现代战国策---美国的乙醇战略

曾左韬博士

能源部阿岗国家实验室研究员 美华学社会员

以史为鉴可知兴衰，中国几千年历史，其中各国各王朝的成功失败对今天的发展仍有借鉴的意义。当今各国崛起角逐的情况下，几千年前的战国策略仍可让我们警醒。2007年１２月１８日，美国众议院通过了自１９７５年以来的首个能源法案，该法案要求减小石油进口，大幅增加乙醇等生物燃料的添加比例。实质是把出口的粮食转化为乙醇燃料，由于粮食是生活的必需品。这一变化将对世界发生重大影响。目前美国不但是工业大国，也是世界农业大国。美国大豆产量占全世界的 42.7%, 玉米产量占34.4%, 棉花产量占21.2，小麦产量占11.6%.在世界农产品市场上处于决定性的地位。这一能源法案让人联想起两千年前的战国策。且看当年在粮食问题上管仲如何三策兴齐。

齐国本是一个海边的小国，姜太公初封时地不过方圆百里，而且很多是不适合粮食生长的盐碱地，粮食生产和人口都不多。齐国之所以在较短的时间里发展成为东方的超强，与管仲的粮食战略有很大关系。策一，服帛降鲁梁。鲁和梁的老百姓平常织绨，绨是一种丝线做"经"，棉线做"纬"织成的纺织品，管仲劝齐桓公穿绨料衣服，并下令大臣们都服绨。上行下效，齐国的老百姓一时间全都穿绨料衣服。齐国绨的价格大涨，管仲还特意对鲁、梁二国的商人说：你们给我贩来绨一千匹，我给你们三百斤金；贩来万匹，给金三千斤。吸引得鲁、梁二国的老百姓都把绨运到齐国卖高价，而获取利润。鲁、梁二国财政收入大涨。这两个国家的国君就要求他们的百姓织绨。一年后，鲁、梁的老百姓几乎全部出动，忙着织绨运绨，从而放弃了农业生产。时机成熟以后，管仲又劝齐桓公改穿帛料衣服，也不让百姓再穿绨，并“闭关，毋与鲁、梁通使”，十个月后，“鲁、梁之民饿馁相及”，即使两国国君急令百姓返农，也为时已晚，粮食不可能在短期内产出。于是，鲁、梁谷价腾飞，鲁、梁的百姓从齐国买粮每石要花上千钱，而齐国的粮价每石才十钱。三年后，鲁、梁的国君不得不归顺齐国了。策二，买鹿制楚。齐桓公欲伐楚，又害怕楚国强大而不获成功，向管仲请教办法。管仲让桓公以高价收购楚国的活鹿，并且告诉楚国商人，贩鹿到齐国可以发大财。于是楚国的男女几乎全国总动员，全都为捕捉生鹿而奔忙，放弃了粮食生产；而齐国却早已“藏谷十之六”了。当楚国的百姓无粮可食时，管仲又关闭了国界，终止活鹿和粮食交易。结果，楚人降齐者，十分之四。策三。代国出产狐皮，管仲劝桓公令人到代国去高价收购，造成代人放弃农业生产，成天在山林之中去捉狐狸，但狐却少得可怜，“二十四月而不得一”。结果是狐皮没有弄到，农业生产也耽误了，没有粮食吃，导致北方的离枝国乘虚侵扰。在此情况下，代国国王只好投降齐国。齐国一兵未动而征服代国。这便是粮食战争的威力。

以上是两千年前齐国人的智慧。两千年后斗转星移。玩这种粮食策略的变成了美国人。让我们看看现代战国策是怎么玩的。美国先大量买入工业品，同时廉价出口粮食，把各国农业挤垮，这是第一步。目前农产品出口占美国农业总销售的比例高达２５％。各国农业受美国廉价农产品冲击，很多已经崩垮。就中国来说，中国是世界上的大豆、花生、菜籽、葵花籽主产国家，具不完全统计，中国种植油料的农民达两亿以上，占全国耕地面积的1/4以上。1995年以前，中国一直是大豆净出口国；此后美国靠巨额的财政补贴生产的大豆进入中国市场，2000年中国大豆年进口量首次突破1000万吨，成为世界上最大的大豆进口国，此后几年，中国的大豆进口额连续攀升；而中国大豆生产却没有补贴，这种不公平竞争的结果是中国农民生产的大豆越多赔得也越多。近年来，销售价格持续降低，种植效益持续下降，堆积如山的库存大豆以及跌破种植成本的收购价格使种豆农民和大豆加工企业都苦不堪言。结果中国本土的大豆生产逐步萎缩，2006年黑龙江省大豆种植面积已经比2005年减少了25%，而2007年大豆种植面积预计会比2005年还要减少40%左右。最近 10多年里，中国大豆产量由原来的世界第一，退居为继美国、巴西和阿根廷之后的世界第四。

