Mao's Great Famine

Frank Dikötter won the prestigious Samuel Johnson prize for "Mao's Great Famine," his in-depth study of the Mao's Great Leap Forward, a socialist initiative that resulted in a man made famine that claimed the lives of up to 45 million Chinese. I find it amazing that the evils of Nazism have been thoroughly explored, while outside of academia few people are aware that millions more died at the hands of communism. Anyone with a modicum of education knows about the death camp of Auschwitz, but few are aware of the Holodomor, the man made famine that claimed the lives of several million Ukrainians. 


The proof of this staggering ignorance is that I have (thankfully) never seen an American with clothing that extolled the virtues of fascism, but I have seen plenty of college students with shirts emblazoned  Che's or even Mao's imagine. The problem with this is this is that unlike with Nazism, the fall of communism has prompted remarkably little self reflection and intellectual exploration among (so called) educated westerners. And interestingly, among the comments left by reader's of the Guardian were ones that were clearly apologetic of Marxism. 


The lessons of Nazism are quite obvious: state sponsored racism inevitably leads to death and suffering. But, few reflect on the lessons of communism: state control of economic and social life is extremely hazardous, even when leaders are "wise" and "well meaning." At its best, central control of economic life leads to stagnation, scarcity and rancor, at its worst, it leads to the death and famine that Frank Dikötter so adeptly described. 

Samuel Johnson prize won by 'hugely important' study of Mao

Mao's Great Famine by Frank Dikötter takes award for 'stunningly original' history of tyrannical regime

• •  reddit this
• Comments (140)

• Alison Flood
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 6 July 2011 15.00 EDT
• Article history

A retouched picture of Chairman Mao addressing Beijing's State Council in 1957. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Frank Dikötter's "stunningly original and hugely important" account of how Mao's Great Leap Forward led to the deaths of 45 million people has won him the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction.

1. Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62
2. by Frank Dikotter
3. 
4. Buy it from the Guardian bookshop

Search the Guardian bookshop

Dikötter, a Dutch academic, accessed previously hidden archives to shine a light on China between 1958 and 1962, when millions of Chinese – he puts the figure at 45 million – were worked, starved or beaten to death as Mao attempted to overtake the west in less than 15 years. Ben Macintyre, historian, journalist and chair of the Samuel Johnson prize judges, called Mao's Great Famine the book of the year.

"This is not just an important book now, but it will become in some ways more important, as China becomes more powerful in the world and a greater part of global consciousness. To understand why China is the way it is, you almost have to read this book. If you want to understand why it's a materialistic, non-ideological place, you need to realise that just a generation ago, this appalling, manmade catastrophe was visited on its people," said Macintyre. "One of the judges, [biographer] Brenda Maddox, simply said 'this book changed my life - I think differently about the 20th century than I did before. Why didn't I know about this?' We feel we know who the villains of the 20th century are – Stalin and Hitler. But here, fully 50 years after the event, is something we did not know about. It's a testament to the power of non-fiction, that it can rock you back on your heels."

Mao's Great Famine, which beat five other shortlisted titles to win the prize, is "a vision of a society in utter collapse", said Macintyre, and Dikötter "ties it completely to Mao himself". "Often the famine is dismissed in the west as circumstantial, but Dikötter blows that myth completely out of the water. Mao and his cronies knew what was going on and just didn't care," said the writer, pointing to Mao's remark that "it is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."

Dikötter narrowly beat Maya Jasanoff's Liberty's Exiles, a history of the journeys of the American loyalists left behind by the 18th-century British evacuation, to win the £20,000 prize. "It was hard; really really hard ... Passionate feelings came to a head. At one moment we thought we might have to split the prize," said Macintyre, praising the "bursts of pure lyricism" in Jasanoff's work. But in the end Dikötter triumphed, becoming the second writer giving an insight into the communist east to win the Samuel Johnson prize in two years after Barbara Demick took it in 2010 for her journalistic investigation Nothing to Envy: Real Lives in North Korea.

"I think Samuel Johnson would have been stunned by what comes under the general heading of non-fiction these days – we were comparing [Jonathan Steinberg's] Bismarck, this monumental account of a great statesman, with Matt Ridley's delightful, trouble-making, brilliant futuristic look at what is happening to us all, [The Rational Optimist]. That's the pleasure of this prize. But in the end we tried to say which is the book of the year? And this is it," said Macintyre.

"It could have been overwritten, but part of what makes it work so well is it is written with quiet fury. He doesn't overstate his case because he doesn't need to. Its very strength lies in its depth of scholarship, lightly worn."

