Part II of the series discussed how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) obtained its power through the barrel of a gun. The Party claimed that it represented “the people” and thus had full legitimacy to use all means possible, including dictatorship and terrorist killings, to achieve this goal. To maintain its control, justify its legitimacy, and deflect attention from people’s desire for reform, the Party shifted their focus to economic growth. Though many problems surfaced under what has come to be known as the “China model,” such as a high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, endemic corruption, environmental problems bordering on disaster, unfairness toward foreign companies, and violent mistreatment of dissidents and minority groups, the Party has never stopped proclaiming that it is “Great, Glorious, and Correct,” and blaming others for China’s problems.
The entire Communist system was, during the formative stages of CCP governance, based on Karl Marx’s Communist theory, the bible for the Communist Parties. The CCP later expanded the base to include Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. The CCP’s Communist ideology spread throughout China from the 1950s to the 1970s. By the end of the Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976), however, the Communist bubble had burst. Having seen so much violence, the Chinese people no longer believed in a Communist Utopia.
The CCP needed a change. As a result of the people’s discontent, Deng Xiaoping started the “Reform and Opening up,” to shift the focus of China’s development to the material world. He never acquiesced to the influence of Western ideology or a resurgence of the spiritual civilization reminiscent of China’s great cultural history.
Nothing was left of CCP ideology but to keep itself in power and the CCP was willing to do anything to ensure its reign. Though the regime abandoned Communist theory, it kept the Communist philosophy useful to its continuance. Violent struggle and atheism remained the dominant philosophy in China. Since there was no spiritual foundation to inspire people, the Party used materialism as the primary motivation. Combining atheism, materialism, and the struggle philosophy, the new CCP ideology was formed: there is no spiritual world; people can and should pursue material gain at any cost. Thus, the CCP could lie, torture, or kill its own people to keep itself in power, while the Chinese people themselves could cheat, steal, or rob other people (even of their well-being, their organs, and their very lives) for their own personal gain.
On the other hand, the Western ideology, which emphasized democracy, freedom, religion, and human rights, summarized as “universal values,” represented an enormous contradiction to the Party’s ideology. The Party was clear that its ideology could hardly compete with Western ideology. Therefore, it has consistently conducted full-scale campaigns to deny universal values domestically. However, the Party could not remain safely ensconced in power with universal values remaining popular outside of China. Thus, the CCP has gone on the offense to promote its ideology to the rest of the world.
Denouncing Universal Values in China
The CCP has long rejected universal values. Especially since the June 4th Massacre and the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has taken rejecting democracy and freedom as a long-term national policy. Tactically, it demonizes universal values and consistently uses its own media to heighten and even misrepresent the drawbacks of democracy and freedom. It stresses “Chinese characteristics” and that Western universal values do not harmonize with “Chinese characteristics.” Implementing democracy would only split China and create turmoil and dissention. Therefore China has to adhere to the CCP’s leadership, walk its own (socialist) path, and remain firm in suppressing and preventing any democratic movement.
Right after taking the top CCP position after the June 4th Massacre, Jiang Zemin set the tone, “Some people wanted to implement a multi-party system or two-party system in China. It absolutely will not work.” [1]
Jiang further instructed the Party’s propaganda machine. “(We) need to vigorously expose the deceptiveness of the ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘human rights’ that the West promotes. The Western hostile forces, under the banner of ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘human rights,’ attack us, infiltrate us using any channel, and oppose our socialist system. We must respond to it carefully and resolutely fight back.” [2]
The Party labeled universal values “the evil tool” that the anti-China forces, with the United States as leader, use to control and divide China. Thus the United States can maintain its hegemony over the world. The Party’s theoretical publication, Qiushi, said, “The essence of ‘universal values’ is the value of hegemonism. They want to use their value system to change the world. Their hegemonism claims that their democracy is the only right universal value and thus requires every country in the world (especially socialist countries) to follow it, so that it can achieve the goal of revolutionizing socialism and dominating the world.” [3]
According to China’s state controlled media, the spread and practice of universal values, especially American-style democracy, around the world is fraught with failure and has even caused serious disasters. For many countries that adopted the Western value system, democracy did not solve the conflicts between the government and the people. Instead, it made all kinds of social problems even worse and it generated turmoil or even disaster. For example, a Red Flag Manuscript article stated, “Let’s take a look at those developing countries that adopted universal values. India is the largest developing country besides China and also the largest ‘democratic country’ in the world. It has practiced democracy for over 60 years. However, even today, food insecurity and life insecurity are the largest challenges that India faces. The majority of 20 high-risk countries and regions listed in the United Kingdom’s Daily Telegraph are ‘democratic countries.’ Obviously, this is not a coincidence. … As for Russia, the country was on the verge of collapse under Yeltsin’s ten years of democracy. It became the ‘darkest period’ in the past 300 years. … During its 20 years (of practicing democracy), Taiwan, the first Chinese society to implement Western-style democracy, has been called ‘the biggest joke in the world.’ (Democracy) also brought an economic downturn, a split society, and party corruption. So the characteristics voted as number one and two to represent the year 2008 in Taiwan were ‘turmoil’ and ‘cheating.’” [4]
The Party’s media even targeted the United States, the original country that exemplified the Western core value system. The CCP criticized the democratic system as being inefficient. Two parties even fought in Congress over the debt ceiling, which almost led to the United States’ default on its debt.
