DEBKA goes great with milk, but you can also enjoy it over a beer.
This group is actually offering insight into all political and social events in the world. I guess they are either extremely well connected, or really good at projecting what is going on.
Their info on Russia is especially detailed, so is their account of the Pollard case.
Interesting, if nothing else.
Couple additional points.
If you were not aware, the Uigher Muslims that currently make up about 50% of Xinjiang Province’s population, have been in a state of rebellion, uneasy peace, independance, etc for the past several hundred years. The People’s Liberation Army is drawn primarily from the 94% majority Han Chinese. Chinese minorities such as the Uigher, Tibetans, Mongolians are generally in the PLA as translators. As a rule, the non-Han Chinese in the PLA are not in seperate units, army or command, but scattered throughout the PLA.
I am highly skeptical that there are trained Uigher combat units complete with NCO’s and officers in any kind of numbers approaching those thrown out in this thread. They simply do not exist.
I’ve been a Sinophile for 20 years, lived in Asia for 15 years and never heard of DEBKA before as a provider of China analysis (much less good China analysis), and I hadn’t heard that the Israeli’s had much in the way of China expertise. Doesn’t mean that these guys are not credible but I personally have never heard of them. Maybe these debka has good ties with the former Soviet Union, but last time I checked the Chinese jewish population was non-existant.
US and Russia signing a pact. So what? Look at the level of trade and investment between China and the US versus Russia the the US. End of story.
This has not shown up in the Hong Kong press nor AFAIK in any reputable news wire. All in all, it might sound like a plausible theory if one doesn’t know a thing about China, but it is pretty ludicrous to me.
{b]Beagle**
I don’t know DEBKA at all. What I do know is that, living in a Special Administrative Region of China, I keep my fingers on the pulse of what is happening here (mostly out of self-interest). I agree entirely with what China Guy says. This entire issue sounds bizarre, paranoid, ignorant and without foundation.
China is trying to get into the WTO club, hold an Olympics, and get America to butt out of Taiwan. They’re not going to support a country which they’ve never supported before with insignificant military contribution. Even with a US spyplane brought down within its borders, you didn’t see China raising as much fuss as it could have (like executing or imprisoning the crew).
Even if it was minded to, China can think of dozens of better ways to annoy the US than send a pitiful contigent of Muslim troops to Afghanistan to support a regime which supports the independence of Chinese Muslims (ie. the disintegration of the Chinese homeland). China opposes fundamentalist Islam, because it threatens its sovereign integrity.
The point is, right now China isn’t out to provoke the US, secretly or otherwise: it is a sophisticated government with pressing trade issues and sovereignty issues in which it would like the co-operation of the US. You’re not dealing with fundamentalist nutcases in the backwaters of central Asia here: its a totalitarian regime with the world’s largest population, with influence over most of south east Asia.
The most “anti-Afghan strike” statement I’ve seen from China so far is that China has asked the US not to let it spread to Iraq. Otherwise, China seems to recognise that because of its stand on the Uighars, its is just as much a target for fundamentalist terrorism as anyone else. It has acted to stop even Pakistanis from travelling to China from Hong Kong, because it is worried about terrorist strikes in China. This is not the act of a regime which doesn’t take the threat of the Taleban seriously.
Finally, CNN’s coverage is pretty comprehensive, and it has a commercial reputation to uphold in respect of accuracy, so I tend to trust it on public issues such as this. And even if I didn’t, the fact that the information came from CNN doesn’t invalidate the fact that its China’s public position, and any other “secret” or “deniable” position is nonsensical.
Ya, and one more thing, Bush is coming here to Shanghai IIRC 20 and 21 October. Do you think he would come if there were satellite pix of the Chinese inflitrating troops into Afganistan?
The theory is possible but it sure ain’t plausible.
What is Debka? It seems to be the name of an Israeli folk dance and song. I glanced over a few of their articles. Many seem to be deliberately inflammatory. Most of their information seems to come from unspecified sources. A few quotes:
*The question exercising most military experts consulted by DEBKAfile is:
DEBKAfile’s military experts presume that…
DEBKAfile’s experts on terror advise…
DEBKAfile’s Palestinian sources report that…*
Don’t know who the hell they are, but my interpretation is that they are peddling bullsh*t (with an agenda) mixed in with some legitimate headlines.
