how real are american professors?

Professor Susan Shirk from the University of California and Director of the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation wrote an article reprinted in the Straits Times today. She was US dep asst secretary of state responsible for China from 1997 to 2000. 'N.Korea nuke crisis: China's tough stance may help fix Japan ties.' Her article reveals the standard kind of western bias and understanding of Asia and Asian politics, and this is how Rice and the Bush made all those decisions based on the same kind of thinking and assumptions. Let me point out those that I don't agree. 1. That China is willing to take a tough stand against North Korea and would choose to ally with Japan and the US against its tradition ally, North Korea. How foolish can this be? Has China or Russia raise a whimper that North Korea's nuclear test is a threat to them? China may have to worry over the long term if North Korea falls out and join the US camp. But as long as North Korea is on its side, it will do anything it can to keep it that way. North Korea is the strongest Chinese card against the US and Japan. Without North Korea, the Bush administration and Japan will be playing monkey tricks against China and prodding Taiwan to go independence. And there will be many nonsensical human rights issues and trade issues to pressure China. 2. It is China's intention to keep North and South Korea separated as China fear a united Korea led by the South and under the influence of the Americans. Or is it the other way? The truth is that the Americans are twisting the South Korean's arm and refuse to let them reunite as a single Korea. The Americans fear that a reunited and independent Korea will mean no more American bases in Korea. Didn't Susan Shirk know this or is she pretending that she did not? 3. China voted for a stronger sanction against North Korea? China and Russia stubbornly resisted the US proposal to do a regime change in the North. And they would not allow the US to use the military option. It was forced by the US to accept some kind of sanction unwillingly and had to compromise half way. 4. China compromised its North Korean ally for the reason of pride? The North Korean trump card is so valuable to the Chinese that should the US dares take the military option they can expect the Chinese troops to be there facing them. 5. The perception or impression that all the Americans and western media try to tell the world that North Korea is suffering from food epidemic and its people are dying of hunger as the conventional truth. How true is that? Why are the North Koreans not revolting? And the pictures of hungry babies were of chubby faces with rosy cheeks. Compare them with the skin and bone children of Africa and some third world countries. These children looked so well fed and far from dying of hunger. And those are the worst pictures that they can find and put on air. 6. China is worried about its position in the elite nuclear club being diluted. Horseshit! Did China complain about North Korea, Pakistan or Iran being nuclear powers? The country that fears this dilution of its nuclear power status is the country that makes the most noise and threatening military intervention. Now which country is that? Difficult to guess? 7. China will join Japan and the US against a common enemy in North Korea? She must be mad! How could a professor have such a simplistic view? 8. Chinese politicians didn't dare invite Koizumi to China or meet him outside China? It was China who refused to talk to Koizumi despite his many attempts to visit China and talk to the Chinese leaders. Our poor professor is still reading History 101? 9. Many Chinese political elite blame the dangerous deterioration of relations with Japan on former Jiang Zemin? Where is she from? Venus? 10. Hu Jintao was eager to patch up with Japan and work out a pragmatic understanding with Abe? Partly truth but mainly because Abe has to promise not to visit Yasukuni shrine. At least if Abe wants to keep China Japan relationship on an even keel and if he wants the Chinese leadership to talk to him. My goodness! What kind of history and political science are they teaching or being taught?

No comments: