Netizens claim US has hidden plot to subvert China, citing Jon Huntsman in a Republican Primary Debate

November 22, 2011Sven Holler15 Comments, , , , , , , , , , ,

Via Sina Weibo.

 

A video (seen above) of a recent Republican Primary Debate has been circling the net featuring Republican Presidential Candidate and former U.S. Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, responding to what he would do about China as president. His quote is as follows:

“…So what should we be doing? We should be reaching out to our allies and constituencies within China. They’re called the young people. They’re called the Internet generation. There are 500 million internet users in China and 80 million bloggers. And they are bringing about change, the likes of which is going to take China down.”

The video has even been featured on a notorious flag-waving nationalistic website called M4.cn, which interprets the rhetoric as a telltale sign of U.S. hostility towards China and a hidden agenda to subvert China. Some pro-communist net users even said this proved beyond the doubt that the U.S. government is fanning social unrest in China and secretly sponsoring internet commentators.

While I can’t comment on the latter sentence in the previous paragraph due to not having inside knowledge of U.S. government operations, to the former I say: Of course. From local business transactions all the way up to world governments, everyone can always be sure of one thing: Each party will act in their own best interest, even to the disadvantage of the other party, if they can get away with it. One can be sure that the U.S. government has numerous plans it would like to implement that would benefit itself and harm relations with and economies of China, but likewise the same can be said for China or any other country. To some Chinese, the fact that it was said in the U.S. to an American audience somehow makes it more audacious, but there is one thing the average Chinese user might not pick up on amid all the nationalist outrage:

These are Republican primary debates. If you are familiar with politics in the United States then this would be all the explanation required, but for those who are not, allow me to elaborate. Primary party debates are a game in which one candidate must do everything he can to 1) make his opponents look terrible and 2) gain positive responses/fire up the audience as much as possible (as known as pandering to their base). This is especially true for Republican primary debates as the ideology of the Republican party is much the same throughout all their constituencies (as opposed to Democrats which can have a much more diverse base of ideologies throughout their various constituencies).

It is also known that Republicans can be very xenophobic, often blaming foreign companies (especially Chinese) and illegal immigrants for stealing jobs, increasing crime, and overall just hurting their country. So as a matter of simply catering to their base, these candidates will say such things, sometimes extreme things, to garner their support. But in reality, even if they became president, none of these things would actually happen. During the primaries and the actual presidential race, candidates are known for promising everything under the sun, but will often change their mind, retract their statements, or just not go through with their claims when the time comes to actually spring to action.

In summary, while the US may have multiple plans which that would be to the detriment of China, so does every other country have similar plans to other countries as well, because it is natural for each government to look out for their own interests above all others and I am not sure why this comes to a surprise to anyone. But using a quote from a party’s primary debate is a bit silly for fanning the flames of anti-U.S. sentiment because if I had to write every promise or statement made that was retracted, changed, or broken from last election’s primary debates; you would spend many additional hours reading this article. So the response, to me, seems a bit overreactive.

Ultra-nationalistic comments by netizens who have detected “undertones of dishonesty and evilness:”

当红明月:The imperialistic America has never forgone their intention to annihilate us. But who keeps buying U.S. debt?

zsqcn1111:Jon Huntsman is daydreaming. Even if the number of Chinese Internet users exceeds 1 billion and that of bloggers exceeds 100 million, those traitors who are willing to toe the line of Americans are always minority and can never make any big waves. That’s because the xenophilia traitors are always a bunch of snobs that can never accomplish anything!!

雨季乘凉:”Reaching out to allies within China”…Is it to say that many people have already become allies even before they are reached?

颓影了残生:From the age of the Great Navigations till today, foreigners have been doing the same thing: converting people elsewhere to their beliefs and propping up those who believed in them as their advocates to help them loot local treasures, or killing those who did not. Several hundred years ago, that belief was called Jesus. And now, it is called Democracy.

铃铛打不倒:Look at how American imperialists take advantage of Chinese netizens to make waves.

胡胡毛:I guess many American politicians think just like that: that only by holding the development of countries and regions such as China, Russia and the European Union in check can the United States keep its current position as the world leader, further plunder all kinds of resources and occupy the vantage point in world trade.