Dikötter, chair professor of humanities at the University of Hong Kong and professor of the modern history of China on leave from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, was announced as winner of the Samuel Johnson prize at a ceremony in London on Wednesday evening. The author of nine books about China, he lives in Hong Kong.

The Apology Tour Continues!

Pictured Above: Michael Posner

During a meeting with Chinese officials regarding human rights, Obama Appointee Michael Posner apologized for SB1070, Arizona's new immigration law before his Chinese counterpart had even brought it up! Not only is it absolutely absurd for the United States to apologize to one of the worst violator of human rights in the world, but it's also an awful bargaining strategy! If Mr. Posner was better informed and / or did not suffer from testicular derth he would have criticized the Chinese for enacting even harsher immigration laws on its own citizens! For example, if you are a Chinese peasant, you need a residency permit to migrate to and reside in Beijing or any city. Without such permits you could be denied medical care and your children could be denied an education. And North Korean migrants caught illegally residing in China will be rapdily repatried to North Korea even though that spells imprisonment and even execution. And so the apology tour continues!

US Cites AZ Immigration Law During Human Rights Talks with China, Conservatives Call It An Apology

May 17, 2010 12:17 PM

ABC News' Kirit Radia reports:

During two days of talks about human rights with China last week, the US raised examples of problems on its own soil and cited Arizona's controversial new immigration law as an example of "racial discrimination."

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination. And these are issues very much being debated in our own society,” Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner, who led the US delegation to the talks, told reporters on Friday.

That the US mentioned the Arizona law during talks about human rights with China, consistently ranked among the worst human rights violators in the world, has raised the ire of some conservatives who see the US as apologizing for the law to a country that persecutes its own dissidents and minorities.

“China murdered millions of its citizens who opposed the government's Communist policies and allows most of its people little or no freedom. We, on the other hand, enforce our immigration laws. No, wait--actually we don't. That's why Arizona had to take a shot at it,” the conservative blog Powerline wrote on Sunday.

The Arizona immigration law requires law enforcement to inquire about an individual’s immigration status if there is suspicion they are in the country illegally. Supporters of the law say it will weed out illegal immigrants and help secure the border. Opponents say it opens the door to racial profiling. The Obama administration has come out against the law; President Obama has called it “misguided.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to China later this week for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Posner said Friday he will take part in those meetings as well. He said the US and China will hold talks on human rights again next year.

Speaking earlier on Friday morning the US Ambassador to China, and former Republican governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman said that the talks on human rights were difficult but a sign of improved relations between countries that have had strained relations in the past year over US arms sales to Taiwan, internet freedom and cyber attacks, and trade disputes.

"We're talking about issues that are uncomfortable, quite frankly, but it is a sign of maturity that we can talk about specific cases," Huntsman said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/arizona-immigration-law-human-rights-china-conservatives-apology.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/17/who-is-michael-posner-and-why-is-he-apologizing-to-china/

Banana Republic

Way back in the day, we would dictate domestic policy to the many nations that owed us money. As we become a banana republic that's knee deep in debt, lendors like China are starting to stick their nose in our internal affairs. Get ready - this is just the beginning.

James Pethokoukis

China questions costs of U.S. healthcare reform

Nov 16, 2009

Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.

Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.

Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.

For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.

In addition, the CMS study gives a clearer cost estimate than the one provided by the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the 10-year cost of PelosiCare is $894 billion. But that analysis includes early years with little government spending, According to the CMS, the House approach would cost $1 trillion from 2013-2019, or some $140 billion a year when fully put into effect.

Few realists in Washington think any of the current reform plans make a significant dent in the long-term healthcare cost to government. Indeed, the Senate Budget Committee recently held hearing about creating a bipartisan commission to find solutions to America’s entitlements problems.

If healthcare reform really bent the curve, there would be a no need for such a commission to do Healthcare Reform 2.0.

The Chinese might want to keep up the questioning.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/16/china-questions-costs-of-us-healthcare-reform/

Clinton Anagram

Clinton Means "Chinese Loans Immediately Negate Tibet’s Oppressed Nationhood" In other words, we can assume that our dependence on Chinese loans was the primary reason why the Madame Secretary did not meet with the Dalai Lama.

Credit Card Collection Calls

"Hero, don't you be rate on roan payments!"


I believe this will be the prelude to collection calls from our number one credit card - the People's Republic of China.

BEIJING – China's premier didn't say it in so many words, but the implied warning to Washington was blunt: Don't devalue the dollar through reckless spending.

Premier Wen Jiabao's message is unlikely to be misunderstood at the White House. It is counting on Beijing to help pay for its stimulus package by buying U.S. bonds. China already is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, with an estimated $1 trillion in U.S. government debt. A weaker dollar would erode the value of those assets.

"Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said at a news conference Friday after the closing of China's annual legislative session. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."

The appeal suggested the outlines of Chinese President Hu Jintao's stance when he meets with President Barack Obama at an April 2 summit in London of the Group of 20 major economies on possible remedies for the global crisis.

Wen gave no indication whether Beijing wants changes in U.S. policy. But economists said his comments reflect fears that higher U.S. budget deficits from Washington's $787 billion stimulus package could drive down the dollar and the value of China's Treasury notes.

"China is telling the U.S. to be careful, not to overspend and keep an eye on the dollar," said Kelvin Lau, regional economist at Standard Chartered in Hong Kong. "There are risks that China cannot control, so they're depending on the U.S. to maintain fiscal prudence and keep the dollar reasonably stable."

Analysts estimate China keeps nearly half of its $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies.

"Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries," said Frank Gong, chief China economist for JP Morgan.

Beijing is trying to increase its leverage at the London G-20 meeting by reminding its partners of its role in financing U.S. spending, Gong said.

"Without China's buying (Treasuries) and continuing to fund U.S. deficit spending, interest rates could have been much higher. That could be very destabilizing in this very recessionary environment," he said. "By attracting a lot of attention to this issue, China is already increasing its influence ahead of the G-20 meeting."

Finance officials from the G-20 meet this weekend. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is pressing for a new coordinated global stimulus. Japan is supportive but European governments are reluctant to make expensive commitments before they see how current plans are working.

Wen also offered an unqualified defense Friday of his government's policies in Tibet, ignoring questions about a massive security buildup in the Himalayan region.

Tensions have spiked ahead of two key anniversaries this week — the 50th anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising that sent the Dalai Lama into exile and Saturday's one-year anniversary of violent anti-Chinese riots in Lhasa that sparked the largest protests in decades.

Asked whether the massive security presence pointed to failings in Beijing's policies, Wen said: "The situation in Tibet is on the whole peaceful and stable. The Tibetan people hope to work in peace and stability.

"Tibet's continuous progress (has) proven the policies we have adopted are right," he said.
Wen expressed confidence the world's third-largest economy can meet its official growth target of 8 percent this year and emerge from the crisis "at an early date." But he said Beijing is ready to expand its 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus if needed.

"We already have our plans ready to tackle even more difficult times, and to do that we have reserved adequate ammunition," he said. "That means that at any time we can introduce new stimulus policies."

Communist leaders worry about rising job losses and possible unrest amid a trade slump that saw Chinese exports fall 25.7 percent in February from a year earlier. They have promised to spend heavily to create jobs and boost exports.

Chinese bank lending and power demand have risen, suggesting the stimulus is taking effect. But growth in retail sales is weakening, indicating it has yet to spur private sector spending and investment, which analysts say will be key to its success.

Private sector economists expect growth as low as 5 percent this year. That would be the strongest of any major country but could lead to more waves of job cuts.

"I really believe we will be able to walk out of the shadow of the financial crisis at an early date," Wen said. "After this trial, I believe the Chinese economy will show greater vitality."

Wen also said Beijing wants the G-20 summit in April focus on helping the poorest countries.
The premier said Beijing has met its own commitments to help developing countries by erasing a total of $40 billion in debt owed by 46 countries and giving out 200 billion yuan ($29 billion) of aid to developing countries."

"We must see to it that we show concern for developing countries," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_us_economy

More Wisdom From the Dalai Lama...

The Dalai Lama recently commented on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's unwillingness to publicly discuss China's flagrant abuses of the Tibetans by stating "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Specifically the Dalai Lama was referring to the power that China holds over the US as its largest creditor. In order to finance massive deficit spending, the Bush and Obama administrations sold nearly a trillion dollars in treasury bills to the Chinese government. His holiness is correct - by placing our basic finances in the hands of a foreign government we are granting that government considerable leverage.

Almost immediately after a clash between the American and Chinese navy in international waters, the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao publicly expressed his concern about the safety of its treasury bond holdings. Those who view this simply as commentary on economic matters are woefully ignorant of international affairs - China was sending a clear message to the US that if we didn't comply, there would be grave economic consequences. The naval engagement was a test and Obama's acquiescence was a dangerous failure that will encourage future aggression.

So, the concern over the size and scope of the government is not simply a philosophical concern; the direct consequence of Bush's and Obama's expansion of the state is uncontrolled borrowing, which has not only eroded our economic and social well being, it has eroded our very sovereignty.

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/03/13/Chinas_PM_Wen_nervous_over_holding_US_Treasury_bonds/UPI-93811236960563/