Can anyone tell us more about the people behind the site?
What is Debka? It seems to be the name of an Israeli folk dance and song. I glanced over a few of their articles. Many seem to be deliberately inflammatory. Most of their information seems to come from unspecified sources. A few quotes:
*The question exercising most military experts consulted by DEBKAfile is:
DEBKAfile’s military experts presume that…
DEBKAfile’s experts on terror advise…
DEBKAfile’s Palestinian sources report that…*
Don’t know who the hell they are, but my interpretation is that they are peddling bullsh*t (with an agenda) mixed in with some legitimate headlines.
Can anyone tell us more about the people behind the site?
Sorry about the multipe posts, but Explorer told me there had been a connection failure, so I tried again.
Since this is a factual question, being argued through analysis of possible motivations, we will simply have to wait. The Chinese entered Korea, among other places. Each time they risked “hurting relations” with the U.S. and world community. Just like then, there are those who simply refuse to believe China would ignore our wishes and do what they want. And, as per usual, those people will turn out to be wrong. Like some previous conflicts with the Soviets (in Vietnam and Korea for example) it may be years before the truth about their physical involvement comes out.
Those of you who think the Chinese view things “rationally” (the way we do in the West) need to read the Foreign Affairs Magazine (Jan/Feb 2001) report on “The Tiananemen Papers,” documenting the discussions which led to the deployment of troops.
This argument carried the day and the “moderate” Zhao Ziyang was discredited. Therefore, China is more hardline today than it was then. I think DEBKAs arguments sounded more like the Politburo Standing Committee I have read about, than some idealized China–hoping to please the world community–you all seem to believe in.
Even if China does have troops in Afghanistan it is questionable whether the world community will do anything if they are found out anyway. What happened when they rolled tanks in Tiananmen or squashed Tibet? Ah, that would be nothing of substance. Unless you can show the world community would do more than raise and eyebrow, you all are just wishing. Moreover, as I said, they will claim the troops are there voluntarily. To avoid “provoking” China we will accept this and move along, as we always do. One billion consumers of our products are much more important than any moral or foreign policy considerations.
I would love to see one small piece of evidence now, or ever, to back this assertion up. I will stick with what they say and do, rather than some fantastical dream, thanks.
Check again. One of the “lost tribes” supposedly ended up there. If you would like I can post dozens of other sources to back that one up.
Beagle, I seriously don’t even know where to start.
As for the Korean War, China warned the US (unfortunately via India) that they considered Northern Korea to be in their sphere of influence. Historically, China defended any threat from that quarter. During the Korean war, the Chinese carried out their warning and fought the UN fornces to a standstill.
The US knew at the time of both the Korean War and Viet Nam that the ChiCom were involved.
The Tiananmen papers are likely to be fiction.
If you didn’t notice, Deng Xiaoping is long dead. China of today is much more moderate than it was in 1989. Personal rights are much greater than it was in 1989. Not saying this is paradise on earth, but the economy has more than doubled since then. I can’t even start to rebut the statement that China is more conservative because it is so far out in left field that there is nothing to debate. Have you heard of APEC, WTO, the Fortune meeting, Pres Clinton’s trip to China, Pres Bush’s scheduled trip in about 10 days, the Olympics, increased average life expectancy, private enterprise as a % of the economy, Chinese stock markets, the number of private automobiles being built, etc.?
I haven’t seen anyone quote Chairman Mao since the Black Panthers.
By the way, the Chinese leadership do think rationally. Maybe a lot of people in the West don’t understand the rationale but they do follow a rational thought process.
Thanks for your link to the Qiang. This is more IMHO, but I’ve actually visited the Qiang several times and lived with them back when I was a guidebook writer. The link is a complete crock. The Qiang are a proto-Tibetan group. They eat pork as well, and from my personal studies while living with them, they do not believe in a single all-powerful god. They are animists.
Just because something is on the internet doesn’t make it true.
Ill-conceived speculation, with a dash of xenophobia. The Korean War was 50 years ago, at the beginning of the Cold War. By your logic, the US is still conducting Communist witchhunts. After all, you can’t tell me the spirit of Senator Joe doesn’t still hang over Washington, even after all of this time. Better dead than red, eh?
