, 1986, the Democratic Progressive Party was set up at the Grand Hotel in Taipei, which was without doubt a frontal challenge to the authority of the Kuomintang's one-party rule.

According to the ruling party's logic and practice up to that time, the DPP should have been banned immediately. It was less than seven years after the Kaohsiung Incident -- also known as the Formosa Incident -- in which pro-democracy demonstrations were put down by police and their leaders jailed. Many of the opposition's elite, who had been tried in military courts, were still languishing in jail. The political atmosphere was tense.

Yet surprisingly, after thorough consideration, Chiang decided to adopt a policy of tolerance toward the newborn DPP -- not to acknowledge it, but not to crack down on it either, as he could have done under martial law. Chiang said at a high-level party conference: "The times are changing, the environment is changing and the trends are changing. Therefore the ruling party needs new ideas and new approaches. We need to adopt reforms based on democratic constitutionalism."

Chiang's decision brought more benefit than harm. Domestically it won the support of the people, eased social conflicts, and shifted the ruling authority from a passive position to one of taking initiative. Externally, it complied with international trends and improved the government's image in the world. As a result, Chiang took the initiative in bringing about political reform and changing history. A new era began.

For the DPP, this was not a free lunch either -- it was the result of effort over a period of 20 to 30 years, while its founders were criticizing current policies, calling for democracy and campaigning for local public service positions without the support of a party. They formed political associations, such as the Non-Party Editors and Writers Fellowship and the Non-Party Public Officials' Policy Research Association.

This could be viewed as a historical moment in which a political leader interacted positively with civil society, with a win-win result.

Some say the reason for Chiang's mild attitude toward the DPP was that he thought the cost of suppression might be greater than that of tolerance, which does make some sense. His leadership was in crisis due to frequent scandals. For example, in 1984, Chiang Nan, author of the "Biography of Chiang Ching-kuo," was assassinated in the United States by Taiwanese intelligence agents. In 1985, there was the Tenth Taipei Credit Cooperative incident, in which government officials colluded with business people to cheat thousands of depositors. The exposure of these incidents severely damaged Taiwan's international image.

At the same time, Taiwan was attracting world attention as its economic reforms gained momentum. Under such pressure, Chiang was seeking ways to accelerate political reform.

In fact, before the Kaohsiung Incident, Chiang had specially arranged communications with political forces outside the KMT. In addition, in a 1993 interview with a reporter from West Germany, he first affirmed the positive role the non-party movement had played in bringing about social progress. In September 1986, Chiang told U.S. reporters that the KMT was considering lifting the ban on political parties. Chiang was sending positive signals to the opposition even before the birth of the DPP.

Another undeniable factor contributed to Chiang Ching-kuo's actions -- his personal sincerity and courage. A strong sense of historical mission and responsibility gave him the courage to shape history. Stricken by illness, he knew he didn't have much time left, and he wanted to establish a positive political legacy. He wanted to create the space for a peaceful transition to new leadership, and to leave the Taiwanese people a legacy of not only economic prosperity, but also political freedoms. This shows Chiang's wisdom and practicality. The grand job he did in his final moment won him a place in history as a respected statesman. He also helped the Taiwanese fulfill their wishes after suffering so much in the past.

Twenty years after the end of martial law -- despite its problems and no matter what people think of the island's democracy -- Taiwan is an open, multidimensional society with abundant vitality. This is undoubtedly the result of the efforts and sacrifices of those who held different political views for over half a century. However, it could not have happened without Chiang Ching-kuo's foresight and resolution. Without him, Taiwan today might be a completely different picture. After all, history is created by individuals.

What would mainland China be like if it had a bold leader like this?

--

(Fu Guoyong is a freelance writer and a former high school teacher. His articles on modern China have been widely published within and outside the country. His special interest is the history of public opinion over the past 100 years and issues related to China's intellectuals. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.ncn.org. cCopyright Fu Guoyong.)

Can China's Communist Party implement democracy? (Part 2)

WU YONG

BEIJING, Jul. 20

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/07/20/commentary_can_chinas_communist_party_implement_democracy_part_2/

If the Chinese Communist Party intends to implement democracy within the Party, as it has stated, it must first fully guarantee freedom of speech within the Party. This suggestion was made by Li Rui, former secretary to Mao Zedong, at a committee meeting of the 16th National Congress last year. This suggestion was sincere and represented the views of others as well as Li.

Freedom of speech is a critical aspect of democracy. Without it, Party members cannot express their will and the Party cannot draw on their collective wisdom. It is the antidote to the Party's mindset that leaders are more intelligent than their subordinates, and to the "I speak, you follow" mode of operation of the Chinese Communist authorities.

Li Rui suggested that Party members should be allowed to express different opinions about major decisions at Party meetings and in its publications. They should also be allowed to criticize other Party members, including the top leaders. For the Communist Party, which has insisted on "one voice" among its members, this would represent substantial progress if it were implemented.

Second, the Communist Party must allow people who share similar political viewpoints to form groups within the Party, or even divide into different organizations, which is a necessary step for the democratic process to occur.

Different political opinions are the result of observation and reflection on social conflicts from different angles. Considering various arguments is helpful in fully understanding the social conditions and meeting different demands in a balanced way. It reflects the vitality of the social organism. In order to guarantee fair competition, we should not restrict different political viewpoints. Instead we should support open discussion, comparison and evaluation of various views, as multiple views are an essential element of democracy.

The Chinese Communist Party has long implemented a strictly closed and unified policy, discouraging competitiveness and resulting in a lack of vitality. A well-known professor of law at Beijing University, He Weifang, said frankly, "We love the Party very much, that's why we must speak our minds." He expressed the hope that the Party would allow two factions to form within it to reflect different views. This would invigorate the Party.

In reality, there is already confrontation between right and left views within the Party. It would be better to allow open debate between these factions rather than have them struggle in secret.

The Communist Party does not now exist as only one organization, one principle, one leader, and one voice, as dictated under Lenin and Stalin. In a democratic environment, communist parties have taken different forms. There are at least three active communist parties in India; the Japanese Communist Party has experienced many changes since its founding, which is normal. Whether the Chinese Communist Party dares to allow different factions to emerge, or even to form different groups, is a severe test of the substantive will to promote democracy within the Party.

Finally, abolishing "democratic centralism" is essential for the growth of intra-party democracy, as this concept is the rationale of autocracy.

The implied meaning of "centralism based on democracy and democracy guided by centralism," as written into the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, was declared publicly by Mao Zedong: democracy is only a tool to bring about centralism. It was not intended that the two concepts would be equally applied. In fact, the essential intent was to allow the autocrats to deceive the people in the name of democracy.

The renowned Marxist theoretician and professor at People's University, Gao Fang, has researched this point. He has said, "The organizational principle of the Communist Party should be democracy, not democratic centralism." He has also commented, "There is no democracy that is not centralized, but there is centralism that is not democratic," and pointed out that nowadays many Communist Parties no longer refer to democratic centralism.

Of course, as an autocratic party, the Chinese Communist Party finds it hard to accept these advanced ideas of democracy. As a decaying and declining party, it may not be able to withstand such significant surgery.

What we are seeing now is that the Party, observing worldwide trends toward democracy, is suggesting that the Party may be revived by implementing internal democracy. Yet it is only proposing perfunctory and symbolic reforms to prolong its life. If there is no inner strength or determination within the Party to transform the old into the new, these external reforms will have little effect.

--

(Wu Yong is a former senior journalist and editor in China. He is now a freelance writer who frequently publishes commentaries in overseas media. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.chinaeweekly.com and www.ncn.org. cCopyright Wu Yong. )