The demonization of democracy has been so successful that many Chinese equate the term “democracy” with “being political” (to which the CCP has managed to give a very negative meaning) and “turmoil.” In addition, the autocratic countries of the world, and even some individuals in democratic countries, praise the “efficiency” of a regime that can get things done without the divisive interference of opinions that differ from the incumbent regime.
Developing Soft Power and Promoting the “China Model” in the World
The other strategy that the Party has adopted to resist universal values is to disseminate its core value system around the world: using the “China model” to replace Western universal values. The Party understands that, as the “China model” becomes more popular, Western universal values will be less likely to entice the peoples of the world.
The CCP’s “China Model” has different meanings to different audiences. To African countries, the “China Model” means an autocratic system, tight political control, plus a market economy; to some in the United States and other developed countries, the “China Model” just means Chinese culture and cheap labor; to the Communist Party itself, Chinese culture means Communist culture and bears no relation to the great Chinese culture from China’s 5,000 years of civilization.
To promote its ideology and to insulate itself from criticism, the Party realized that “to win in the complex international environment, in addition to strong economic power, technological power, and military power, a country also needs strong cultural power. Whoever controls the commanding height of cultural development can better control the initiatives in international competition.” “The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is naturally accompanied by the prosperity of Chinese culture. Developing a strong socialist cultural country is an obligation to develop socialism with Chinese characteristics. It is a requirement to push national rejuvenation; it signifies the achievement of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” [5]
The CCP’s Seventeenth National Congress emphasized the development of Chinese culture and the enhancement of China’s soft power: “Actively search for effective ways to use the socialist core value system to lead society’s ideology and take initiatives to do the ideology work well.” [6]
On February 28, 2012, in order to implement the CCP’s socialist core value system, China’s Ministry of Culture published “The Plan to Double the Culture Industry during the ‘Twelfth Five-Year’ Period.” It stated that the culture industry that the Ministry of Culture oversees needs to have an annual increase of more than 20 percent during the “Twelfth Five-Year” period. The size of the culture industry in 2015 should be at least twice the size of that in 2010. [7]
“The CCP has adopted a “national strategy that is not only for China to provide television to the world, but also an ideology and value system that can attract the world and inspire others. … “Thus in the culture competition, which is part of the global strategic competition among big countries, (China) is no longer the bearer of globalization’s cost shifting, the receiver and follower of the global system and standards, the provider of cheap and low-end products; it is also a participant in reestablishing the international cultural system and a founder of the new civilization.” [8]
The Party has moved swiftly to go abroad:
On February 23, 2009, China Daily launched China Daily – United States Edition. On April 20, 2009, People’s Daily launched its English newspaper, the Global Times English Edition. The description said that the newspaper “will showcase a continuously changing China to the world, report on the world from the Chinese perspective, and communicate Chinese people’s stand and viewpoint on major international issues.” [9]
The CCP Central Committee’s official publication, Qiushi English Edition was launched on September 30, 2009, and also published overseas. “Qiushi English Edition is to serve as the exchange conduit to those overseas from the Chinese Communist Party and State; it will become the authoritative platform to interpret the CCP and the Chinese government’s policies and strategies.” [10]
On October 1, 2009, China Radio International (CRI) started broadcasting ten hours of programing in Chinese in the Greater New York region. It even set up a broadcast center in Galveston, Texas, an island 70 miles away from Houston. Starting in 2010, the 60,000 residents in Galveston surprisingly found that one of their favorite hot music and talk show stations was broadcasting CRI’s programs around the clock.