Almost 15 years ago. Again, by your logic, the US is still into Reaganomics and wants a missile defence shield (oops, some things don’t change after all).
You do know Deng’s no longer in power, right?
The attitude about not caring for world opinion sounds like Bush and the Kyoto Protocol. I’m not about to go into the merits of the Kyoto Protocol: my point is that the US has been just as uncaring for world opinion as China has on several occasions.
Please refer me to the quote where I said that China is trying to please the world community. If China wanted to please the Europeans, it could, for example, stop executing its prisoners in clear violation of human rights. But, like the US, they view human rights issues to be an internal affair. If China wanted to please half a dozen South East Asian countries, it could give up or resolve its sovereignty disputes. I see no policy of Chinese appeasement to world opinion.
China appears to be trying to keep an even keel with the US. It joins the WTO on 10 December. Why annoy the US and get sanctions when they are about to have the US market fall into their laps? Are you really so American-centric to think that China gets nothing out of the WTO?
If they did have troops in Afghanistan, then I think they’d be hit with economic sanctions, and denied WTO memebership.
I only have to look in my morning edition of the South China Morning Post. China is looking for international support in its fight against “terrorist” separatists in east China (the Muslim Uighars).
But, I’ll go further: from CNN’s site
Taiwan’s sovereignty is an important issue to China. If they support the US on Afghanistan, they can expect a softening attitude from the US towards Taiwan.
But I forget - you don’t trust CNN. So I suggest you read the article entitled “Friends again - for now” about Sino-US relations post 11 Sept., in the current edition of the Economist, dated 13 October 2001. If you want any other “small pieces of evidence” to support “my fantastical dream”, just let me know. Fighting ignorance, after all, is what this board is all about.
To be crystal clear, so you don’t misinterpret anything I’ve said (again), I’m not suggesting China is about to buddy up and start smooching Bush’s buttcrack. But I reject your unsubstantiable belief that China would risk so much for some half-arsed military adventurism which offers just no reward.
[I see in my preview that China Guy has also answered some of these issues, and my apologies for repeating anything he has already said]
Um. Sorry, but there’s no evidence on that link that the people of the Chiang-Min are the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. All it is, is the opinion of the website.
What the website is, I have no clue. Somebody go look at this and tell me if it’s a Jewish messiah cult, because that’s what it sounds like.
http://moshiach.com/dummies/
http://moshiach.com/index.html
Anyway, here’s Cecil on the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and what really happened to them (hint: they did not end up in China).
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtentribes.html
And the Moshiach’s “China theory” has some pretty stiff competition from the American Indians, who are generally considered the leading contenders for the position of “the Real Found Ten Lost Tribes of Israel”.
According to this website, there are fewer than 100 Jews in China. They cite the World Jewish Congress for that figure.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html
You know, now that I think about it, it seems that the Taliban’s continued existence would be in China’s best interest. After all, how many other governments are there that make China look good, as far as human rights go?
Another Hong Kong resident checking in: Beagle, listen to what China Guy and Dave S. are trying to explain. And please stop putting so much stock in rubbish like DEBKA. In several years of being in the mass communications business, I have come across hundreds of dubious efforts like DEBKA. There is really nothing special about them. Their sense of self-importance is amusing, their bias is funny, and their brand of sensational alarmism reminds me of German language tabloids: nicely packaged but still with a high crap content.
I have to say I dislike CNN for their selection of coverage and their generally poor presenters, but what they do cover tends to be fairly accurate as far as general media go. If you get it where you live, fire up BBC World or go to their web site a http://www.bbc.co.uk. It’s much better International coverage.
I read the whole column, he takes no position on this issue. He takes a moderate position. This is a controversial issue, so I said supposedly.
This hardly disputes what the website claims. In fact it supports it. Just because a group is “assimilated” does not mean there are no Jews.
Your claim the first website presents “no evidence” makes me think you did not read it. If you follow the Silk Road, as some of the “Chinese Jews” supposedly did, guess where you would end up?
China, where some of the “lost tribes” may have settled. Or, China perhaps, where “Jewish traders” may have settled. But it could be China via the Silk Road.