每多进口100万吨，就可能造成130万种豆农民“失业”。失业农民离开土地进入廉价工业品生产线。开始为美国织“绨”制鞋，几千万只鞋才能换回一架波音飞机。美国低价买入这些包含了大量资源，能源和劳动力的工业品，把污染和通膨留给了中国。07年11月份，居民消费价格总水平比去年同期上涨6.9%。其中，城市上涨6.6%，农村上涨7.6%；食品价格上涨18.2%，连续第4个月物价涨幅超过6%。

亚洲各国也存在着类似的问题。由于工业化占地导致耕地的消失, 日本谷物的生产水平从顶峰下降了33%, 韩国下降了31%, 台湾下降了19%。在过去的37年间,日本粮食产量由1589万吨下降到985万吨, 包括饲料在内的粮食自给率由77%下降到目前的27%,下降了50个百分点。2003年韩国国内粮食需求量为2098.4万吨，与2002年 (2064.1万吨)相比增加了1.66%。相反，2003年韩国国内的粮食产量为 554.4万吨，与前一年相比(616.2万吨)减少了 10.03% ，粮食自给率只达到了26.9%。这与2002年(30.4%) 相比下降了 4个百分点，世界粮食进口的头号大国并不是有13亿人口的中国, 而是1亿多人口的日本, 排在第二的是不及中国人口4%的韩国!

等亚洲各国大力发展轻工业，各国政府如两千年前鲁梁国君一样鼓励国民大量织绨，激烈竞争使得工业品越来越便宜后，美国现在开始降低农作物出口，展开管仲战国策的第二步。但生产的食物不能浪费，最近能源价格上涨给了美国一个机会，美国计划把粮食转化为乙醇燃料，今年12月美国国会通过新能源法，推动美国每年乙醇燃料使用量在2022年达到360亿加仑。

目前，美国已经建成114家乙醇提炼厂，还有80家工厂正在建设中。2006年乙醇产量超过50亿加仑，比2005年增加了1/4，预计未来两年里可望新增60亿加仑的产能。

然而这将导致世界范围缺粮。 2006年，美国投入4200万吨玉米生产乙醇，按照全球平均食品消费水平计算，足可以满足1.35亿人口整整一年的食品消耗。按照新能源法，2022年美国若从玉米生产150亿加仑乙醇需1.8亿吨玉米，足够5.8亿人口吃一年。

美国能源署官员称，今后相当长时间内，玉米仍将是美国乙醇生产的主要原料。由于美国的乙醇战略，美国玉米价格翻倍上扬，创下了10年新高。美国众议院在 12月通过新能源法后玉米价格更有加速上扬的趋势。据预测，未来几年美国玉米价格有望再创新高，影响了消费者的利益。而玉米在食品中应用广泛，也是重要的饲料，包括玉米在内的粮食价格的上涨势必引发食品价 格的连锁反应。

国际粮食政策研究所所长范布伦说，粮食的价格正在上涨，可能还会继续上涨很多。他强调说，用于生产面包的粮食价格可能上涨30%到50%，豆类和植物油种子可能上涨60%到80%。目前，全世界大约有15亿人每天只能花费一美元，其中一半以上是用来购买食物的。如果食物价格上涨50%到80%，很多人将会陷于饥饿之中。

虽然美国政府给每加仑乙醇提供51美分的补贴，现在美国的乙醇生产厂商仍处于赔本经营状态。比尔盖兹投资的太平洋乙醇公司在2007年第三季赔五百九十万美元。生产乙醇的过程中需要投入大量的化石燃料的能量，这包括生产收割灌溉运输玉米等原料中所需投入的动力能量，蒸发提纯所需的能量。据估计每生产可放出 1卡能量的乙醇需要投入0.74卡的化石燃料的能量。所以乙醇生产中的能量增值并不多，很大程度上是把化石燃料的能量转化成了乙醇能量。以2007年12 月的价格比较，乙醇的价格 (2.38美元/加仑) 比汽油稍便宜 (2.46美元/加仑), 但同样体积乙醇的热值只有汽油的60%，所以若油箱里加的是乙醇，花同样的钱汽车跑的路比加汽油少将近40%。

