Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

    For the Last Week the British establishment has been running press statements like this




    China embraces 'British Model', ditching Mao for Edmund Burke


    David Cameron might be reassured to know that China's Communist leadership is studying the long arc of British history with intense interest, even if Russia's Vladimir Putin deems our small island to be of no account.

    Professor Li said the 18th Century Irish philosopher Edmund Burke is now all the rage in Chinese universities, studied for his critique of violent revolution, and esteemed as the prophet of stability through timely but controlled change. Photo: Quirky China News / Rex Features

    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    4:30PM BST 08 Sep 2013

    "We want to learn from the British model," said Daokui Li, a member China's upper chamber or `House of Lords' (CPPCC) and a professor at Beijing's Tsinghua University.


    "Today's leaders in China are looking carefully at the British style of political change over the last 400 years, analysing the difference with France," he told me at the annual Ambrosetti gathering of world policy-makers at Villa d'Este on Lake Como.


    "England went through incredible changes: a war against the US; wars against France; wars against Germany twice, the rise and decline of empire; and universal suffrage. Yet society remained stable through all this turmoil, with the same institutions and political structure. We think the reason is respect for tradition, yet willingness to make changes when needed."


    "It is a contrast with France. We know from De Toqueville's study of the Ancien Regime that if you don't do reforms, you will end up with a revolution, and that is what will happen in China if we don't reform in time,"


    Professor Li said the 18th Century Irish philosopher Edmund Burke is now all the rage in Chinese universities, studied for his critique of violent revolution, and esteemed as the prophet of stability through timely but controlled change. They are enamoured by his theories of inheritance, the "living contract" through the generations, the limits of liberty, and -- a harder sell -- his small battalions.

    Hobbes too is sweeping China's intelligentsia, and so is Hannah Arendt, the philosopher of the twin totalitarian movements Left and Right. It is a ferment of ideas. Mao is out, even if the Communist Party is still coy about saying this too publicly.

    "We went through the Revolution of 1911 when we overthrew the emperor, then the May 4th Revolution of 1919, then the Communist Revolution of 1949, and then the Cultural Revolution. We're looking back at our history, and we are tired of this."

    "This is why Bo Xilai scares people. He was embracing Mao's practice of continuous revolution, and it brings back bad memories."

    I was aware that Burke is making a much-deserved come-back in Britain, propelled by Jesse Norman's splendid book "Edmund Burke:The First Conservative". But China's enthusiasm for his work has more global "gearing", as traders say.

    The Nobel peace laureate -- and dissident -- Liu Xiaobo is a Burkean, as were many of those who signed the 2008 human rights charter.

    Needless to say, Burke has much in common with Confucius, the ancient Chinese philosopher of order, tradition, and harmony, now enjoying a revival in China as a post-Maoist source of authority. Jiang Qing cites Burke extensively in his classic work on the rise of a new Confucian political order published in 2008: "China: Democracy, or Confucianism?"

    You will recognise the words and style if you have read Burke's masterful Reflections on the French Revolution, the book that unmasked the squalid character of the Paris Putsch, and shattered the illusions of Jacobin fellow-travellers across Europe.

    ''Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.’’

    “To avoid, therefore, the evils of inconstancy and versatility, ten thousand worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice, we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion; that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude.

    By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds and wild incantations they may regenerate the paternal constitutions and renovate their father’s life.”

    To hack that aged parent to pieces. How resonant that must seem to survivors of the Cultural Revolution.

    Prof Li said the new team of President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang -- both singing from the same hymn sheet according to him, though not others -- will start reforming the one-child policy, the hukuo code of rural `serfdom', and much else, before the end of the year. The last team coasted complacently, he said, relying on post-Lehman stimulus to keep growth going as the old system festered.

    Whether China can really pull it off in an orderly way after letting rip with the biggest credit bubble in modern market history is a very open question.

    But let us wish them the best of British luck, and celebrate our new Special Relationship with China.
    Last edited by BDAdmin; September 09, 2013, 07:21 AM.

  • #2
    Re: The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

    Meantime the BBC has (been told) to run stories like this:-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632245

    Lots of other papers have run stories about America in vietham, showing "nice" Americans dropping Napalm & killing lots of people in villages etc....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

      Yes, its coming thick & fast now!

      Sean Thomas
      Agent Orange: America's chemical weapon

      John Kerry is at it again. According to the BBC, the US Secretary of State has stridently asserted that the Syrian president's use of chemical weapons, on August 21, crossed a "global red line".
      I’m curious about these “global red lines”, though. Who laid them down? Are these lines thin, thick, dotted – or kinda wiggly?

      If this seems facetious, it shouldn’t. These red lines are damned odd. For instance, the red lines against horrid weapons make a large detour around the concept of drones. Over the last decade or so, America has unilaterally launched hundreds of drones across Asia and Africa, killing an estimated 3000 civilians in Pakistan alone, in pursuit of anyone who gives the President dyspepsia. To some, this might seem improper, to the point of illegality – like chemical weapons.
      But maybe this is an unequal comparison: after all, with Sarin gas you have to die in prolonged spasms alongside your family, whereas with a drone your wedding party gets turned into pink mist before the doughnuts are finished in the Pentagon.