Dave, if you have no direct evidence relating to troop concentrations, talk about McCarthy. They are communists, correct? Or, are you denying that? I guess your argument, if there is one, is that they separate economic policy from foreign policy. I already know that.
How do they lose WTO by putting deniable troops in Afghanistan? Sphere-of-influence like China Guy says justifies the action. Or, deniability helps conceal it. Either works. They would probably argue both in the alternative.
I “think” they would not.
You are far more anti-American (sinocentric?) than I am anti-communist or anti-Chinese. You reject the Korean War analysis because it is true, I assume. Your only argument is that it was a while ago. Well, the lessons of history are found in the past.
You do know NOBODY ratified Kyoto, right?
Thanks for the heads up on Deng. You are so busy being smug I guess you did not notice the argument. The hardliners won back then, and that mode of thought carries the day until now (in foreign policy, and non-economic personal freedoms). I never claimed Deng was the leader today. You do know hardliners are still in power, right?
As for your generic governmental quotes, same old, same old. I really thought they would admit to having troops in Afghanistan in the newspaper.
Your source. Sounds like a veiled threat to me. The targeting demands are particluarly telling. I guess you think diplomats speak literally. As for your Taiwan argument. They are hardly “supporting us in Afghanistan.” In addition to the targeting demands, they also limit the “spill over.” Did you miss that little gem? That is a direct challenge to President Bush who already said the War on Terrorism is not limited to Afghanistan. Nor do I see our position softening on Taiwan while Bush is president. I doubt the Chinese have any illusions either. Rememberthis? He is the first U.S. president to not mince words about our defense commitment to Taiwan (was that smart?, another day).
China Guy I disagree with some of what you said. Of course there are differences, I don’t find “pork” to be dispositive. Assimilation has taken place. I said supposedly. See above links. You said Chinese population is “non-existant”(sic). I disagree. If you don’t like any of my new sources (I promised), consult Ducks. His says less than 100. Still existent. Given China’s repression of religion, people are not lining up to declare their faith.
You do see how that sphere-of-influence argument you raise regarding Korea undercuts everything you are claiming on this thread, don’t you?
You are making a similar argument to Dave. I disagree that economic policy necessarily determines the nature and quality of foreign policy. Especially given the provocative flights the Chinese pilots undertook repeatedly with U.S. spy planes over international waters. Moreover, the Taiwan Straits have been heating up, not cooling off. Sorry, more cars simply does not compute on this issue. Reverse it. Does capitalism in the U.S. mean we necessarily are going to be soft on foreign policy? Mmm?
You assert a published source is fiction. OK.
Sorry if you don’t like the Mao quote. Where is the argument. The past is off limits, I guess. This is a convenient argument. People reject history only when it does not support their argument.
Cite please. Good night.
Beagle, you are ALL over the place. If you would bring some discipline to your arguments, perhaps we could discuss them. But so far I am not even sure where to start.
A number of your arguments appear to be built on supposition, assumption, and wishful thinking. The whole discussion about the lost tribes of Israel, for example, is so irrelevant as far as China is concerned, and so completely unsubstantiated, that it is amazing you bring that out as a possible factor in the rather incredible assertion that China is siding with the Taliban.
Let’s see some actual evidence please, and from a reliable source, not unsubstantiated nonsense like DEBKA. And you may want to update your world view as far as China is concerned; China may be communist (and therefore evil in your eyes) but there’s a big difference between the carefully evolving communism of China and the hideous mess of a country like North Korea.
Your assertion that China is more hardline now than in Deng Xiaoping’s days is utter nonsense and diametrically opposed to all the evidence. Have you ever even been to China? the entire country is changing at a dramatic pace, and has been for years. Get out of the Cold War mentality, it’s unhealthy.
Beagle, whether the Qiang are or are not a lost tribe of Israel is completely beside the point. Regardless, genetic and linguistic mapping have been done to show that the Qiang are a Tibetan offshoot. Some half-assed website claims there are some similarities that show it’s possible the Qiang are Jewish. Well, they are animist pork eaters who come from Tibetan stock. Beyond that, it’s not worth my time to debunk something that is obviously fiction. And that would be another thread.
