Under Chinese Communist Party rule, the influence of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on Chinese domestic politics has generally been carefully controlled, and Chinese generals today appear to enjoy a less privileged status than in centuries past, when they created and ruled states, or played a key role in helping emperors expand territory, maintain social order and suppress rebels.
Indeed, since 1949, the role of the PLA in China’s domestic politics has looked relatively limited, except during the Cultural Revolution, when it was used to provide political leverage to Mao Zedong as he fought with other leaders. Since Deng Xiaoping, who was a Long March veteran, no supreme leader has had a military background. Similarly, the current Politburo Standing Committee of the CCP doesn’t include any military professionals, while Minister of National Defense Liang Guanglie isn’t even a member of the 25-man Politburo.
So what’s behind the PLA’s under-representation in China’s top power hierarchy? And will things stay that way?
Since the CCP came to power, the civil-military relationship has been clearly defined so as to prevent the generals from manipulating China’s politics. This reflects Mao’s oft-cited dictum that “The Party commands the gun, but the gun must never command the Party.” Mao and his comrades apparently learned from numerous examples in China’s history that military generals can either help maintain an emperor’s dynasty or subvert it through conspiracy, treason or rebellion.
Of course, the PLA’s exclusion from top leadership doesn’t mean that the PLA isn’t a powerful actor in China’s domestic and foreign policy making circles – or that its influence won’t grow. On the contrary, even at a time when the Middle Kingdom enjoys greater peace than ever before – and when economic development, not national defense, is the central concern of the country – China’s “cult of the military” lives on.
The reasons are obvious. It was the PLA that helped bring the CCP to power in 1949, after prolonged wars against the Japanese and the Kuomintang. Ever since, the PLA has been entrusted with the mission of defending not only national sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also the survival of the regime, as underscored by the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989.
And now, although there’s no real foreign military threat to the country’s security, internal issues such as reclaiming Taiwan and dealing with separatist movements in Xinjiang and Tibet require the PLA to play an active role. China’s rapid economic growth since the late 1970s is only adding weight to the PLA’s standing as it has allowed the defense industry to grow rapidly.
It was at military maneuvers in northern China in 1981 that Deng officially called for the building of a “modernized, regularized revolutionary army.” Commentators including King C. Chen have even suggested that one of the reasons behind Deng’s decision to launch the 1979 border war against Vietnam was to expose the PLA’s weaknesses and to win domestic support for its modernization. Regardless, thanks to Deng’s determination and strategic vision, the modernization of the PLA picked up pace from the late 1970s.
Fast forward three decades, and PLA achievements include the launch of its first aircraft carrier; the test flight of its first stealth fighter, the J-20; and the successful development of a medium-range anti-ship ballistic missile known as the DF-21D. Back in January 2007, the PLA also sent shockwaves around the world when it successfully conducted an anti-satellite missile test, the first known successful satellite intercept test since 1985.
Along with its military buildup, China’s defense industry has also developed to the point that Chinese arms makers are emerging as global competitors. According to a report by Bloomberg, for example, China’s top four defense corporations, namely the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, China North Industries (Norinco), China State Shipbuilding, and China Aerospace Science & Technology, generated total revenues of $66 billion in 2008. Meanwhile, according tothe Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China became the world’s fifth largest arms exporter in 2010.
The PLA’s impressive growth over the past decade in particular is the result of a bargain struck between the PLA and the political leadership under Deng. It’s said that in the 1980s and 1990s, when Deng wanted to devote the bulk of the country’s resources and energy to his economic reforms, he asked the PLA to accept tighter budgets. Now, with China’s extraordinary pace of economic growth, the time has come for the PLA to flex its muscles.
China’s military buildup would have been impossible without the massive growth in its budget – according to official sources, the country’s military budget was about 600 billion yuan ($94 billion) for this year, a number many analysts believe to be significantly understated. And, as modernization brings concrete results – and the ability to back up its more assertive diplomacy – the PLA is a growing focus of national pride for China.