美国新能源法要求到2022年生产的360亿加仑乙醇中的210亿加仑来源于纤维素乙醇，比如秸秆之类，尽管秸秆是一种资源，但由于秸秆具有分散、体积大、难收集、易腐烂等缺点，集约化利用需要投入大量的人力、物力和能量。秸秆本身经过加工也是可以用作饲料的。牛羊的胃就是分散流动的化工厂。“秸秆变乙醇”等工业项目实际上是跟牛羊争饲料。

美国声称要通过生产乙醇来实现能源独立，但目前利用粮食提炼乙醇仅能满足3%的汽车动力需要，即使把美国出产的全部粮食都用来制造乙醇，提供的燃料也仅能满足美国18%的需要。尽管乙醇生产是赔本生意且实际上无法满足其能源自足的目标，但美国政府仍然全力推动乙醇生产。这是因为乙醇战略对美国维持一流超强有利，美国是世界第一农业大国，有大量土地可以用来生产农产品和乙醇，广阔的国土成为一项重要资源。美国缺燃料但多粮食，把多余的粮食转化为燃料有利于减少美国能源对中东石油的依赖，该战略对美国总体有利，但却伤害到缺粮的国家。提高农产品价格虽也造成美国通膨，但却可降低美国的农业补贴，从而降低美国政府的高额赤字。粮食涨价对粮食进口国伤害更大，因此美国的乙醇战略实际上是损人利己的一招，虽不能真正实现能源独立的目标，但却可相对提高美国的重要性，有助于保持美国一流超强地位。

这就是美国的现代战国策：先大量购入低端工业产品，诱使亚洲忙于生产衣服鞋子电视。用低价农产品挤垮亚洲农业，废掉耕地，粮食生产大量减少，然后在能源自足的借口下把粮食转化为燃料。减少出口，导致农产品价格暴涨。从而打击亚洲经济，上个世纪美国在工业上超越其它国家成为世界超强，现在工业化在世界各国都发展了起来，以致美国制造业逐渐外移，优势可能不保，科研在很大程度上是附着在制造业上的，若制造业外移，皮之不存，毛将焉附？现今美国学生不再愿意投入艰苦的科研工作，争着涌入金融业，美国引以为傲科研也会逐渐下滑。在这种形势下，美国有可能利用其在世界处于第一位的农业，通过乙醇战略提高农产品价格，也相对提高美国的重要性。美国制造业可以外移，但生产粮食的土地却不会外移。美国的乙醇战略其志虽不在灭国，却有助于美国维持世界超强。整个国策与两千年前的管仲谋略稍有不同，但运行轨迹几乎一致。看看，“愚蠢”的美国政治家春秋战国策运用得娴熟自如。“聪明”的亚洲人民被玩得东奔西忙。心甘情愿地给人家打小工赚苦力钱。

目前亚洲国家迅速崛起，但这些国家大多缺少生产粮食所需土地。为保持世界超强的地位，美国正在通过乙醇战略悄悄地发动一场无硝烟的粮食战争。中国在大豆战役上已经输掉了第一仗，在中国大豆种植面积大幅下降后，美国大豆占据中国市场。目前跨国粮商控制中国４０％以上的大豆加工能力和９０％的大豆进口量。２００６年中国进口大豆２６５０多万吨，是当年国产大豆的１．６倍，约占全球大豆贸易量的１／３。然后大豆价格又开始爆涨，中国不得不多花钱进口大豆。今后的世界形势有可能发生很大变化。虽然没有钱日子不好过，但没有吃的会有什么结果，大家都能明白。目前玉米价格已经涨了一倍，若出现全球粮食短缺的话，粮食价格不但可以成倍上扬，也是可以成百倍上扬的。因此中国应加大政策扶持，确保９５％的粮食自给率，守稳中国粮食安全线。美国和中国人口及资源情况不同，中国不应盲目跟着美国走。美国发展乙醇项目的背景是其粮食生产过剩。中国对该项技术应该紧盯，但不宜急着投入生产。在中国粮食生产不富余的情况下大规模地把粮食转化为乙醇是不可想象的。应静待纤维素转化为乙醇技术成熟，集中研发不跟粮食生产争地的项目，比如从大海或沙漠里生产生物乙醇。同时总体评估秸秆转化为乙醇还是饲料哪个更为有利。前提是发展乙醇项目不应跟人畜争粮，否则将伤及根本，得不偿失。

