By Don Hank
Chinese leader Wen Jiaobao went to the EU-China summit a few days ago and told the EU he won’t revalue the renminbi upward, and that they should stop “pressurising” China to do so. He said the problem with the euro is the fluctuation of the dollar. That would put the ball in Obama’s court.
To drive home Wen’s point that China won’t take orders, the Chinese leadership recently blanked out all cyber searches in China pertaining to the Nobel prize, which went to a jailed Chinese dissident. And it wasn’t just mention of the dissident that they blanked out. It was the search term “Nobel.” To make sure people paid attention, they threatened sanctions against Norway for its role in the decision, even though the Norwegian government has no known hand in the decision to award the prize.
So why so many slaps in Western faces all at once? If you read between the lines, there really was one main target face, and that was Barack Obama’s.
You may recall that at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Obama had to track down his Chinese counterpart, who was deliberately snubbing him. This, coupled with China’s past warning regarding the adverse effects of Obama’s stimulus spending, and now this Chinese stance toward Brussels and Norway, should tell you something.
The Chinese leadership is not just rejecting the West’s praise for one of its dissidents. Much more significantly than that, it is showing its contempt for the arrogant group that granted the unknown Marxist upstart Barack Obama a Nobel Prize but was at a loss to explain why it had done so. Coincidence or not, this indirect but transparent sullying of Obama comes right around election time when Americans are looking to a dazed Obama (who has lost a significant amount of both popularity and cabinet members) for a sign that he can lead.
As I pointed out here, the Chinese leaders have moved safely beyond Marxism, having (barely) survived the murderous ravages of Marxist true-believer Mao. The fact that Obama is enamored of Maoist schemes is almost certainly not lost on them. Yes, technically, they are communists, and Mao is still celebrated, mostly for the sake of his useful idiot followers, but that’s as far as it goes.
This anti-Mao sentiment in the leadership is no secret. As soon as Mao died, Deng Xioaping’s government reversed Mao’s virulent anti-capitalist stance and propagated the slogan “to get rich is glorious.” It even tolerated films critical of Mao’s leadership. (Probably the most powerful and best-made of these is “To Live,” which you can rent from Blockbuster or buy, for example, from Amazon).
The Chinese leadership knows that a man holding the office of President of the United States has no business honoring their disgraced past leader. On a visceral level, I believe they cannot help but resent Obama for admiring the man who almost destroyed their country, and their actions so far have not dissuaded me of this conviction. To the contrary, the Chinese leaders are showing for Obama the same contempt he showed for the Israeli Prime Minister. Politics is, after all, personal, despite the lofty pronouncements of its practitioners. But on a purely pragmatic level, they must be anxious to have Obama replaced by a president less intent on weakening America’s economy through astronomical borrowing and spending – a president who will strengthen their most important trading partner (what can they sell to a poor country?).
The Chinese contempt of Obama is ignored by the power elite in the West because it is not compatible with their diplomatic philosophy, and they are clearly in denial.
Western elites have taught for many years that government should always speak easy and carry no stick but Chamberlain-like appeasement and dhimmitude.
Hence, the US and the EU have, in recent years, trodden easy with China, careful never to rile her leadership.
Obama, while pretty much sticking to this elitist playbook, has departed from it in his China encounters, flush with a false sense of power throughout the West. For example, in February 2010 he blustered that he would get much tougher with China. After all, he is the most powerful man in the world, right? He was cheered like a conqueror in Europe during his campaign. He commanded the attention of the entire Western ruling class, even winning a Nobel without lifting a finger. Can’t the Chinese also plainly see that Obama was a god?
Just as liberal leftists truly believe in Keynesian economics (what Reagan called “voodoo economics” – namely, the doctrine that government can spend itself out of an economic crisis), they just as devoutly believe that anything can be accomplished at the bargaining table that was once won on the battle field, particularly when one is surrounded by a large alliance when facing down a foe.
Thus the reigning principle in Western statesmanship is “strength in numbers” – i.e., the notion that supranational groups like the UN and the EU combine enough synergism and population volume that no single country can resist their efforts.
What they have forgotten is the overriding principle that, all things being equal, there is more power in patriotism, national pride and admiration for a wise and skillful nationalist leader than in a soulless, cultureless union of dissimilar states held together at the top by power lust and self-interest but dangling loose at the bottom, particularly when the leaders of these allied states have intentionally waged a years-long culture war against their own increasingly resentful people.
There comes a point at which people have been so indoctrinated with anti-patriotic propaganda that they ask themselves: Who cares if my side wins?
That point is now in Europe and soon in America.
Napoleon demonstrated this principle at Austerlitz when, with 70,000 men, he defeated the 90,000 man strong combined forces of 2 Empires, Russia and Austria – and then turned around and defeated the Prussians just to show who was boss.
It will always be this way. Some nations rule, others lose, and when national pride and the will to triumph meet an alliance of forces dissimilar in culture, tongues, and religions, and a vanishing sense of what they stand for, the multicultural alliance had better tread carefully.
There may be strength in numbers, but, as China is teaching us, there is only weakness in diversity.