The U-shape claim that China makes to the South China Sea is a good example of where China is increasingly able to dig its heels in, backed by a more powerful military. Irrational and legally baseless as the claim may seem to many observers, Chinese policy makers – and especially the PLA – still endorse the claim in the name of the country’s national interests. The PLA seems happy to maintain and promote the “cult of military” through such policies, apparently believing that as long as such disputes persist, the generals will be able to maintain their influence and privileges.
However, although the policies the PLA is pursuing, such as over the South China Sea dispute, could be seen as compatible with China’s national interests, there are some cases where the nations’ and the military’s interests seem to be diverging. During the recent Libyan conflict, for example, despite a U.N. - imposed arms embargo on Libya, three Chinese state-owned companies reportedly tried to sell Muammar Gaddafi’s government weapons and ammunition worth at least $200 million.
Although Chinese officials said the government didn’t know about these talks, which took place in Beijing, and although they insisted that no actual weapons contracts or deliveries would be approved, Libya’s new leaders indicated that they considered the incident a black mark against China, something which will surely complicate any future Chinese endeavors in the country.
It’s true that the PLA’s influence over Chinese politics and foreign policy isn’t as strong as the Pentagon’s over the U.S. government. But after years of fostering a “cult of military” among Chinese, the PLA’s influence is bound to grow and become an increasingly ingrained feature of China’s politics – and its foreign policy.
Le Hong Hiep is a lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City, and is currently a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defense Force Academy. He can be reached at lehonghiep@gmail.com.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Leonard R.
Prof. Le wrote: “It’s true that the PLA’s influence over Chinese politics and foreign policy isn’t as strong as the Pentagon’s over the U.S. government. But after years of fostering a “cult of military” among Chinese, the PLA’s influence is bound to grow and become an increasingly ingrained feature of China’s politics – and its foreign policy.”
—
This is a good article. But I submit that the problem today is not that the PLA exercises too much
influence over the CCP. The problem is that the CCP exercises too little influence over the PLA.
From the mid-1990’s until as recently as summer 2011, there has a long series
of incidents where PLA actions or public statements have stoked tensions or provoked a crisis.
Each time it happened, the CCP had to walk back the crisis after the PLA has triggered it.
The Pentagon may influence the internal political process of the US.
But it doesn’t go around cutting cables oil boats or knocking Chinese aircraft
out of the sky. Its generals don’t threaten the PRC with annihilation
on the pages of the New York
Leonard R.
“…Times.”
Liberty
The PLA and the hawkish may have an important role in shaping China’s foreign policy after 2012! With the pending economic crisis plus currently promoted nationalism, Communist China will be extremely dangerous to the Asia-Pacific stability and the world peace as well in the coming days !
John Chan
@Liberty,
Here are the forecast of China’s growth in 2012, Merrill Lynch 9%, IMF 9%, Goldman Sachs 8.6%, World Bank 8.4%, Deutsche Bank 8.3% and UBS 8.3%.
Due to the endless debt problems, all those institutes said America and EU would start the journey of lost decade.
Liberty
Currently, China is buying time with another round of monetary easing to stimulate its economic growth , but this could not be any help for China in the long run (at most just for 2 more years!)! One’s already down, the next is China, and the last man standing will be the… USA!
John Chan
@Liberty,
If you call one nation with 8% grow as down, and the USA in the gutter as standing, you surely have wired liberty interpretation of English. No wonder the politicians in Washington are busy fighting for lining their pockets, as per your logic, they must be thinking they are doing good for the USA. Good luck man.
Yang Zi
Leonard is badly informed. Cutting cables is a tactic first practiced by Vietnam against Chinese and US equipment in SCS wanan concession, some 10′years ago. After that, China simply stoppd work over there.
a_canadian_observer
@Yang Zi:
“Leonard is badly informed. Cutting cables is a tactic first practiced by Vietnam against Chinese and US equipment in SCS wanan concession, some 10′years ago. After that, China simply stoppd work over there.” Nobody is aware of the incidents, you claimed, so you need to provide proofs. You can’t just come up with things like that.
yang zi
vietnamese observer, call your own foreign ministry, or this author or any people who know things.