Why They Hate China
Well, you have to hate someone…
by Justin Raimondo

China's continuing crackdown on Tibetan pro-independence protesters is a big, big issue here in San Francisco. Why, just the other day, I was coming out my front door, and there was one of my neighbors – a very nice woman in her fifties, albeit an archetypal limousine liberal, typical of the breed.So typical that she might almost be mistaken for a living, breathing, walking, talking cliché. She hates George W. Bush and the neocons because she's against the (Iraq) war, but she's eager to "liberate" Darfur – and, lately, Tibet. That morning, as she earnestly informed me, she was on her way to a meeting of the Board of Supervisors (our town council) to exhort them to vote for a resolution condemning the Chinese government's actions and calling for "freedom" for Tibet. What she doesn't realize, and doesn't want to know, is that she and the neocons – the very ones who brought us the Iraq war – are united on the Tibet issue. I tried, in vain, to point this out to her, but she just shook her head, cut the conversation short, and was on her way…

As it turned out, the supervisors voted for a meaningless, toothless resolution, stripped of provocative rhetoric, much to the dismay of the far-lefties who argued for a stronger statement. The initiative for this effort was made by supervisor Chris Daly, an obnoxious left-liberal with delusions of grandeur, whose pose of self-righteousness is both grating and characteristic of his sort.

Prior to the vote on the Daly resolution, which was vociferously supported by the supposedly pacifistic supporters of the Dalai Lama, the Chinese consulate was… firebombed. This is what the War Party would like to do to China.

Fortunately, there are a number of restraining factors that get in the way: in the meantime, however, our preening politicians demagogue the China issue, and none so brazenly as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, my congressional representative, who is merely Chris Daly writ large. Traveling all the way to India, at taxpayers' expense, Madam Speaker visited with the Dalai Lama at Dharamsala and announced that if Americans don't speak out against Beijing's repression in Tibet "we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world."

Pelosi is a longtime opponent of Beijing – not just the Chinese government, but China itself. Pelosi and the unions she depends on for political support despise all things Chinese for the simple reason that China, today, is more capitalist than the U.S. – in spite of the Chinese Communist Party's ostensible commitment to Marxist ideology. Thinly veiled racist-chauvinist bilge is routinely directed at the Chinese people by union bosses and right-wing paleo-protectionists, who stupidly claim that the "chinks" (or, as John McCain would put it, the "gooks") are stealing "American jobs" – as if Americans have a hereditary right to the very best salaries on earth, a "right" that doesn't have to be earned by competitive business practices but is conferred on them by virtue of their nationality. Like hell it is.

Lucrative trade and cultural exchanges between China and California, as well as the fact that many Chinese in her congressional district have continuing ties to the mainland, have – so far – failed to deter Pelosi and her fellow Know-Nothings: politics, as they used to say during the Cultural Revolution in China, is in command.

These Sinophobic protests, engineered behind the scenes by leftist union bosses and God knows who else, are focused on the passing of the Olympic torch, which is slowly but surely making its way to Beijing, where the games are scheduled to be held Aug. 8-24. Here in the Bay Area, activists in the "Free Darfur" movement announced they were mounting demonstrations urging China to "extinguish the flames of genocide" in Darfur in San Francisco on April 9, the day the flame passes through the city.

The hosting of the Olympic Games in Beijing is the focus of much pride in China, seen by the people as well as the ruling caste as symbolic of the nation's arrival in modernity. As such, the worldwide protests and political posturing of preening politicians – from Pelosi to Nicolas Sarkozy – are bitterly resented and have been met with increasingly shrill denunciations by the Chinese state-controlled media – a sentiment that probably understates popular resentment of Western criticism in the Chinese "street."