      So perhaps the lawyers are right, and there is something particularly sinister about the chemical-iness of chemical weapons that makes them red-line-worthy. But even then, the red line is eccentric. Because the red line doesn’t seem especially worried by napalm (an American invention).

      Technically speaking, napalm is “a mixture of naphthenic and aliphatic carboxylic acid”. I don’t know about you, but “a mixture of naphthenic and aliphatic carboxylic acid” sounds awfully “chemical” to me, and yet this weapon has been liberally used by the US army to incinerate soldiers (and luckless civilians) in many recent wars, including Gulf War 1.
      So maybe the “global red line against chemical weapons” has a strange footnote which exempts chemical weapons that are devised in America? That makes sense, because the greatest anomaly, when it comes to Kerry’s global red line, is Agent Orange.

      If you’re under 40, you might not have heard of Agent Orange. You probably think it’s Tony Blair’s codename, as he works tirelessly to bring peace to those bits of the Middle East he worked tirelessly to blow up. But no. Agent Orange was a chemical dropped on Indochina, with great abundance, by the US Air Force during the Vietnam War. Its stated intention was to “defoliate” Vietnam, i.e, kill all the plant life so Viet Cong soldiers could not hide in forests, thus enabling America to napalm her enemies more easily.

      Unsurprisingly, it turned out that Agent Orange, so effective in killing plantlife, was not great for humankind, either. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese have died as a result of this poison that the Americans monsooned down on them, and such is the evilness of the dioxin within Agent Orange, even today children in the third generation are being born with hideous deformities.

      The pictures of the suffering caused by this atrocity are extremely upsetting: you can see them here, here, and here.
      And you know what? The one US politician who should know most about Agent Orange is John Kerry. He was one of the senators who fought for the right of US Veterans, exposed to Agent Orange, to achieve proper compensation. However, at the same time, Kerry is part of the US Establishment which refuses to compensate the Vietnamese for the same chemical poisoning by America’s Agent Orange.

      So that’s a really wiggly “global red line” which surrounds, like a protective halo, all of America, and any US troops abroad, but specifically excludes anyone else, especially the Vietnamese.

      If this sounds absurd, that’s because it is. America’s claim to moral superiority on horrible weapons is illusory. And yet, this does not mean that America – a great country which, for all its faults, is still the arsenal of democracy – should not stop dictators from killing their people in nasty ways. Certainly they should: even, perhaps, in the ethical labyrinth of Syria.

      But, please, spare us the cheap moralising.
      Last edited by BDAdmin; September 09, 2013, 07:23 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

        We are embrace-ing China in public (Russia in private).......Its over Yank, you had a great run from 1945 to now, but thats it.......
        Mike

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

          I find myself relieved that maybe someone else will decide to be the moral authority for the world without having morals of any kind, but somehow I just don't see any other country on the planet actually being foolish enough to believe they were laying down their soldiers lives, and a lot of treasure for others on principle. Not that Mama Lion and her other cubs didn't help us, cause we did most of it all together.

          America's only real problem is her government, and the people who currently control it, and it will take a big economic crash to have a hope in hell of getting out from under it, and actually having Washington DC listen to the people who pay them. Of course, our people have been being dumbed down for decades, so I don't actually believe it will happen. The last people to actually be taught how our government works from grades 1-8 in our schools are over 50 years old now. Now they teach revised history, and how to be a good little socialists/progressives/nazis, depending on your viewpoint.

          So, America becomes a comfy backwater with great tourism, and Corporate USA will finish their move to Asia. I merely hope the Chinese don't get so into Burke that they lose their cunning, since Corporate USA is not a nice company. Just look what they've done to their own home town! If they will do that to their own, just think what they will do to others.

          One thing to not re-reform in a Burkian manner quite so quickly is the one child rule. Other countries should be so far seeing as to limit their growth to how much is available to eat, and drink. China was the first poor country to notice that rich countries have stable populations, and thus few famines.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

            Originally posted by Forrest View Post
            One thing to not re-reform in a Burkian manner quite so quickly is the one child rule. Other countries should be so far seeing as to limit their growth to how much is available to eat, and drink. China was the first poor country to notice that rich countries have stable populations, and thus few famines.
            Unhappily, I tend to agree with you on this. China has over 1.3 BILLION mouths to feed. In contrast the USA only has 316 million. I can't imagine how our government would handle 1.3 billion people. I think the Chinese government and police are brutal and enforcement of their one-child policy is frequently horrific. But I don't think we would do any better if we had to walk in their shoes. China has a real mess on its hands.

            Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Special relationship is dead, long live the special relationship!

              China has a lot of TANKS...........very handy in this case.

              Mike

              Comment

              Working...
              X