Liang1a
In the Sung Dynasty, the Chinese emperor Sung Gao Zhong gave away half of China to avoid war even though a capable Chinese general by the name of Yue Fei was on the verge of decisively defeating the invaders. Many have wished Yue had overthrown Sung Gao Zhong and so preserved the integrity of the Chinese sovereignty. Now the Chinese government is again giving away sovereign territories right and left to avoid war. It would be a good thing if the military can exert more influence over Chinese policies to stiffen the backbone of the timid civilian officials. It is also obvious that many comprador bureaucrats have turned traitors and need to be cleansed out of the government before they sold out China completely. Since the civilian officialdom cannot do the cleansing, it may require the military to step in.
Recently there was a report of uncertain reliability that the Chinese government has given discretionary power to the military to launch an attack on the Mekong River if it deemed necessary without conferring with and getting the approval of the Foreign Ministry. From the very timid behavior of the Foreign Mininstry which has done nothing but protest against foreign encroachment, it is very pleasant news if the Chinese ministry could take action without being tied down by the Foreign Ministry or the civilian government. I truly hope that the military could be given discretionary power to take military action to evict foreign occupiers of Chinese sovereign territories in the S. China Sea. Then this current embarrassment in S. China Sea will quickly be over. In the end it will be good for the region as after things calmed down all can attend to developing their own internal economies without the distraction of a possible war which cause a lot of bad feelings among the region.
Yang zi
This vietnamese author compares very favorably against those S. Vietnamese posters.
PLA’s public voices on foreign policies matters, is actually a result of learning from pantegon. But China is in a fish ball, China cannot afford this drag. Only US has the luxury with what it does. Not other countries, especially China.
It is hilarious when you see a no body often say things like China
Must do this, must do that, as if he can issue command to China. But this is the environment China is in. Its political system is not respected, its one party rule limits its hand to defend itself. A democracy can have excuses, doves and hawks, ruling an opposition etc.
a_canadian_observer
There is something wrong with the picture. Chinese navy soldiers in Wespact’s closing blowing Westpac’s clarinets, and being guided by a guy with Westpact’s conducting style.
Huang
@a-canadian-observer,
Its called “Chinese Military Modernizations” and the process of modernizing the Chinese military will be more and revolutionary in the coming years and decades.
So! Stay tuned ! Same site ! same language ! same century !
a_canadian_observer
@Huang: Modernization is a sugar-coated word. How about coming up with something of your own, instead of mimicking the Westpac? What happens to the 5000 years of civilization?
Lucy
5000 years of civilization = overblown CCP hoax/PR/propaganda/myth
yang zi
vietnamese observer, clarinet comes from east (middle east), military band originated from east (Ottoman empire), you should be spanked for your ignorance.
Huang
“A person attempting to travel two roads at once will get nowhere.” explained,Xun Zi. In this case, every party in the disputes is walking on two paths at the same time. The territorial disputes China now faced with are identical in nature and hence require A SINGLE decisive step in handling the problems.
Everyone knows China’s “restraints” on all territorial issues from India in the South West,Japan in the East,and now Vietnam and the Phillipines in the SCS. As though these were not complicated enough already, the US’s seizing this opportune moment to place its mouth into the issue.
All in all, cowardice is the word fit the description of ALL involved. On the one hand,some countries wants to inch forward on the disputed zone after secretly negotiating oil exploration cooperations with their foreign partners. On the other hand,these claimants were nibbling and retreating as though they were testing the resolves and courage of the Chinese government and military.
It seems more and more certain that China would have to make the final decesion in resolving the problems following the wills of the “people”. Either settling the boundaries peacefully which is unlikely as the days passes or declaring unequivocally the claims base on the status quo with the ultimatum of arms conflicts. A path to peace or a road to wars must be decided sooner or later and vice-versa.
The “peaceful rise or peaceful developnments” terms were not taken as they are any way. China need not mention it peaceful intentions any more since the World will judge China’s intentions from what China does,not says.
Whether it is China threats,Chinese assertiveness,Chinese aggressions and all other nonsense no longer have to be counter with truths since these disputed nations never once take China’s words seriously.
