Russia and China

An interesting responce of the European left which underestimates Russia and is ready to accuse Communist China of any sins at any moment. Shrill calls on the left about Tibet and human rights in China. About illegitimate nature of the Chinese regime. Expect them to go far and wide but lead to no result.

An opposite - almost - reaction can be expected from the right of the European political spectrum which loathes Russia and for some reason - maybe hidden - is cautiously optimistic about China. Expect shrieks from the right about Europe's energy dependence on Russia.

An interesting dilemma; this pits a country with vaguely European lifestyle that delivers - although grudgingly - its resources to the West, against Chinese behemoth which will take limited resources away from the West. Shouldn't the Right be worried too.

This is from Independent.

Russia has the advantage of a formal if imperfect democratic system plus a post-Soviet civil society. This should mean that high commodity prices lead to improved infrastructure and the diffusion of prosperity. It is easy to be cautiously optimistic about Russia's prospects.

China is more complex. Over the millennia, the Chinese have mastered every art, except politics. The current regime lacks legitimacy. The rulers are afraid of the ruled. At some stage, this will have to change. Will there be a careful transition guided by a statesman of genius so that the inevitable turbulence never breaks out of control? Or will there be breakdown, with hideous consequences? There are no guarantees.

Hands Off China!

Emotions always carry the day - especially if these emotions are about China, which Westerners can not live without but still fear.

Chinese leaders are in angry denial of the criticism of their handling of the cituations that is so untimely - just before olymplics. "There is ample fact and plenty of evidence proving this incident was organised, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique," Chinese leaders say.

But even if this is not true, and recent events were just sporadic protest aganst the Chinese, the following is true. What right have other countries to interfere criticise and object to the way most populous country in the worlds conducts its internal affars. Of course, Tibetan independence is fashionable in many Bohemian or not so Bohemian circles in the West, but - despite equally gruesome persecution of Uighur Muslims in Xinjang region - barely a squeak comes from the West on treatment of Uighurs in China. I empatise with Tibetans, but I see that Tibet is highlighted in the West for two reasons: 1) Presumed cultural affinity of liberals with Tibet and 2) desire of conservatives to see China's wings clipped.

Almost every ethnic minority in China is discriminated against simply because of the cultural incompatibilty of the Chinese with those minority cultures. China is not intent on forcing people to adopt to Chinese way of life but the assimilation is happening anyway, because China dominates these regions, and it is through China that people in these remote regions gain access to the World.

But China is an empire which took hold of those territories in fair conquest. It has thus a right to govern those as long as it exercises a fair judgement and does not commit mass murder. No evidence of the Nazist policies has been observed and China brought prosperity to otherwise backward regions. Only by internal force, this great country should break apart violently or without violence.