I know we are supposed to believe that the vast majority of the Chinese people are groaning under the weight of Commie oppression and sympathize (albeit silently) with the downtrodden Tibetans, but that is hardly the case. Indeed, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. Every time the West gets  up on its high horse and lectures the Chinese government about its lack of "morality," the tide of anti-Western Chinese nationalism rises higher.

We saw this when the U.S. "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during Clinton's Balkan War of Aggression, and again when that American spy plane went down over Hainan island. In Beijing today, they are worried about the upcoming Olympic celebration, which will provide a platform for a wide variety of groups – including ultra-nationalist Chinese students, whose street antics have augured internal regime change in the past, and could do so again. "They are worried about a larger number of things and they are worried about keeping the lid on," according to Arnold Howitt, a management specialist who oversees crisis-management training programs for Chinese government officials at Harvard University's Kennedy school of Government. The same Associated Press article cites an unnamed "consultant" to the Games, who avers:"'Demonstrations of all kinds are a concern, including anti-American demonstrations,' said the consultant, who works for Beijing's Olympic organizers and asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to talk to the media."

Any indications that Beijing is compromising Chinese pride and honor by appeasing the West are likely to be met by demonstrations that are both anti -American and anti-government – initiated, once again, by Chinese students, who have often been the agents of political transformation. Remember the Red Guards? Mao used them to initiate his own "Cultural Revolution," but was forced to rein them in when they started talking about overthrowing the Chinese state.

The memory of that dark and chaotic era haunts China's contemporary rulers, threatening to spoil their dream of a thoroughly modernized industrial powerhouse that is both the forge and the financial capital of the world economy. The Beijing Olympics represent the entry of China onto the world stage as a first-class power, right up there with its former adversaries: the U.S., Europe, and the former Soviet Union. A Chinese nationalist cannot be faulted for seeing the organized campaign to spoil that debut as a deliberate – and unforgivable – insult.

Viewed from this perspective – the perspective, that is, of the average citizen of China – the very idea of Tibetan independence might easily be seen as a rather obvious attempt to humiliate Beijing and remind it of its "proper" (i.e., subordinate) place in the global scheme of things.

After all, what if Chinese government leaders constantly reminded the world that the American Southwest was stolen from Mexico? Imagine the Chinese and Mexican ambassadors to the U.S. demanding independence, for, say, California  – or better yet, its return to Mexican sovereignty! Shall the Olympics be forever barred from Puerto Rico, which was forcibly incorporated into the U.S. "commonwealth" in the invasion of 1898?

Of course not. Yet the Americans and their international amen corner are daring to criticize China for preserving its own unity and sovereignty. It's a double standard made all the more insufferable by the self-righteous tone of the anti-China chorus, whose meistersingers are mainly concerned with celebrating their own moral purity.

Yes, Tibet was forcibly incorporated into the Communist empire of the Han, but this was just an episode in the long history of Sino-Tibetan relations – for the greater part of which the Tibetans held the upper hand. The Tibetan empire, at its height, extended from northern India to the Mongolian hinterlands and came at the expense of the conquered Chinese and Uighurs.It fell apart due to a ruinous civil war. A key factor in this complex narrative is that Mongol hegemony over China was greatly aided by the Tibetans, whose conversion of the Mongol nobility to Buddhism legitimized Mongol rule. Today, pro-Beijing historians point to this period as proof that Tibet has "always" been a part of China proper, yet the truth is that both were slaves to the Mongols – the Tibetans as their collaborators, the Chinese as their helots. (Underscoring Mongol contempt for their Chinese subjects was an edict forbidding intermarriage between Mongol and Chinese, although no such barrier to Mongol-Tibetan congress was imposed.) With Buddhism as the state religion, Tibetan priests, including the Dalai Lama, became the avatars of Mongol rule.

In short, the popular narrative of the pacifistic Buddhist Tibetans as the good guys and the Han Chinese as the bad-guy aggressors is the stuff of pure myth, pushed by union propagandists, lefty Hollywood do-gooders, and trendy sandal-wearing Western camp followers of the Dalai Lama, who has become a secularized yet "spiritual" substitute for Mother Theresa.

If the Chinese are wrong to hold on to their province of Tibet, then Lincoln was wrong to insist that the South stay in the Union – and we ought to immediately either grant the American Southwest (and California) independence, or else give it all back to the Mexicans.