明道先生:What he said only reinforces my abhorrence of American politicians. He said within China there are a lot of American allies. There is no way that our younger generation would be like that. We are Chinese. Why would we support the United States? So this Jon Huntsman is wrong! I hate those bad things related to the United States.

晓生论点:Recognition — Sense of belonging– Classes — Common interests — Nations — Standpoints — Class struggles. These are the nature of the society. The so-called universal values are bullshit.

飛力克斯:I just watched this South Carolina Republican 2012 Presidential Debate from CBS News on Youtube. The ulterior motive of American imperialism to annihilate us is as clear as crystal. But judging by the campaigns and demonstrations organized by overseas Chinese in 2008 to protest Tibetan Splittism and support the Beijing Olympics, Jon Huntsman will not have his wishes met that easily.

czmawei:It is not surprising at all that Jon Huntsman said this~~ During the Jasmine Flower Revolution he even went to Wangfujing to express support and was caught red-handed by Chinese netizens.

流浪_之狗:It is no secret at all that the United States looks forward to China having internal unrest. Whether there will be the actual unrest and when it is are really what they are keeping a close eye on. Jon Huntsman’s speech can only further substantiate that anti-Chinese forces in the United States did play a role in plotting the so-called Spring in Wangfujing farce on February 20. Because Jon Huntsman, then the U.S. Ambassador to China, was right there. He clearly did not just happen to pass by. Rather, it was an official transcript of political achievements submitted right before he left office.

鱼鳞1992:Let’s not raise a false alarm or panic. We should trust in our motherland and support our motherland!

子阳:Hehe, how many naive U.S. Cents Party (Jing: as opposed to 5 mao Party, which is allegedly paid by the government to make pro-government and propagandist comments on the Internet, Cents Party implies that those who favors Western democracy is hired by the U.S. government) members are used and resigned to be traitors and colonial slaves!

南海天风:In the past and at present, at home and abroad, no government can tolerate traitors selling out to the enemy in broad daylight. From time immemorial, traitors have had only one consequence. The majority who have kept silent are not going to put up with those American allies within China.

However, there are quite a number of netizens who are capable of thinking critically.

千祈_唔好[挖鼻屎]If everything with the Heavenly Kingdom is really fine, why do we care what others say? Even foreigners can tell what the problem is…

看好戏:Well said! I staunchly support Jon Huntsman.

阿邸的幸福1985: Communist-ruled China deserves to be taken down.

shdowson:Allen Walsh Dulles was much more audacious than he is. But what baffles me is, should a regime that is upheld by its people in all sincerity be worried that its people will be lured away by foreign enemies? American rulers never seem concerned with this.

Issolo:Oh, please, he is running for president. If he didn’t say so, wouldn’t it make his career in China sound a waste of time? Running for president means going along with the public opinion. Obviously the public opinion sees China as its enemy. If this bro becomes the president, he will definitely about-face.

换个视角啦:This is a Republican debate on TV. Please everyone, do not get upset or anxious. It doesn’t represent the state policy. What would happen if all kinds of Anti-American speech, some of which even threatens to ruin the United States, were taken out of its context and presented to American people? Just like Sima Nan’s comment beating the drum for Occupy Wall Street, can it be taken as a semi-official viewpoint?

There is one person, who got really confused:

吴法天 : Some people trying to whitewash said below that “take” means “lead”. “Down” means “along”. “Take China Down” means “lead China along” instead of “beat China.” Is it true?

Related articles:

15 comments to “Netizens claim US has hidden plot to subvert China, citing Jon Huntsman in a Republican Primary Debate”

  1. Reiner | November 22, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    Only few simple words:
    I will immediately stop believing in American democracy. Now.

  2. RJ | November 23, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    Huntsman is only stating what is obvious. The internet provides a more open dialogue within society which naturally creates change. In Huntsman’s mind, what netizens are talking about in China on the internet is increasingly mores toward a more open society. A open society will always move toward reforms. Reforms usually move toward freedom, human rights, and justice.

    • Blacksoth | December 4, 2011 | Permalink Reply

      I think chinese are missing the cultural bias of the people this is being said to..the american people. Take the chinese down is really more about the government then chinese people. What he’s talking about is how to get China to express American values (whatever that means).

    • jr | December 20, 2011 | Permalink Reply

      American society seems to be moving away from openness, who are we to encourage “openness” in China?

