*** ( NOTE : This is an addition to the 2nd “follow-on” article I wrote recently. I would highly recommend you read that article first before starting this one if you haven’t already. The purpose of this article is to answer a couple of questions raised by some readers. ) *** ( click here to read that follow-on article )
A few on FM have called for me to show evidence that anti-China groups had played a role in stirring up protests in the recent earthquake protests. There are also those who ask what exactly anti-China groups can do to China.
On the question of evidence, the answer is no. There is no evidence I am aware of.
But I am sure most would understand that this question can hardly be relevant to why authorities have acted the way they have. For those who don’t understand, the following analogy may help :
In the US, guards at the airport check your shoes before you board a plane. Many people are offended by this, and turn away from visiting the US. As a result, tourism related businesses in the US are (or at least were) severely impacted by this. One may rightly ask if the authorities actually have any evidence to back up their claim that someone somewhere is planning to blow up a plane with his/her shoes.
But this question is hardly useful or relevant. If there WAS evidence a person is about to blow up a plane, clearly he would have already been sent to jail. The question is NOT whether there is evidence someone somewhere is about to do something. The correct question one should ask is : Are there people with the motive and determination, plus the capability and resources to blow up a plane?
If there is, then the business-hostile measures at the airports are justified. If not, they are not.
The same is true for other seemingly nonsensical security measures around the world. It is not whether you have evidence, but whether there is sufficient ground to believe there are people with the motive and determination, plus the capability and resources to do harm.
Coming back to the topic of China we have been discussing, we can divide what I refer to as “anti-China” groups into 2 categories. The non-organized individuals and the organized establishments. (See my Comment #60 on the Comments section of the “Follow-On Article (2)” for my definition of “anti-China”).
China is clearly concerned with these groups. In my opinion, rightly so. There is no reason to doubt the power of the non-organized individuals to sway opinions of the masses to achieve an end. Neither should China be the only country in the world not worried about organized groups targeting itself.
In terms of non-organized individuals, no-one should deny the fact that individuals such as ourselves could sway opinions. These opinions would in turn sway other opinions. If enough people are encouraging local activists to in turn encourage victims to go out to the streets, they would. And if you give them enough reasons to sacrifice themselves to achieve an end, many would. If they don’t, it just means you are not persuasive enough.
2009 is a year full of sensitive dates. If anti-China groups want to create mayhem, clearly this is a golden opportunity. A Tiananmen Square style incident is not beyond imagination.
I am sure many of my readers realize that both Gene Sharp and his assistant Bruce Jenkins were in Beijing at the time of the demonstrations 20 years ago. They were the same pair from the organisation that gave us the color revolutions all across Eastern Europe. There is of course no legal evidence linking them to the events back then. But surely, you can’t tell me they just happened to be there on a holiday. If you follow the developments of that period closely, it should not be too hard to see that there was a pattern in the evolution of the events and the demands.
Today, there are plenty of interest groups spreading disinformation about China. Some such as this group described in this report timesonline are known to be paid by Western governments. If anything, the Chinese government AND the Chinese people SHOULD be very concerned.