From this point on, it will all deeds and no nonsense. With the backings of the people, the path to heaven or hell will have to be taken or the problems will just getting more and more un-resolvable.
Decision,decsion…….
Liang1a
Huang wrote:
December 3, 2011 at 3:32 am
The “peaceful rise or peaceful developnments” terms were not taken as they are any way. China need not mention it peaceful intentions any more since the World will judge China’s intentions from what China does,not says.
Whether it is China threats,Chinese assertiveness,Chinese aggressions and all other nonsense no longer have to be counter with truths since these disputed nations never once take China’s words seriously.
From this point on, it will all deeds and no nonsense. With the backings of the people, the path to heaven or hell will have to be taken or the problems will just getting more and more un-resolvable.
Decision,decsion…….
————————————
No matter how peaceful China wants to be it must still defend its territories. It is nonsense to say that a peaceful country must allow its sovereign territories to be invaded with impunity. As to China “threat”, “assertiveness” and “aggression” these are only ploys used by China’s enemies to browbeat China into unilaterally disarming. No intelligent Chinese should even try to pacify their enemies by curtailing China’s best national interests. If Japan or India or anybody else felt threatened by China’s rising military, then all they can do is suck it up and deal with it. China has no need to seek the approval of its enemies.
Peacefulness only means China will not attack others without justification. China can be peaceful while defending itself. China should change its slogan from “peaceful rise” to “righteous rise”. It is righteous not to attack others without justification while defending oneself with vigor. In the end, China must do what it can to make itself rich and powerful without harming innocents. Then the rest of the world will admire China and follow its lead.
ari
One easy way to recognize Pentagon sockpuppets and Cia trolls : They will always use these key operative words to describe China – “bully”, “bullying”, “aggressive”, “threat”, “threaten”, “aggressor”, “invade”.
it looks like they have been insructed to malign China and he Chinese in the manner beleiving that if you keep throwing, some of it will stick and people will eventually believe all these lies.
For what Washington is doing, I condemn Obama and his clique to Hell. Their world wide smearing of a country and its people via the traditional medias and the internet is just revulsive, repulsive, apalling, and unacceptable. May fate and justice visits its karmic armageddon or plague upon the Americans!
yang zi
@ari, you forgot “assertive”, i thought assertive is a good quality.
Reason
HAHAHAHA
What is righteous about the CCP ?
The biggest killing machine that ever graced the planet.
Smiley G
The caption – “Chinese Cult of Military” is extremely misleading.
Far from it being a cult, the typical protective Chinese mother, aided by the father to an extent, tend instead to discourage sons from joining the army. The saying – “Good iron should not be used to make nails; So good sons should not similarly become soldiers”. Le Hong Hiep seems ignorant of this sentiments of the ordinary Chinese. Therefore, for him to pursue writing such an article with such a theme makes this piece written with dubious intent. And equally, the Diplomat, abettingly, in publishing it. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the mischievous and slanderous efect of such a caption and slant.
george_002
Smiley G
I think you hit the nail. Soldiering and merchant are the lowest rung in Chinese society.
Unlike Japan where until recently the Samurai is at the top of totem pole
Or prewar Germany where the sons of the elite are encourage to join the military officer corp think of the Prussian tradition
One thing that Mao and CCP did right is to raise the status and prestige of military in order to fortify the Chinese nation.And revive the martial tradition of China that is long forgotten because it was neglected due to the influence of Confucianism
So a bit of Military cult is not bad
Liang1a
Smiley G wrote:
December 3, 2011 at 7:48 am
The caption – “Chinese Cult of Military” is extremely misleading.
Far from it being a cult, the typical protective Chinese mother, aided by the father to an extent, tend instead to discourage sons from joining the army. The saying – “Good iron should not be used to make nails; So good sons should not similarly become soldiers”. Le Hong Hiep seems ignorant of this sentiments of the ordinary Chinese. Therefore, for him to pursue writing such an article with such a theme makes this piece written with dubious intent. And equally, the Diplomat, abettingly, in publishing it. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the mischievous and slanderous efect of such a caption and slant.