  3. [...] Some contextualization for the statement and its reception in China can be found on Shanghailist and Ministry of Tofu. [...]

  4. asdf | November 27, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    “It is also known that Republicans can be very xenophobic,”

    You’re incorrect on this. The democrats, as a whole, are just as, if not more hostile to China. The Democrats’ base are unions, and they are intensely anti-China. There is no group in the Democratic party that has an interest in working with China. Meanwhile, the Corporate arm of the Republicans put a check on too much anti-China rhetoric because they want trade to continue to flow.

    National interests aside, the Democrats are also just as bigoted as the Republicans beyond their current negrophilia. They just try to hide it more.

  5. mike | November 27, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    “…the ideology of the Republican party is much the same throughout all their constituencies (as opposed to Democrats which can have a much more diverse base of ideologies throughout their various constituencies).”

    That is the single most ridiculously ignorant thing I’ve read since the editor of the Taipei Times recently compared the DPP’s piggy-bank electioneering gimmick to the Jasmine Revolution.

    The Republicans are split on foreign policy; there are the isolationists at one end, and the Vulcan-types like Wolfowitz at the other end. The Republicans are split on the welfare state; there are those that want to reform and streamline it, like Gingrich, and there are those who want to phase it out to the point of eventual abolition. Domestic social issues are also a fault line within the Republican party; there are those who are heavily conservative on domestic policy supporting the prohibition of narcotics, and there are those of a more libertarian bent who wish to see it decriminalized. The Republicans are also split along old Hamilton-Jefferson lines with some favouring a greater scope for Federal powers, and others favouring a resumption of powers (including nullification) by the States. The Republicans are also split on the question of monetary reform with those who would like to see a return to a gold standard or some other form of commodity-based money, and those who don’t even understand the question.

    If I were to be charitable, I would suppose that what you had in mind to say was that you wish to excuse your ignorance on the grounds that you personally despise all of the various constituencies within the Republican party on the single unifying point that they are not as enthusiastic about the use of government as you are. And being a Leftist, you are naturally more inclined to attend to the delightful subtleties of pitch and key among and between the various screams for yet more, more, more government on the Left.

    Is that about right?

  6. Dando Z | November 28, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    “you personally despise all of the various constituencies within the Republican party on the single unifying point that they are not as enthusiastic about the use of government as you are.”

    I’m still having difficulty discerning between the “various constituencies within the Republican party.”

    They all look the same to me.

    Anyhoo, replace “government” with “public institutions” and you might have a unifying point for the ideology of the Democratic party and not just an impotent pejorative definition of modern liberalism from the perspective of a utopian capitalist. Democrats prefer non-government solutions to social problems, but non-profit institutions depend on government funding just like commerce depends on security and infrastructure, institutions which do not respond well to market forces.

    If you can develop a theory of political-economy that isn’t inspired by an Ayn Rand novel, maybe you can sit at the big table for Thanksgiving next year.

    That said, there is a lot of truth to the notion that Republicans are much more pro-China than Democrats, who are partly informed by labor unions which have degenerated into mere grievance-arbitration bureaucracies. Maybe that’s because Republicans and Chinese leaders are more ideologically compatible in that they don’t have any sort of unifying ideology besides the elevation of greed from vice to virtue.

  7. mike | November 28, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    “They all look the same to me.”

    Leave your pickle alone for a couple of nights then and save your eyesight.

    “…replace “government” with “public institutions” and you might have a unifying point for the ideology of the Democratic party…”

    Name your “public” institutions not supported by government.

    “…an impotent pejorative definition of modern liberalism…”

    Facts are only “impotent” in the face of deliberate ignorance. The Statist Left are “liberal” most obviously in their chicanerous use of language, as with the super-committee’s proposal to use “savings” from the withdrawal of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to fund another round of government stimulus.

    “Democrats prefer non-government solutions to social problems…”

    Ha! That’s some fearsome fucking confirmation bias you’ve got there.

    “…non-profit institutions depend on government funding…”

    Ever heard of “charity”? It was this weird non-profit kind of thing way back in the day… it might still be in the history books somewhere, but probably not those in the State schools.

    “…security and infrastructure, institutions which do not respond well to market forces.”

