Korean Job Discussion Forums

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

One of the criticisms of US policy over the last 50 years has been its support for dictators of one stripe or another.

Recently, China has been increasing its 'interactions' with various countries, notably in Africa. One of the policies of the Chinese government is 'non-interference' with local governments. This is, in effect, support for dictatorships.

My question is about why there isn't the same objection to Chinese support for dictators that there has been for American support for dictators.

I would like to know why you don't deserve the label 'hypocrite'? (The same goes for the frothing at the mouth over the executions of convicted criminals in the US from time to time, but silence about the 8 people a day that China executes.)

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Good question.

My feeling is that most "critics" and antiAmericanists have not put that much thought into the matter. They are too focused on the United States as their scapegoat for all that is wrong in the world.

The poison they produce in their books, articles, and films, not to mention some newsreporting and op-eds, are designed to hasten the United States' decline, if not collapse. The principles you cite above, then, are mere pretexts for them -- or at least the absence of outcry against Beijing would seem to strongly suggest this.

That (a) in spite of all of its shortcomings and faults, the United States is fundamentally good is heresy to them; and (b) that there are far bigger fish to fry apart from America in all of the things they bitterly criticize and attack America for never occurs to them at all. In fact, many became confused even angry when one mentions another nation-state like China: "why are you defending the United States...distracting the issue?" they predictably respond.

This U.S.-centrism, inability to see circumspectly, and the other qualities I outline above are but a few of the many consequences and side effects of the pathological anger and indeed obsession that consumes these people.

There is also simple, deeply-ingrained antiEstablishmentarianism to take into consideration.

I know, the two people I am about to cite are evil bloodsuckers, etc. But set that aside for a moment and listen to the perspective they articulate, a perspective I share in this case...

1975, Portuguest coup d'etat...

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

I have to say that, among serious leftists of my acquaintance, there does tend to be a fair bit of criticism of China's record. Admittedly this criticism often(though not always) takes place within the context of saying that China is now just another capitalist power.

But I'm talking about serious leftists. The kind of self-righteous posturing you get from the ex-pat commonwealth crowd in Korea tends to be motivated more by nationalist chauvinism than by any serious left-wing commitments. (And this latter category does not neccessarily refer to any current posters on this particular board.)

Not to plug my own thread, but here is something I would consider to be a serious left-wing analysis of the USA and anti-Americanism, even as I disagree with its Leninist framework.

http://tinyurl.com/2q7zmt

Octavius Hite · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:21 am Post subject:

One difference between China and America is that China doesn't run around the world claiming to be the "land of the free" and the one country that can "spread" democracy and liberty to others. China says we will deal with you and we're not interested in your internal politics. The US has a terrible record of claiming to be spreading democracy but then turning around supporting dictatorships (Chile, Cuba, Argentina, Haiti, Greece, Spain, Honduras, Guatamala (sp), etc.).

And those of us on the "left" know that China does bad things and we turn out for the pro-tibet protests, etc.

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Octavius Hite · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:35 am Post subject:

Your old lady example is not that accurate. The difference is that China is the fence who buys the stuff of the mugger, knowing full well the stuff is stolen. China just doesn't care that its stolen.

The USA on the other hand is a fence buying stolen goods, knows where it comes from, but then goes home and tells his wife that he runs a homeless shelter for a living.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Octavius Hite · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:49 am Post subject:

I agree with you gopher that the US did the same things as other nations/empires/etc have done throughout history and many of those countries may very well have ended up better than those who fell under the Soviet spheres.

This is why us "Lefties" go after the US: The US is constantingly talking about democracy, freedom and liberty. Just listen to the garbage that spews out of W.'s mouth. Then the same people turn around and back dictators in countries while still pretending to be "pro-democracy". Just because the USSR did it or Cuba did it or Sparta did it doesn't mean the USA should do it. If your pro-democracy, then be it. That's all.

BTW I am reading a great book on just this topic:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/item/books-978080784773/0807847739/
Thank-God-Theyre-on-Our-Side-The-United-States-and-Right-Win?ref=Search+Books%3a+'Thank+God+They're+on+our+Side'

Grimalkin · Joined: 22 May 2005

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

And for what it's worth...

I don't think that China's internal propaganda admits that the government does things for reasons of self-interest. I think they still claim some morally uplifiting mandate for their actions. And I'd wager that, on average, Americans hear more foreign-policy criticism of their government than the Chinese do of theirs. (Whether Americans are helpfully influenced by this criticism is another question.)

Sincinnatislink · Joined: 30 Jan 2007 Location: Top secret.

For most new and post lefties I know (not Democrats or even Communists) the buzzword is "moral equivalence."
All contemporary governments have the same ideological underpinnings with different means toward them. As long as you're going to assert that liberal (in the British Enlightenment sense) government is reasonable, you evaluate governments based on their effectiveness. For example, Castro and Chavez have done laudable things, and in many cases, done them much better than those who criticize them. That they are not democracies in the sense you think of is immaterial, because the democracies we are familiar with are not democracies in any meaningful sense.
I'm on someone elses' computer at the moment and I'll elaborate later.

Ask a question and I can do a better job with this.

twg · Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Location: Getting some fresh air...

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Sincinnatislink · Joined: 30 Jan 2007 Location: Top secret.

Sorry. Wrong argument above.

Stable governments are sometimes useful to keep people from getting killed. Dictatorships are often stable governments.
Therefore, we should support dictatorships.

This is not really why the US government made these governments, but it's a legitimate argument, hypothetically.

That's my justification for treating dictatorships as legitimate governments; sometimes they are the best way to prevent massive deaths. Respecting their sovereignty is often the best way to keep people from dying in even larger numbers.

China is respecting these African nations' right to exist. That prevents those countries from feeling threatened. A country that does not feel threatened is less likely to start a war. Yet another war involving two nations will kill more people than any daily number of executions in any country, especially given the typical lifespan of an African military government.
China does terrible things. Those things pale next to a military conflict involving that retardedly large a portion of the world's population.

That we created these dictatorships is only important to people who base their arguments on absolute morality. I dislike that the US government made these countries, but think that's immaterial now. This argument only requires that you think reducing death is a good thing.

The hypocrisy arguments, when not presented by absolutists, are useful to get people to recognize that the US does not violate international law for immediately obvious ends.