————————————–
Of course a country’s military tradition is not a cult. Cult is a word loaded with all kinds of emotional response which are all bad. Obviously this guy is out to demonize China, not to give a fair picture of Chinese military’s role in current day China.
It is unfortunate that the Chinese people have become soft and passive and contemptuous of the military. Whenever a country falls into such an effete state of mind it is in danger of being unable to defend itself. There is a reason why a nation needs its military. Without its military a nation cannot survive for long. And if nobody wants to become soldiers then they will all get killed by the enemies.
The reason why Chinese look down on the military is because historically soldiers are nothing but thugs. They are underpaid and use looting and pillaging to get some money. They are ruthless and violent. They are not the heroes they should be who sacrifice themselves in the defense of the motherland. Therefore, a new image of the Chinese military must be developed to make the Chinese people understand that becoming soldiers are heroic because the motherland depends on them for protection against evil invaders who would slaughter the Chinese people and rob them of their possessions. There is also a reason for joinging the Chinese military. The new Chinese military is increasingly mechanized and use high technologies. Therefore, the new Chinese soldiers are highly trained professionals who earn a high income while performing the most sacred duties of protecting the motherland. It is a desirable job for all patriotic Chinese young men and women.
Huang
“If our soldiers are not overburdened with money, it is not because they have a distaste for riches; If their lives are unduly not long, it is not because they are dis-inclined to longevity.” explained, Sun Tzu.
len-nin
Seems to me Le Hong Hiep and the Diplomat’s goal in defaming the Chinese army – the PLA – is to discourage young Chinese from looking up to the PLA and joining it. Another flank attack on the CHinese to prevent it from ever beocming strong militarily. That, more than anything else seems the intention of such articles.
John Chan
We need to take a bucket of salt to read an article on China written by Vietnamese who are hostile to China for their greedy encroachment on China’s territory and resources.
Military influence on national politics is universal; the difference is only in a matter of degree. PLA’s influence on China’s politics is low comparing to the USA and Vietnam. If one can use defense expenditure as a gauge to measure the military dominance over the civilian politicians, USA is the most militarized and bellicose nation in the world, its military spending is nearly 5% of the GDP and Vietnam’s military spending is nearly 3% of GDP, yet China is meagerly about 2%.
In addition, USA has most generals as presidents. Vietnam’s ruling core is also dominated by generals. If the author looked in the mirror before putting out such one sided article, he will find the “Cult of the Military” is a more appropriate description of USA and Vietnam.
Yêu Nhạc Vàng
Le Hong Hiep is a young and Western trained Vietnamese who would write anything and all things anti-China in order to establish a new career in the Vietnamese academia, because, publishing a genuine academic article in one of the ‘real’ academic journals is bloodily hard, so he opted for non-academic journals such as the Diplomat in order to shore up his brownie points for having published in ‘international’ journals, which is in vogue nowadays in Vietnam. Being a Vietnamese and writing about anti-China will get you published for sure. Being a lecturer without a completed PhD is another good reason for him to write just about anything that can get him published; and anti-China writing is an easy route.
If the title ‘cult’ was decided by the Diplomat’s editor, then I have no more things to say, it’s just a way of the paper trying to grab people’s attention.
But if the term ‘cult’ was not decided by the editor, then this Le Hong Hiep guy might just have made a common mistake like many ESL speakers who translate literally a word from his native tongue into English; in this case, I believe he might have meant ‘idol’ or ‘Thần tượng’ in Vietnamese, and not ‘cult’.
A third possibility is that he actually meant ‘cult’ with a mischievious intent to demonize China.
But talking about military cult, ask him to write something about the Vietnamese military’s Tỗng Cục II and he would know what it really means by ‘military cult’.
Tom Tran
Assassinate a characters by bad mouthing without evidence, anti-persona stuff doesn’t get any credit. If you were my student, you got a zero for this critique.
Yêu Nhạc Vàng
@Tom Tran
I don’t think you read English well enough to undersand what I said. Come back when you do. And by the way drop your condescending tone ’cause I’m not going to put up with this nonsense.