    Of course not – your claim rests on a circularity, to wit: since security and infrastructure cannot be produced by entrepreneurs because the State either forcibly prevents them from doing so, or crowds them out of the market – therefore the production of security and infrastructure must be undertaken solely by the State.

    “If you can develop a theory of political-economy that isn’t inspired by an Ayn Rand novel, maybe you can sit at the big table for Thanksgiving next year.”

    Oh kind of like this one? Well if you could lay aside your super powers of presumption, ad-hominem and confirmation bias, maybe you would get ahead of me by actually reading an Ayn Rand novel (I haven’t).

  8. Dando Z | November 29, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    “Name your “public” institutions not supported by government. ”

    Name a private industry that isn’t supported by the government through tax subsidies, infrastructure, or public education.

    You can’t, because stateless capitalism is pure ideological fantasy. Dismissing the capitalism you don’t like as “Statist crony capitalism” is an egregious example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

    “Facts are only “impotent” in the face of deliberate ignorance. The Statist Left are “liberal” most obviously in their chicanerous use of language”

    How deliberate is your ignorance of anarchists (and other small-gov libs), and how obviously chicanerous is the equivocation of NGOs with government, as implied by your previous statements about the relationships between public institutions and the government?

    “as with the super-committee’s proposal to use “savings” from the withdrawal of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to fund another round of government stimulus. ”

    That’s a red herring, but I’ll bite: redirecting funds away from the military-industrial complex and toward domestic economic stimulus is a Very Good Thing for someone so distrustful of the government.

    “Ever heard of “charity”? It was this weird non-profit kind of thing way back in the day… it might still be in the history books somewhere, but probably not those in the State schools.”

    Charities do not produce provable results which are comparable with government-funded social work institutions on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Maybe you think Statist boogeymen are forcibly preventing charities from solving social problems so as to legitimate bloated government bureaucracies, but I feel pretty safe siding with professional social workers on this issue because they don’t appear to be getting paid enough to be part of the vast Statist conspiracy.

    “since security and infrastructure cannot be produced by entrepreneurs because the State either forcibly prevents them from doing so”

    One might apply the same reasoning to conjecture that autonomous worker-controlled communes could provide for everyone’s wants and needs if capitalists, reactionaries, and collaborators didn’t forcibly prevent them from doing so. But that’s just an ideological fantasy. Suffice to say that basic education, security, and infrastructure ARE NOT produced by entrepreneurs and CANNOT be because like many human activities, these are areas in which profitability and utility do not conveniently coincide.

    Whether you read Rand or were sexually molested by the Invisible Hand is of no consequence. State government is a necessary evil. Democracy cannot be privatized.

  9. mike | November 30, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    “Name a private industry that isn’t….”

    I don’t have to (but all examples of informal trade – see below*) – because I made no claim otherwise. You distinguished “public institutions” from government as an ideological “unifying point” – not simply for the Left in general – but for the Democratic Party in particular, i.e. that Democrats broadly agree that social problems should be addressed through “public institutions”, rather than government. Yet the fact is, the Democratic Party has been the prime mover behind the growth of the Federal government at least since FDR. That in 2011 you cannot name a single public institution now distinct from government just goes to prove that your distinction is worthless. Addressing social problems through government per se is the unifying point for the Democratic Party and to pretend otherwise is simply bullshit.

    “You can’t, because stateless capitalism is pure ideological fantasy. Dismissing the capitalism you don’t like as “Statist crony capitalism” is an egregious example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.”

    Yes I can*. All examples of informal exchange (e.g. the “petty-capitalism” of nightmarkets in Taiwan and China and the slums of India and Bangladesh) take place without the support of the State. Of course you may point to the existence of State funded schools and infrastructure and the like, but that is trivial since both of these things can be produced privately – in Britain during the 18th and 19th Centuries, for instance, they often were produced privately.

    The important point is the premises. Wherever people engage in economic activity, all that is needed for a free-market is the absence of coercion; yet it is precisely coercion which both criminals and government supply, and which is what you and the Democratic Party are in favour of.

    “How deliberate is your ignorance of anarchists (and other small-gov libs)…”

    Non-existent, unlike yours, since an “anarchist” – by definition – is not a small government liberal.