The same goes for Taiwan – China's rulers are no more likely to give up their claim to that island than Lincoln was inclined to let the Confederacy hold on in, say, Key West, Fla.

China is an adolescent giant: clumsy, unused to exerting its will beyond its borders, and wracked by self-doubt. Emerging into the company of world powers, it is thin-skinned – like any adolescent – and prone to wild mood gyrations. During the 1960s and '70s, the Chinese were in a distinctly bad mood as they wrestled with the ghosts and demons unleashed by Mao. The triumph of the "modernizers" over the ultra-left Maoists in the 1980s signaled a new mood of optimism and inaugur In short, the popular narrative of the pacifistic Buddhist Tibetans as the good guys and the Han Chinese as the bad-guy aggressors is the stuff of pure myth, pushed by union propagandists, lefty Hollywood do-gooders, and trendy  sandal-wearing Western camp followers of the Dalai Lama, who has become a secularized yet "spiritual" substitute for Mother Theresa.

If the Chinese are wrong to hold on to their province of Tibet, then Lincoln was wrong to insist that the South stay in the Union – and we ought to immediately either grant the American Southwest (and California) independence, or else give it all back to the Mexicans.

The same goes for Taiwan – China's rulers are no more likely to give up their claim to that island than Lincoln was inclined to let the Confederacy hold on in, say, Key West, Fla.

China is an adolescent giant: clumsy, unused to exerting its will beyond its borders, and wracked by self-doubt. Emerging into the company of world powers, it is thin-skinned – like any adolescent – and prone to wild mood gyrations. During the 1960s and '70s, the Chinese were in a distinctly bad mood as they wrestled with the ghosts and demons unleashed by Mao. The triumph of the "modernizers" over the ultra-left Maoists in the 1980s signaled a new mood of optimism and inaugurated an era of unrivaled economic growth. The regime sanctified China's journey down the "capitalist road" by citing the reformer Deng Tsiao-ping's most famous "Communist" slogan: "To get rich is glorious!" Ayn Rand meets Chairman Mao (or, rather, Confucius) – and the result is capitalism-on-steroids.

That's why, in spite of the sclerotic Marxoid ideology that still reins in and retards the natural entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese people, China is moving forward by leaps and bounds. That's also why comrade Pelosi and her union boss buddies have launched this odious Sinophobic hate campaign –  because "their" jobs and sense of entitlement are going up in smoke. For decades, the U.S. government has preached the virtues of free enterprise and  urged formerly Communist nations to adopt the free market – and now that the Chinese have taken them up on their offer, Western politicians are attacking them!

The closer China has moved toward our own system – relaxing totalitarian controls over the economy and allowing a far greater degree of ideological diversity than was possible during the Maoist era – the more hostile the U.S. government has become. Nixon went to China at the height of the Cultural Revolution, where he sat next to Madam Mao during a command performance of The Red Detachment of Women. These days, however, as China stakes its claim to a proportionate share of the world market – and Chinese investors fund the U.S. debt – the resentment and growing hostility of the Americans is all too palpable.

Why do politicians of Pelosi's ilk join hands with neoconservatives in a concerted campaign to antagonize China, and even threaten sanctions and possible military action when the occasion gives rise to the opportunity?

To begin with, China's is a success story, and there's nothing that attracts opprobrium like success, unless it's success of the wrong color – in this case, yellow. A crude racist collectivism of a specifically anti-Asian character has long been a tradition of the War Party in this country: see the anti-Japanese Dr. Seuss cartoons from the World War II era for a particularly vivid example. Yes, he was attacking the "Japs," but to Americans, it's all the same Yellow Peril. This kind of sentiment is easily invoked in America, and don't tell me Pelosi and her ideological confreres aren't aware of it – yes, even in "liberal" San Francisco, where anti-Asian sentiment is part of the city's history.

Never mind the first black president, or the first female president – what I'm waiting for is the first chief executive of Asian-American descent. I'm not, however, holding my breath…

Relations with China are cloudy, at best, and those may very well be war clouds gathering on the horizon. The reason is that Sinophobia is a point of  unity between the Left and the Right: the union of the Weekly Standard and the AFL-CIO, and perhaps even the majority of my paleoconservative friends, who quail before the rising Chinese giant and see it as a potential threat on account of its sheer scale – a third of the world's population, and a land-mass that rivals our own. Surely such a stirring titan will knock us out of the way as he takes his place at the center of the world stage.

