New Chinese Crackdown on… Communists
show comments
  • Douglas

    Why did the Party leadership turn against Bo? We still can only speculate, but one answer might lie in his attempts to exercise military power outside of Chonqing: “Bo, then the Chongqing Party secretary, tried to prevent Wang from getting away by ordering hundreds of his armed security troops to cross into neighboring Sichuan province to surround the Chengdu consulate.” If this report is accurate, Bo committed two sins: he almost created an international incident involving a US consulate, and he threatened Beijing’s monopoly on armed force. The unification of China and the elimination of competing armed local warlords is the Party’s primary claim to fame – and permitting regional chieftains with private armies to re-emerge would be a huge step backward. Even worse would be the risk that Bo might mount an armed coup, a risk that can’t be discounted if he was prepared to send armed forces into a neighboring province.

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    “Now China wants to stamp out the fires Bo lit; good luck, but it is in the nature of human beings to burn.”
    I have to agree, the Chinese political situation is schizophrenic, with Communists in charge of a Capitalist economy. I can’t imagine this condition being resolved in a peaceful way, and I expect a large amount of blood to be spilled as a Capitalist middle class demands a say in the running of the country. In China the youngest generation has been preselected for males, and there are 15% more men coming of age in China than women, and men are far more prone to violence than women.

  • Lest we forget, China is still a totalitarian society:

    “You, as a foreigner, can live here and learn to use chopsticks and learn Chinese perfectly but you might not know how Chinese people think, especially in sensitive areas. If you ask ordinary people about a sensitive thing, how they react is different than how you’ll react. It’s hard for you to imagine their sense of fear. You might be expelled but it’s not like being here. The system of language has to be analyzed. The CCP created a parallel language system (of untruth) that is on an equal basis with the language of truth. You have to analyze what it’s like to grow up in this kind of an unfree country. This is the only way to really know this country.”

  • New Lawyers Forced to Pledge Allegiance to Communist Party:

    “I volunteer to become a practicing lawyer of the People’s Republic of China and promise to faithfully perform the sacred duties of a socialist-with-Chinese-characteristics legal worker; to be faithful to the motherland and the people; to uphold the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist system; to safeguard the dignity of the constitution and the law; to practice on behalf of the people; to be diligent, professional honest, and corruption-free; to protect the legitimate rights and interests of clients, the correct implementation of the law, and social fairness and justice; and diligently strive for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics!”

  • ‘Medical barbarity,’ Chinese Organ Harvesting, & The Lancet:

    “In an interview with the New York-based New Tang Dynasty Television, he said “I haven’t read anything like that since looking at Japanese war crime experiments in the 1940s or German war crime experiments in the 1940s, experimentation for the purpose of trying to understand how to get living people maximally to give organs. ”

  • Naiveté?

    “*The U.S. respected and welcomed China’s rise, but expected that it would be consistent with international rules and norms, and would not destabilize the region;”

  • A FORMER OBAMA administration official deeply involved in the U.S.’s China policy over the last several years:

    On the question of China’s political evolution, Mr. Bader laughed and said that he had not been asked to vote about the matter in the Central Committee. This was slightly amusing, though we all know of course that the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee would never hold a vote about whether to dissolve Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee. He emphasized the priority of dealing with China on global and strategic issues, and said the United States was “distinctly limited” and unwelcome in deciding the political future of the Chinese people.

    It’s an “interesting intellectual argument,” he said, but has never been, and in his view, is unlikely to be in the future, “a real argument.”

    But the key is in the way he discounted U.S. meddling: because it would be attempting to decide the political future of the Chinese people. This seems to presuppose that the Chinese people at the moment have any say about their political future. They do not, under the present institutional arrangements. Of course, they would if there was a vibrant democracy movement, open discussions of the reality of a post-CCP China, or U.S. public statements to the effect that China must at some time turn a new leaf and shed its Leninist encumbrances.

    Perhaps the President’s next China advisor will bring that little idea up?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.