Stalinist China propaganda from a surprising source

---

See the Lev Navrozov Archive By Lev Navrozov SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.

Established in Washington, D.C., in 1982, the Jamestown Foundation thus defines its mission:

ÒThe Jamestown Foundation's mission is to inform and educate policy makers and the broad policy community about events and trends in those societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United States and which frequently restrict access to such information.Ó

The Foundation has e-mailed to me the Sept. 2 issue of its ÒChina Brief,Ó a Òjournal of news and analysisÓ re China.

Of the 3 articles in the issue I have found only one of interest to me, judging by its title, ÒNew National Strategy Provides Insight into China's Rise.Ó

The word ÒriseÓ is as vague, propagandistic, and alien to English as the Soviet Russian word Òpodyom,Ó which Mao took from his teacher Stalin and had translated into Chinese as Òrise.Ó The two authors of the ÒChina Brief article do not use even once the word ÒdictatorshipÓ in application to China. for in post-1949 China the form of government is, you see, not dictatorship, but Òtrue democracy,Ó as it was in Stalin's Russia.

A Chinese reader of my Internet column explained to me that in contrast to Soviet Russia the leadership in China is collective.

Well, in Soviet Russia, when Lenin became incapacitated by his illness and then died, the dictatorship was ÒcollectiveÓ Ñ it was an oligarchy, and Stalin became a sole Mao-like dictatorship only 10 or 15 years later. When Stalin died, an oligarchy again ensued. And so on up to 1991, when the dictatorship fell Ñ if only for a while.

Avoiding such Òbad wordsÓ as Òdictatorship,Ó or even Òoligarchy,Ó the article announces:

ÒIn late July, the Politburo standing committee met for a study session to consider ways to build a 'prosperous nation and powerful military. . . .'Ó

Then, in parentheses, follows the Chinese version of Òprosperous nation and powerful military.Ó It is clear what for. Exactly the same could be said by Stalin in Russian (or in his native Georgian). But according to the ritual of American university humanity scholarship, it is necessary to drop Chinese words in ÒChinese studiesÓ as it was necessary to drop Russian words in ÒSovietologicalÓ scholarship, no matter how absurd, or propagandistic, or shallow.

The question that the article answers: What is a more Òpowerful militaryÓ for? Stalin answered Òfor peaceÓ! And this is how the article answers the question:

ÒWhile the idea that carrying a big stick gives a nation the ability to negotiate peace on their own terms is not novel [no, it was proclaimed by ancient empires, to say nothing of modern dictatorships], its adoption by Chinese leaders potentially signifies a major departure for Chinese national strategy, providing insight into a new phase of China's development that will undoubtedly affect its international relations in the post-cold war period.Ó

The article takes Taiwan as an example. If the People's Liberation Army is powerful enough to ÒliberateÓ Taiwan, and deter the U.S. participation in the defense of it, then the latter will PEACEFULLY discard its wish to be independent of China. The same applies to Hong Kong (or Tibet). See? The Politburo's increasingly Òpowerful militaryÓ? This is all about peace and for peace.

Speaking of the United States or of the democratic West as a whole. When the Òpowerful militaryÓ of China become powerful enough to annihilate the West (by molecular nano weapons, for example), they will never start a war (the idea!) if the West surrenders PEACEFULLY as did Japan when two Òatom bombsÓ were dropped on its two cities in 1945.

With the West as a colony of China, the advantages of this new peace (or should I say Òpeaceful rise,Ó imitating the Pidgin English of the article?) will be tremendous for China. The West will work for China as for the most ruthless employer in the old times of unlimited exploitation, and at the same time the United States will no longer subvert, by its very fact of independent existence, any Chinese as it happened on Tiananmen Square. Neither Taiwan nor Hong Kong (nor Tibet) will be any problem henceforth. And the world PEACE will reign supreme, for those countries that will challenge it will be offered PEACEFULLY to surrender or face annihilation by the Òbig [nano] stickÓ of the Politburo.

Note that the word ÒburoÓ in ÒPolitburoÓ is spelt in the article not in the English way: Òbureau,Ó but in the Russian way, ÒburoÓ as Stalin spelt it and Mao followed. The political world of China is that of Stalin's Russia minus Stalin's Òworld's most democratic general elections.Ó The phrase ÒCommunist ChinaÓ is too general. The phrase ÒStalinist ChinaÓ is more accurate.

Now, who are the authors of this Òscholarly studyÓ?

Zhu Feng is a ÒChinese citizenÓ (not a Chinese dissident who has escaped to the USA in search of freedom). He is a scholar at the Center for Strategic (!) and International (!) Studies in Washington, D.C., AND a professor in Peking University in the capital of Stalinist China. If he knows nothing else about it, he does know that if he writes what runs counter to the Stalinist Chinese propaganda, he will lose his Peking University professorship Ñ at the very best.

However, this knowledge may be quite subconscious. Consciously, he may well believe that he is a free person in the world's freest country, as Stalin's Russia was officially called. Many Chinese are no less na•ve politically than were Russians in Stalin's Russia or than children under six are.

Thus, on Sept. 5, Professor Jun Hu of the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics sent me an e-mail, protesting my mention, in the foreword to an article by Robert Marlow in Nanotechnology Now (http://www.nanotech-now.com], of Dr. Hu's nano-bio research as Òa supporting evidence for your points on 'China threat.'Ó

Dr. Hu says that already in January 2000 he and his team were Òahead of other researchers in the world.Ó I have not read the final version of my Foreword, but in general this is my point. If Dr. Hu could be in January 2000 ahead of the West (by years!) in nano-bio research, why could not Stalinist China be ahead (by years!) in nano weapons research, for which the Politburo of China can allocate any money without any legislative body or any public notice?

Besides, whatever intentions of Dr. Hu have been, no one can vouch that his world-leading nano-bio research will not be useful for the development of post-nuclear superweapons. Many scientists who had studied nuclear physics up to 1939 did not suspect that their studies would lead to the development of nuclear weapons from 1939 to 1945.

The second author of the ÒChina BriefÓ article under discussion is Drew Thompson, who ÒworkedÓ (?) in China Òfor 7 years in the 1990s,Ó but ÒChina BriefÓ does not say what his work was. If he writes, with Zhu Feng, what runs counter to Stalnist Chinese propaganda, he will not be allowed to re-enter China at the very best, which he knows, even if only subconsciously.

What is the role of such ÒChinese studiesÓ?

Outside universities, there has been the total oblivion of what was still occasionally called in the 1990s Òthe China threat.Ó However, the academic ÒChina studiesÓ have continued to exist, since the salaries are paid, the social benefits are issued, the grants and endowments are intact. Besides, some Americans, terrified by the general silence re Òthe China threat,Ó express hope that at least Òacademic Chinese studiesÓ are not silent.

No, they are not. And as the ÒChina BriefÓ of the Jamestown Foundation indicates, they are engaged in Stalinist Chinese propaganda.

* * * * *

For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org

To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a Ònano Manhattan Project,Ó go to crnano.org.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.