Jeff, I have to say I have find your distinction between the Chinese government and her people narrow and somewhat artificial.
There is no hard line. The CCP has more than sixty million members, and unlike the old days, no one man or small group of men can be said to effectively control China's decision-making processes. The lines between central power and autonomy is also quite blurred, and increasingly groups not of the government gain influence. China is no Stalinist totalitarianism today.
But let us stay with the focus on the Chinese government. Please note that even in the shrillest years of the Cultural Revolution, China was never this aggressive. In entire history of PRC they exhibited no aggression and territorial ambition even remotely resembling that which is described in the book. And amorphous' point may thus summarized - the Chinese
leadership has never exhibited anything this stupid, either. Most observers agree that the primary CCP aim is to stay in power, and one does not stay in power by initiating a war that one obviously has no chance of winning.
Regarding representative government... I think governing well should be the priority, not governing democratically (the only reason why democracy should even be favored is that history has shown it to be the government form, on balance, most likely to bring good governance). This is true for all nations, but especially so for China, where the challenges are great and the stakes greater. I point no further than Russia, where adoption of representative government was not an obvious improvement in many ways. A democracy is only as good as its institutions and, of course, those it represents. Democracy works better in Boston than it does in New Orleans; in Novosibirsk than it does in Moscow.
Chinese comrades' concerns about this is also obvious. No people will like being painted as retardedly aggressive (which they will have to be to invade Russia alone, nevermind the mad scheme they embarked on in the book, and yes, the Imperial Japanese were retardedly aggressive). And obviously they will have concerns about whether there are many Americans who view them as such. I don't suppose it is much comfort to be told that it is merely a technothriller, but that cannot be helped, I suppose, you do have to have a villain in such a work.
Ultimately, it seems to me your work, beyond the technothriller aspects of it (which I enjoyed, though I find some of the protectionist sentiments expressed somewhat alarming), was more a parable for Americans than for us the rest of the world, and perhaps we should really read it as such.
amorphous, thanks for the translation. I actually believe our hopes and dreams for the future are similar in nature.
I believe China will change...it is a matter of time...and it is also a matter of how. My own hope is that the Chinese people will throw off the current totalitarian government and adopt a more representative, republican form of government...and I believe that is happening by degrees.
I also pray that this can occur as it did in most of the East Block countries, without major bloodshed. Communist governments have a horrific track record in this regard, but my hope and prayer is that ultimately it will occur peacefully.
Incidentally Jeff, I do not wish to nitpick, but this doesn't make sense to me. You firstly said you hope China can pull off a peaceful transition, like in the Warsaw Pack and former Soviet states, and then you say that communist governments have a horribly track record... so what communist governments do you have in mind, exactly? There were a few allegedly communist African states where regime change was accompanied by bloodshed - Ethiopia, and in Europe, Yugoslavia and to much lesser extent Romania, but that's pretty much about it. So who set the track record?