JohnX
I thought you made some good points Yeu Nhac Vang.
Its interesting how you see the issue.
I would wager that is part of the problem for many of us readers, its not only language but how we approach with our own preconceptions.
Though I do wonder some times if there is an attempt by some to dumb down this site and make the people who read it less likely to respond. I mean the comments made some times just tire me out as they seem to be all verbal garbage (including mine at times, too much emotion, not enough thought.
Its good to read an intelligent analysis of a topic, (even if I don’t always agree with it).
Good work Yeu Nhac Vang, I hope to see you on here again.
John Chan
@JohnX,
Sorry we caused you so much distress. I guess a lot of us are unwilling participants in this trash trolling, but if those unfair presentations of China are not rebuked with the same kind in return, I am afraid China will be demonized like USSR, and China would be as doomed as USSR. Regardless who is in government, China cannot be put thru era of unequal treaties again.
Although generals have the glories, but it is the solders who have to slug it out for their glamour, so you need bear with us for the gruesome work.
nirvana
I am dismayed at the comments centered on the title of this article and/or the nationality of the author.
For example:
- Smiley G :“Far from it being a cult, the typical protective Chinese [parents] tend instead to discourage sons from joining the army.” But this article is not about PLA recruitment. To conclude on its “mischievous and slanderous effect” is baseless.
-Liang1a : “Obviously this guy [the author or Smiley G?] is out to demonize China”. Liang1a then launched into a lecture on “why a nation needs its military” and why it is glorious to serve in the “new Chinese military”. Completely out of subject!
-Here we go with Huang preaching on “peaceful rise” in reply! This moved us a bit closer to the real subject but still largely missed the author’s main point.
-John Chan understood the subject, but “We need to take a bucket of salt to read an article on China written by Vietnamese…”, showed his usual ultra-nationalist penchant. To write a fair article about China, which nationality an author must have?
-But the palm of Pavlov reflex and aggressiveness should be awarded to Blogger “Yêu Nhạc Vàng”. According to this blogger, age, nationality and the scholarship awarded by Australia (representative of the “West”?) are enough to infer that the author “would write anything and all things anti-China in order to establish a new career in the Vietnamese academia”. And as if this is not stupid enough, he concluded “Being a Vietnamese and writing about anti-China will get you published for sure”. Really? Who believes that to be openly anti-China is a career-booster in Vietnam? Lunatic! This is not to mention the final misplaced reference to the scandal of the Vietnamese military intelligence “Tỗng Cục II”. Pathetic and tortuous mind!
My usual opponent, Blogger Yang zi, at least read and summarized well the article in his comment “PLA’s public voices on foreign policies matters, is actually a result of learning from pantegon [Pentagon]” (Leonard R comments are pertinent too). This is what it is about: the PLA increasing meddling in China’s foreign policy and how it is reminiscent of the Pentagon political play.
As for the term “cult”, in this context, it is correctly used and not necessarily pejorative. The term “cult” has the same etymology as “cultivate”, i.e. “cultus”. Vietnamese and Chinese (other ASEAN nationals too) practice “ancestors cult”, i.e. the veneration of the defunct parents. We often read expressions like “cult of secrecy”. As for “cult of the military”, Andrew Scobell from the US War College, already coined the similar terms “China’s cult of defense” back in 2002.
Yêu Nhạc Vàng
@nirvana
“But the palm of Pavlov reflex and aggressiveness should be awarded to Blogger “Yêu Nhạc Vàng”. According to this blogger, age, nationality and the scholarship awarded by Australia (representative of the “West”?) are enough to infer that the author “would write anything and all things anti-China in order to establish a new career in the Vietnamese academia”.
How much do you know about the author in question?
“And as if this is not stupid enough,”
Only stupid people will say others are stupid.
“he concluded “Being a Vietnamese and writing about anti-China will get you published for sure”. Really?
Have you heard of ‘perspective’ of the two sides who are in dispute and how many Vietnamese who are resident of Vietnam could write well enough to publish in English?
