Socialist In Name Only

One of the biggest stories (well, one of the most important ones) during the last week of last year was the influence of China on the Global Climate Change Summit that took place in Copenhagen Denmark. The Summit itself was actually supposed to be that biggest story of the year. It's implications extended well beyond national borders to encompass the globe, because whatever was decided would of course have a global impact. And, if nothing was decided, that too would have a pronounced impact, even if you don't believe there is anything to Global Climate Change-or if you do but consider mankind's contribution to the phenomenon minimal to non-existent.

However, the biggest story of the year turned out to be China, and how it pretty much derailed the Summit.

This should have come as no big surprise to anybody. After all, it is by no means an exaggeration to suggest that China all but invented the concept of national sovereignty. Even back in the days of Mao, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, they made terrible communists, even by communist standards.

Now things have changed in a way that would have been unfathomable two decades ago. If conservative Democrats are DINOs and moderate Republicans are RINOs, I guess you could legitimately view the bureaucrats of the Chinese Communist Party as SINOs-Socialists In Name Only. Sure, they still have an oppressive, totalitarian regime held in place by one party rule, with next to nothing in the way of civil liberties and nothing approaching United States standards of constitutional protections.

Yet, they have a healthy and thriving capitalist economy, albeit this is tentative-one might say it is barely past the toddler stage. Will it grow and propser over time? If it does, will this lead to greater political and social freedoms? It's hard to say. If it does, it will probably be very gradual.

I seriously doubt we will see significant advances in our lifetimes, certainly not a multi-party system. But seeing as how much of a mess the West, including the US, has made of two-party and multi-party democracy, is that really such a bad thing?

Can a one party system over time evolve into a no-party system, where officials are appointed based on merit, possibly in time subject to the will of the voters? In point of fact, while it seems unlikely, China has executed public officials for corruption. So is China really politically communist, and if so, can it really evolve beyond that stage, seeing as how it was never a bona fide communist nation to begin with, but more of a feudal style, agrarian based dictatorship?

The real Great Leap Forward, the real Cultural Revolution, came about when China adopted capitalist economic reforms. It has in fact grown by leaps and bounds, and continues to grow today. Still, it has several albatrosses around it's neck. It has the crazy uncle nobody quite knows what to do with in North Korea. It has the unruly stepson in the form of Myanmar. Then there is Tibet. And of course Taiwan. China takes diplomatic heat for it's influence in these areas, and rightly so, especially it's attitude toward Sudan.

But amazingly, while it is easy to criticize them for dealing with Khartoum during the on-going human rights atrocities that government engages in in Darfur, their approach is actually-libertarian.

The difference seems to be, China tolerates the human rights abuses due to it's desire for Sudanese oil. The US does it in return for cooperation from Sudan in the Global War On Terror. The Chinese just sit back and watch it all happen, while the US moans and cries about it-and sits back and watches it all happen.

The Chinese excuse is that Sudan is, of course, a sovereign nation and should run their own internal affairs. So extreme is the situation in Darfur that this would be an incredible pronouncement from any nation but the one that built the Great Wall. China will never compromise it's national sovereignty, so any attempt to curb their economic growth will certainly be lost on them.

Hard to blame them. They look at the recent Global Climate Change e-mail fiasco out of England and no doubt they wonder, just who does the West think it's fooling. For all of the rhetoric, China sees the proposals put forth at the Copenhagen Summit as chiefly benefiting the European Union-and rightly so, when you consider the economic impact of the proposals, which would put Europe on firmer ground by leveling the playing field against all it's economic competitors, including China, in addition to India and the US.

What the European Union never took into consideration was, China was at one time a part of a European Empire. They have no desire to go that route again, and the people running the country don't intend for that to ever happen, certainly not under their watch.

I'm sure the world will somehow survive. I know China will in one form or another, no matter what steps they have to take to insure their survival. They are old masters at that game.