This reflects a fundamental error on the part of many conservatives, as well as liberals of the more statist persuasion. They fail to understand that there are no conflicts of interest among nations as long as their relations are governed by the market, that is by mutually beneficial trade agreements voluntarily entered into. Ludwig von Mises said it far better than I could ever manage, and I'll leave my readers to Mises' ministrations on this abstruse but important subject.

Suffice to say here that our relations with China on the economic front are a benefit to American consumers – that is, to all of us. They enable us to buy inexpensive quality products and keep the cost of living down. Protectionists who argue that "they" are "destroying American jobs" are simply arguing for higher prices – ordinarily not a very popular cause, and especially not these days.

Free trade is the economic precondition for a peaceful world and the logical corollary of a non-interventionist foreign policy. If goods don't cross borders, then armies soon will – a historical truism noted by many before me, and with good reason. Let it be a warning to all those anti-free trade, antiwar types of the Right as well as the Left – you'll soon be jumping on the War Party's bandwagon when it comes China's turn to play the role of global bogeyman. The way things are going, that day may come soon enough.

Finally, a word or two about this nonsensical demand, raised by the "Save Darfur" crowd, that China must somehow "extinguish the flames of genocide" supposedly carried out by the government of Sudan. What does China have to do with Sudan and its government? Well, you see, the Chinese have oil interests in the region, that is, they are engaged in competition with Western oil companies in opening up new fields – and, well, that just isn't permissible.

The Chinese, we are told, have a moral responsibility to either pressure the Sudanese to let up on Darfur, or else abandon their Sudanese assets. As if Sudan were a Chinese colony, and the Sudanese authorities mere sock-puppets of Beijing.

A more arrogant and self-serving argument would be hard to imagine. Presumably Western interests will fill the vacuum left by this spontaneous display of Chinese moral rectitude – and that alone should tell us everything we need to know about what's behind the "Save Darfur" bloviators and their high-horse moralizing.

If our professional do-gooders of the "progressive" persuasion are so concerned about the fate of Darfur, let them campaign for the granting of mass asylum to the survivors of this latest African catastrophe. Give them sanctuary and green cards, but keep U.S. troops out of Africa, specifically out of Darfur – and get off Beijing's back.

Like Russia, China is awakening from the long Leninist nightmare, albeit less traumatically, and with greater prospects for full recovery. However, If our professional do-gooders of the "progressive" persuasion are so concerned about the fate of Darfur, let them campaign for the granting of mass asylum to the survivors of this latest African catastrophe. Give them sanctuary and green cards, but keep U.S. troops out of Africa, specifically out of Darfur – and get off Beijing's back.

Like Russia, China is awakening from the long Leninist nightmare, albeit less traumatically, and with greater prospects for full recovery. HA more arrogant and self-serving argument would be hard to imagine. Presumably Western interests will fill the vacuum left by this spontaneous display of Chinese moral rectitude – and that alone should tell us everything we need to know about what's behind the "Save Darfur" bloviators and their high-horse moralizing.

If our professional do-gooders of the "progressive" persuasion are so concerned about the fate of Darfur, let them campaign for the granting of mass asylum to the survivors of this latest African catastrophe. Give them sanctuary and green cards, but keep U.S. troops out of Africa, specifically out of Darfur – and get off Beijing's back.

Like Russia, China is awakening from the long Leninist nightmare, albeit less traumatically, and with greater prospects for full recovery. However, less traumatically, and with greater prospects for full recovery. However, it wouldn't take much to push it back into a revival of neo-Maoism – or worse – and a new dark age triggered by an external threat. A resurgence of Chinese ultra-nationalism in response to Western pressure – and the specter of U.S.-sponsored separatism – does not augur well for the cause of world peace. As is so often the case, we are creating the very enemies we fear, empowering and arming them ideologically. We are, in this sense, our own worst enemies.

~ Justin Raimondo

Euphonium wrote:
March 24, 2008 10:58
A side note from my experience and observation, not directly related to Tibet:

Over the tens (if not hundreds) of years of propaganda Chinese people have gone through, they have developed very trained eyes to immediately filter out the propaganda part and get the truth part of every official report (I'm not sure they have developed the same skills against western media though). Propaganda actually doesn't work for Chinese now. Believe it or not, neither does the government expect it to work. It becomes more a ritual, or the "Chinese way to say things" if you will. If the Chinese government suddenly speaks without propaganda, most Chinese people will get confused and wonder what's really going on. Hilarious it may sound, but that is the status quo. Nobody knows better than Chinese that "the truth is always somewhere in between".

