China is a wicked country, Tony, but please don't bomb it. Someone could get hurt
Singapore
Albert Cheng is Hong Kong's most popular radio chatshow host. Or, at least, he was. Last week he was sacked by his employers, Commercial Radio, for what they insisted were 'sound commercial reasons'. This is a little mystifying, because Mr Cheng's show — Teacup in a Storm — has raked in millions of advertising dollars every year since it began in 1995 and Mr Cheng himself is seen as something of a hero in Hong Kong. So perhaps 'commercial reasons' don't actually come into it at all; perhaps there is some other reason for his sacking.
Maybe it all has something to do with his support for universal suffrage. and his frequent, if guarded, criticisms of the communist government in Beijing. Beijing has never been much sold on the idea of universal suffrage and, to judge by the events of the past couple of weeks, is even less sold on the idea of freedom of speech. Both notions rub against the grain a little. (Beijing recently ruled out universal suffrage in Hong Kong for 2007-08, by the way.) Cheng himself says he has received grave threats from what can only have been official sources, and while the public in Hong Kong has reacted with fury to his dismissal there has been praise for Commercial Radio's decision from at least one authoritative source — the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua. Things begin to look a little clearer now, don't they?
Also, a couple of weeks ago, the newsrooms of seven Hong Kong newspapers were ransacked by the Chinese government. Or, at least, by an organisation calling itself the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Please append, in parentheses, a 'sic' after every word in that dubious quango's title. Needless to say, the people of Hong Kong believe the raids were a 'threat to media freedom' and have been disinclined to believe the strange and incoherent official explanations.
Meanwhile, China continues to stamp around the world stage with its customary authoritarianism, hypocrisy and unrestrained and unapologetic bullying. The tiny city state of Singapore was recently subjected to a tirade of abuse and unguarded threats for having dared to send its foreign minister to Taiwan. By committing such a sin, Beijing argued. Singapore was putting
its own future in jeopardy. As for Taiwan itself, they are worrying themselves, not unreasonably, over proposed legislation in Beijing that would give a mandate for the enforced reunification of Taiwan with the mainland. Taiwan's president, Chen Shuibian, said, 'The reunification law is a bid to obtain a basis to attack Taiwan. I am very concerned. China is undertaking a legal battle. If Taiwan does not follow it will undertake a military battle.' The proposed legislation would bind Chinese leaders to order the People's Liberation Army (at least two `sics' in there, please) to attack Taiwan if the island formally declared independence.
If we are scouting around for rogue states to intimidate, if we are looking for regimes long overdue for a change, we could do worse than turn our attention to Beijing. Yes, I am aware that there are 2.5 million soldiers ready and waiting in the PLA and that, crucially, there are lucrative contracts to be lost in booming Shanghai and Shenzhen — but we are guided by principle, are we not? We are guided by a respect for human rights and a belief in the uplifting and rejuvenating effects of decentralised democracy, no? Is China not about the last country in the world to give diplomatic succour to those howling mad bastards in North Korea, with their starvation, political prisoners and cheap nukes pointed squarely at Seoul? And quite apart from bullying Taiwan and anybody who dares to speak to Taiwan, is it not also bullying the Indian government over spurious and almost laughable territorial claims? And what about human rights? Will we ever find Out what happened to those Tiananmen Square protesters? For example, that brave chap who stood in front of the PLA tank, suffused with optimism and hope that the gentle revolutions in communist Eastern Europe might be somehow transposed to his homeland? What happened to him, do you reckon? As we now know, the gentle revolutions of Eastern Europe were not transposed to mainland China: instead, the government continued with what has been called the cretinisation of the most intelligent people on earth. They are now sufficiently cretinised not to be trusted with even the tiniest piece of adverse news about their country. Beijing recently censored the publication of a semi-official Olympic Games record book — a dry, dusty compilation of results from past games — because it noted that a Chinese volleyball player had once failed a drugs test. The Chinese government, in a letter to the publishers, accepted that the book was factually correct about the drugs test, but opined that it was a piece of information which the Chinese people 'do not need to know'.
I suppose we should think long and hard before bombing China; after all, they possess rather more weapons of mass destruction than we do. And there are plenty of other countries vying for the yellow jersey in the World Wickedness championships. Sudan, for a start, obviously. Then there's Myanmar, a foul state to which China is currently snuggling up, and Uzbekistan — where they boil people alive, according to our ambassador — and the grizzled old madman of Harare with his machete-wielding thugs, and the consummately vicious and inefficient police state of North Korea . . hell, one could go on and on.
In a recent telephone conversation, China's President Hu Jintao warned George W. Bush not to sell any more arms to Taiwan. And with a display of that fortitude and resolve which we might expect of an American president, George confirmed that the US would never — never — recognise Taiwan as an independent state. 'Good,' said Hu.
The more one thinks about the reasons for which the US and Britain invaded Iraq, the more uncomfortable one becomes. Dark thoughts begin to congregate. Bearing in mind the countries we will not attack and to which we will scarcely raise our voices, you end up wondering if we thumped Iraq not because they had weapons of mass destruction and were a potent threat to the West, but because they didn't have weapons of mass destruction and were no threat whatsoever. But I suppose this is cynical nonsense.
Previous page