    “…how obviously chicanerous is the equivocation of NGOs with government, as implied by your previous statements…”

    Not at all. Formally, NGOs are distinct from government. However, not only do they receive significant funding from government, but typically they are ideologically on the Left, and often the far-Left. I think it is therefore only fair to consider them an informal extension of the State, which is not the same thing as an “implied equivocation”.

    “That’s a red herring, but I’ll bite: redirecting funds away from the military-industrial complex and toward domestic economic stimulus is a Very Good Thing for someone so distrustful of the government.”

    You’re missing the point. They called this “redirection of funds”, savings. If you stop doing something, you aren’t “saving” money, you are cutting spending. But of course we’re talking about the Democrats, so of course the notion of actually cutting spending is a thought-crime; spending cannot be cut – it can only be “saved” in order to be spent somewhere else. For what it’s worth, I think cutting defense spending is good (because it necessitates re-prioritization), but putting those “savings” into economic “stimulus” is dead wrong, has already been tried on a much larger scale, and will likely make things worse. And no, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter.

    “Charities do not produce provable results which are comparable with government-funded social work institutions on a dollar-for-dollar basis.”

    Why do you say “provable results”? Lack of measurement?

    “One might apply the same reasoning to conjecture that autonomous worker-controlled communes could provide for everyone’s wants and needs if capitalists, reactionaries, and collaborators didn’t forcibly prevent them from doing so.”

    No, because a society of worker-controlled communes would collapse for want of economic calculation (among other things).

    “But that’s just an ideological fantasy.”

    But without the “logical” part – which is why it cannot be compared to free market theory.

    “Suffice to say that basic education, security, and infrastructure ARE NOT produced by entrepreneurs and CANNOT be because like many human activities, these are areas in which profitability and utility do not conveniently coincide.”

    It “suffices” only to prove your confirmation bias; you are over-stating your case. Whilst it may be true that public goods are “under-produced” (and yes, this may be partly because of the State crowding out the market, or forcibly preventing private production), it is not true to say that they cannot be produced by entrepreneurs. Radio shows are public goods produced by entrepreneurs, even though they cannot control who gets to listen to them – they make their money from advertising. It all depends on finding ways to alter the incentive structure.

    On the specific examples… the first railways in England were built with private money; basic education too actually was produced on both an entrepreneurial and charitable basis in England and Wales prior to the education reform acts of the mid-to-late 19th Century (and of course there is still much private education, even now); on security, both today and at various times in the past, elements of the security industry (both weapons and trained personnel) were provided by entrepreneurs (albeit often with State support and/or regulation).

  10. Andrew | December 12, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    That’s ok.
    On American TV it says that China wants to subvert American interests and the American way of life.
    On Chinese TV it says the Americans want to do the same to China.

    Maybe they are both right?

  11. carlos | December 29, 2011 | Permalink Reply

    Regardless of who says it, he’s probably right. A young, connected populace is going to become more liberal, especially with a growing economy. That’s what scares nationalists all over the world, m4.cn, in China’s case.

  12. T | March 19, 2012 | Permalink Reply

    US should work for peace, not impose its selfish interests on China. By the way peace is not exclusive to the US alone, but to all nations incl the people in China. China is a peace embracing country by the likes of PM Wen, Zhu Rongji etc. US want to “change” China? It has been causing trouble rather as in “changing” others. Why dont it change itself. It should follow real religious teachings n contribute to harmony n poverty alleviation. American public are fed the most propaganda by US media, and this is the truth.Is that coming fr a nation of “peace”? It is not. Is it truly religious in or following their own whims? Chinese youth r not naively manipulated. People in this nation know how to be loyal and be at peace, no need for US to meddle. China has long history of some religious adherence: From ancient times to the last dynasty in its modern history, the Chinese emperors had to fast and pray annually in an elaborate ceremony at Temple of Heaven Its prayers n rituals were deemed by analysts as very very similar to ancient Israel. Chinese hv sense of love n righteousness handed down . Work w them not against them. Bible principles of love covers all human “understanding”and brings clarity to all.Chinese people hv every right to live in real peace. Finally, I write bec I want peace n friendship to one n all, n am frank when I need to . It must be. Hope US leadsership will realize the gross mistakes n wrong indeed. From a Singaporean. Tks.

  13. JIANG | February 4, 2013 | Permalink Reply

    I LOVE USA. I’M CHINESE.

Leave a Reply