Speaking of westerners, or particularly Americans, most people did not have the "privilege" to get so much training about propaganda, and the result is a rather naive attitude towards media reports: either it's complete truth, or it's complete propaganda. In that sense, they don't have any immune system against skilled propaganda, a good portion of which is from the western media (which to Chinese eyes aren't skilled at all). I found it amusing how the two American young people in the TV documentary got so completely converted to pro-China in a 10-day trip to Tibet. You can't convert a Chinese that easily, no matter which direction it goes. On a side note, what was shown in the documentary is basically consistent with what I saw in Tibet when I was there, I make no further generalization though.



Think to Exist wrote:
March 23, 2008 22:10
To support my previous commentary. Here are some historical facts about Tibet, all from westerners. Read yourself.
"In the Dalai Lama's Tibet, torture and mutilation -- including eye gouging,  the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation of arms and legs -- were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, runaway serfs, and other "criminals."

Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion." (19)

Some Western visitors to Old Tibet remarked on the number of amputees to be seen. Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. (20)

Some monasteries had their own private prisons, reports Anna Louise Strong. In 1959, she visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, and breaking off hands.

Theocratic despotism had been the rule for generations. An English visitor to Tibet in 1895, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the Tibetan people were under the "intolerable tyranny of monks" and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama's rule as "an engine of oppression" and "a barrier to all human improvement."

At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O'Connor, observed that "tnd me I thought there was no good in religion." (19)

Some Western visitors to Old Tibet remarked on the number of amputees to be seen. Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. (20)

Some monasteries had their own private prisons, reports Anna Louise Strong. In 1959, she visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, and breaking off hands.

Theocratic despotism had been the rule for generations. An English visitor to Tibet in 1895, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the Tibetan people were under the "intolerable tyranny of monks" and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama's rule as "an engine of oppression" and "a barrier to all human improvement."

At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O'Connor, observed that "the great landowners and the priests . . . exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal," while the people are "oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft the world has ever seen." Tibetan rulers, like those of Europe during the Middle Ages, "forged innumerable weapons of servitude, invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition" among the common people. (23)

In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, "The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them, nor do laymen take part in or even attend the monastery services. The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth." (24)

More on:
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html#019

Recommend (23)Report Abuse

Think to Exist wrote:
March 23, 2008 21:05
Is there anyone here have read the history of Tibet before 1950? Anyone?

I happened to read couples of books written by historians from Britain. The history before 1950 is relevant to answer the question: what will happen if one day, Tibet gets its independence? Will they live happily thereafter(as most Dalia supporters assume)? The world will be better off?

There is a close modern parallel: The Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Is that a kind of regime you guys are looking forward to?
Before 1959, Tibet was under the Lamaist (Buddhist) theocracy. Just like most theocracies in history, it was a very cruel and inhumane form of governing. Most Tibentans were under the slavery by the monks. It was a governing. Most Tibentans were under the slavery by the monks. It was a slavery, agreed by most western historians.

I don't like either side of this debate. But speak of the facts, before 1959, human rights situation was a lot worse. Many offenses were punished by cutting arms and legs or taking out eyes, literally. Read the history yourself. One of the books I read was published by Cambridge University.

I haven'tanyone here have read the history of Tibet before 1950? Anyone?
I happened to read couples of books written by historians from Britain.

The history before 1950 is relevant to answer the question: what will happen if one day, Tibet gets its independence? Will they live happily thereafter (as most Dalia supporters assume)? The world will be better off?

There is a close modern parallel: The Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Is that a kind of regime you guys are looking forward to?

Before 1959, Tibet was under the Lamaist (Buddhist) theocracy. Just like most theocracies in history, it was a very cruel and inhumane form of governing. Most Tibentans were under the slavery by the monks. It was a I haven't heard about Dalai Lama denounced the Lamaist (Buddhist) theocracy. I hope he has the ability to deliver a modern democracy.

I don't like either side but couldn't help correcting some misconceptions.

Read history. Please.