“Who believes that to be openly anti-China is a career-booster in Vietnam? Lunatic!”
For as long as you know how to do it right it actually is, especially now. Have you worked within the Vietnamese academic system? Don’t pretend to know something you actually don’t.
“This is not to mention the final misplaced reference to the scandal of the Vietnamese military intelligence “Tỗng Cục II”. Pathetic and tortuous mind!”
How much and what do you know about TC II? By Googling? Now that’s really pathetic.
If you know something, try to say it right. If you don’t, don’t pretend you do. Phrase it in terms of a personal opinion or guess instead, don’t be so affirmative.
I would venture to guess that you don’t read Vietnamese, you don’t live in Vietnam and you have never worked within the VN academic system. Prove me wrong.
JohnX
good response.
Though, a lack of time in a country does not make one ignorant, sometimes its easier to see an issue because its not close to ones heart.
If I stated that the Chinese PLA seem to be using similar language or actions to the Japanese Military in the 30’s I believe that I would gain a strong response from some posters.
Standing back and reading historical accounts and autobiograhies from people who are not Chinese or Japanese leads me to believe that I am hearing similar sounds to what was said in the past.
I don’t have to be in the past to understand what is happening now, I just have to analyze similar issues, the question has never been whether one is the same as another, but whether they follow similar paths.
You may be right in your analysis of this writer or wrong in your analysis of his intentions, but your argument is strong.
A Vietnamese
@ Yeu Nhac Vang:
I agree with most of Nirvana’s comments. I don’t know on which bases you can argue that to be openly anti-China is a career-booster in Vietnam!?!. Can you please provide some examples that you personally know? You also argue as if you knew very well how the Vietnamese academic system works, but your points prove that you don’t.
Moreover, you also asks Nirvana “How much do you know about the author in question?” Then how about you yourself, how much do you know about the author to make such conclusions about himself?
You also asked “how many Vietnamese who are resident of Vietnam could write well enough to publish in English?” Well, it seems you are out of touch with Vietnam for so long and don’t know how much change has happened in Vietnam. I don’t know where you got your education and learned your English, but please think of your Vietnamese origin and never look down on your compatriots in such a pathetic way.
Yang zi
Now this really sounds like canadian-observer. I do encourage you to use this name, not the one
You’ve been faking. I know you might be a Canadian citizen, but your views
are not representitive of regular Canadian, besides, there are tons more Chinese canadians who don’t agree with you.
As to the author, he is just a Vietcong hack with some
Polish, I don’t understand why people are so worked up
by this article.
Cam
@yang zi,
Again and again, you are out of the line, a reasonable blogger should draw for himself. Don’t ever try to add any racial or nationality spices to your pot when trying to cook something we call “debating” here. It is irrelevant and racist purely. A blogger is entitled to what he’d like to be called. I believe you as a Chinese living in the US and you work tirelessly in this forum to defend the CCP. It is your choice, why question other Vietnamese Canadian about what he should be? And what is wrong for a Canadian trying to defend Vietnam, huh?
yang zi
@Cam, I am only point out one shouldn’t pretend to represent a country which doesn’t share his narrow views, which is dominantly defined by his origin.
Just like my view of China is very protective of China because I come from China. I wouldn’t pretend I am representing views of some Americans.
stop calling me racist, because you know I am not.
John Chan
@A Vietnamese,
Yen Nhac Vang has a point, English has been taught in Japan and Korea for a very long time, but asking ordinary Japanese and Koreans to blog fluently in English is asking a lot. Similar situations exist in China, Taiwan, and even Hong Kong. I do not believe Vietnam will be the exception.
The majority of Chinese students score very well in international English tests, but applying English in daily life is quite a different story. This phenomenon is not limited to Asians; it also applies to all other non-English mother tongue speakers.
Yen Nhac Vang merely stated the possible causes of misusing the term ‘cult’ in this article. It is totally unnecessary for you to derogatively distort his comment and bash him.
nirvana
@Yêu Nhạc Vàng,
I don’t know much about the author and less about you. This allows me to judge serenely WHAT the two of you write. This is what I care first, and most.