When I said last time I checked there were no Jews in China. I didn’t mean that literally. Sorry, you caught me there. I personally know several, but they are all foreign nationals. I believe that Duck’s quote also refers solely to foreign nationals. The Chinese government does not recognize any of it’s 69 minorities as being Jewish. The Qiang are recognized as a minority group. Remember there is 1.3 billion people so even if there are 100 Chinese Jews, that would be a really tiny percentage of the population.
No actually I don’t. Go back and read the history books about the Korean war. Heck do a google search and there are a lot of links on the Chinese involvement that document what I mentioned earlier.
The 1950’s and 2001 is completely different. The Cold War is over, China is more capitalist that socialist these days. Please read up on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to understand a little bit about China’s sphere of influence around Afganistan.
You really need to get some facts together. Relations vis-a-vis Taiwan have been improving. They hit recent a low point in 1997 when China conducted live fire exercises with missles off the coast. What you’re seeing now is rhetoric. The actions speak much louder than words. Look at how Taiwan foreign direct investment in China has been increasing, for example.
Economic policy is usually the single overriding factor that determines foreign policy. Look at the invasion of Kuwait for a recent example.
No need to get into the spy plane stuff. That’s been a dead horse who’s been flogged repeatedly. You can search for several threads that I contributed to at the time.
I said that the Tiananmen Papers are likely to be fiction. And yep, I’ll stand by that one. The Chinese government certainly say it’s fiction, I haven’t seen it widely accepted in the academic world. The papers may have some grains of truth, but it is highly unlikely that it contains the poliburo level access that it purports. It’s probably better than the Secret Life of Chairman Mao, but not by much.
[QUOTE]
Sorry if you don’t like the Mao quote. Where is the argument. The past is off limits, I guess. This is a convenient argument. People reject history only when it does not support their argument. {/QUOTE]
The Mao quote was irrelevant as would be a Franklin Roosevelt quote.
Who’s rejecting history. What I and several others on this thread are trying to tell you, the China of 2001 has progressed immensely from the China of 1989. They are almost 2 different worlds, and you sound like you’re basing all of your opinions on either the cold war or Tiananmen, and not on today. .
Beagle, I’ll make you a deal, if you get some reputable facts on your side, it would be my pleasure to continue debating.
Beagle - I’m sorry for being churlish and getting your back up, but your facts just seem like wild speculation, backed by stuff you know about China from history books and the odd academic article or two. That was my point about McCarthy in the 50s - your evidence of the political atmosphere in Beijing seems out of date. It is totalitarian, but there are too many people with fortunes riding on the WTO entry. There are too many mainland millionaires nowadays with political influence.
Setting aside the issue of risk to the Chinese economy, sending a bunch of soldiers, without air support, to Afghanistan, of all places (it is hardly an important place in China foreign policy), to get bombed by US missiles…why bother? A secret, and so necessarily small contigent of Chinese troops won’t turn the tide against bunker-busters, helicopter gunships, and stealth bombers.
I’m not particularly pro-Chinese nor anti-American (although I concede I tried to barb you with some home truths about the US), but I just call it like I see it. And from what I see, you’re mounting an argument with the most flimsy of support, motivated by an over-riding perception that the enemies of the US must support each other because they all have foreign policy differences with the US. This is just not so. Qaddafi in the early 90s called for an Islamic-China alliance against American interests. China has ignored this, and at least one academic thinks this is because of China’s traditonal perception of itself as not wanting to rely upon anyone else.
And I’m not sure what to make of your response to my comments at all, other than to say that I regret stirring you up, because now, with respect, you’re not making any sense. Please put your argument again and I promise I will answer you without making fun of you. I’d particularly like to hear why you think China’s WTO entry would not be jeopardised by support of Afghanistan in this war.
One small point which I will make in response to your implied assertion that you can’t believe what you read in newspapers is that if China had sent an expeditionary force of any nature to Afghanistan, the US government would know about it, and we’d be almost certainly reading it in the mainstream news. America and China would be in furious discussions right now, and we’d know as much as we knew about the Cuban missile crisis.
Y’know, to be fair, you might be right to the extent that some Uighar militia have gone to Afghanistan of their own accord to help out. But otherwise…?
[PS Abe - where are you? Right now I’m sitting in Alexandra House in Central.]
Dave, you’re only a few hundred metres away from me then, I am near the market in Sheung Wan!