You didn’t find anything substantial to criticize in the article, apart from the word “cult”. Instead, you made an aggressive stand for what the author did not write, i.e. the role of the Vietnamese military in the VCP. If the subject of the article were “The cult of the military in Asian states” or “Comparing the cult of the military in Vietnam and China”, I would concur that avoiding the “Tỗng Cục II” episode is seriously unprofessional. But here the subject is China. A Vietnamese scholar studying in Australia can write an article about China, without mentioning neither Vietnam nor Australia. If what he writes is unfairly “anti-China”, then prove it first, instead of denigrating his professional integrity based on guesses of his career motivation.
The main difference between you and me as bloggers is summarized in your reply where you tried to guess about me. Yes, your opinion is based on a lot of guesses. This corroborates my observation that you have a tortuous mind.
Yêu Nhạc Vàng
@nirvana
“Yes, your opinion is based on a lot of guesses.”
Do you realize how redundant is your sentence? Opinions are just that – guesses; and some opinions are better than others; the same as saying some guesses are better than others
“The main difference between you and me as bloggers is summarized in your reply where you tried to guess about me…This corroborates my observation that you have a tortuous mind.”
Your mind is one that may have a very limited capacity to perceive possibilities possibly due to your false sense of self importance. You don’t know anything about me and yet you write everything about me in the affirmative. Now we are really talking about a tortuous mind, aren’t we?
JohnX
Let it go Yeu Nhac Vang, some fights are worth dropping.
I understand the point that you tried to make originally, but its not worth clubbing a guy over the head to make him see the same issue.
Let it go.
Cam
Oh, funny how you are! Prof. Yêu Nhạc Vàng!
Same tones, same attitude. Why don’t you start with the same old again that “Vietnamese are Han Chinese”? You use the same Chinese tactics that is attacking author personally rather than focusing on what he wrote. And BTW, why a Vietnamese writer can’t write about Chinese stuffs? Does he really need a PhD to write anything about China? What do you know about author’s intentions?
For me, an ESL Vietnamese writer is much better than a faking Chinese wannabe professor. LOL.
nirvana
@Yêu Nhạc Vàng,
Check whether I commented about you or about how you argued. Check whether you commented the author’s article or his supposed motivation. Check why you asked me what I knew about the author when I criticized the mentality that YOU displayed. Then you will understand what tortuous means.
John Chan
@Cam,
it’s not worthy of you, one hand you basking Yen Nhac Vang for smearing the author, on the other hand you attack Yen Nhac Vang viciously in person, are you not practising what you preached?
John Chan
@nirvana,
Chinese bloggers are fair minded, they know China has a lot of improvements need to do, but smearing China baselessly is not the right thing to do.
There are a lot non-Chinese who wrote good books and article about China, its good and its bad, that Chinese know and appreciate.
Reason
What I’m seeing here from our CCP acolytes is what happens so many times throughout Chinese history.
The society rips itself apart from the inside, blaming the vacillating weak Chinese ruler of the day for the ills it believes it is being subjugated to by outside barbarians – when all the time – the problem lies within.
Good luck with that….. AGAIN!
It’s like China is on one big loop – Ground Hog day on an epic scale.
Yang zi
@Reason, you are consumed by your paranoia. Hilary Clinton should organize an intervention for you, not China.
Smiley G
“Nirvana”, “A Vietnamese”, “John X”, and “Reason” are probably the same person; Under the pay of the Pentagon or CIA.
“Their” job is to conduct cyber warfare to smear, malign, mislead, misinform, and distort with the goal of destroying the image of Washington’s enemies, while bolstering the image of America and Americans.
In short to manipulate public opinions. However, the expense, efort and time, the Pentagon and the CIA puts into this is way beyond apalling. It is EVIL unlimited in this age of the internet which they abuse with no shame. Americans the good guys? Absolute crock!
a_canadian_observer
@Smiley G: Please go to the following site and comment there – we need some expert opinion/insider info. All other CCP mouthpieces are MIA or perhaps being shy to comment there.
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/12/03/return-of-chinas-milk-issue/#respond