On July 1, 2010, China Xinhua News Network Corporation (CNC) started its English news service. CNC’s mission is to compete with international TV news channels such as CNN and the BBC, and to improve the Party’s international discourse power.
China Central Television (CCTV) America was launched in Washington, DC in February 2012.
The Communist government either controls or influences these Chinese entities, whether they are called companies, organizations, or institutes. They serve the Communist regime’s interests.
The Confucius Institute is a prime example. The Office of the Chinese Language Council International (Hanban), a bureau-level office under the Ministry of Education and the CCP’s United Front Work Department oversees it. Though on the surface, the Confucius Institute appears to be an organization to promote the Chinese language and culture, it is an unspoken rule that it executes the Party’s mission.
When North Carolina State University invited the Dalai Lama to speak in 2009 at its Raleigh campus, the Confucius Institute there voiced the Party’s objection. Its director, Bailian Li, told North Carolina State provost Warwick Arden that the Dalai Lama’s visit could disrupt “some of the strong relationships we were developing with China,” which included the institute itself, joint programs such as student exchanges, summer research, and faculty collaboration. The college canceled the event. While the provost, Warwick Arden, said, “A Confucius Institute presents an ‘opportunity for subtle pressure and conflict,’” the official reason given was “not having enough time to ‘appropriately put on an event for a man of that stature.’” Beijing also pressured Stanford University. “When a Beijing organization with close ties to China’s government offered Stanford University $4 million to host a Confucius Institute on Chinese language and culture and endow a professorship, it attached one caveat: The professor couldn’t discuss delicate issues like Tibet. … Stanford refused, citing academic freedom.” [11]
Exporting Communist Culture to Change the World
Back in the 1990s, the United States openly criticized China’s human rights record. However, when China was granted Permanent Most Favored Nation status, it untied the link between human rights and the economy and trade. With the exception of Presidential debate candidates occasionally mentioning China’s human rights record, the government of the United States has become more and more silent on the subject. So have other Western countries.
Governments worldwide have stepped back from their moral ground in an attempt to please the CCP and enable their countries’ enterprises to improve their bottom line.
For those countries that don’t “behave,” or follow the Party’s dictates, the CCP retaliates. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, not the government of Norway, awards the Nobel Peace Prize. However, after Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, the Party retaliated against the government of Norway. It cancelled cabinet-level meetings, denied visas to Norwegian dignitaries, stopped cultural exchanges, created trade barriers, and even delayed shipments of Norwegian salmon for so long that the fish rotted before it could clear customs. The Party’s efforts paid off. Mo Yan, a Chinese writer who sometimes writes minor criticism of the government but is known for his good relationship with the Communist Party, was awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize for Literature. [12]
In 2012, when 100 Japanese lawmakers met with the Dalai Lama, CCP officials strongly rebuked them. [13] Succumbing to Beijing’s pressure, South Africa would not issue a visa for the Dalai Lama to attend Desmond Tutu’s 80th birthday celebration. [14] In 2010, Obama delayed meeting with the Dalai Lama when he was in Washington to avoid angering China. [15]
On February 24 and 25, 2004, the French police arrested 50 people who did nothing illegal. Why?
They either wore clothing that had the words “Falun Gong” on it or they wore something yellow, a color associated with Falun Gong. While France is a free and open society that upholds human rights, they scrapped their values because it was more important to please Communist China that day. Jiang Zemin was visiting Paris. [16]
Many developing countries find that, for them, the “China Model” is a perfect fit. Several African countries, including Angola, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Uganda, have molded their governments, in an unspoken fashion, on the “China Model.” In these countries, their leaders have been in power for decades. They try to deliver economic growth and improvements in health, education, and development to their people, but they offer little democracy or freedom. [17]
In 2010, the American Chamber of Commerce in the People’s Republic of China reported in its business-climate survey that, while U.S. firms remain optimistic about China, top executives are “voicing their discontent openly, a significant shift from the traditional pattern of keeping a low public profile to avoid angering Chinese officials — and risking retaliation.” Sometimes a company “has to register its technology in China, innovate in China and, in some cases, make it in China …” [18]
Rio Tinto is a British-Australian multinational metals and mining corporation. In 2009, the Chinese state-owned company Chinalco was negotiating to increase its ownership interest in Rio Tinto from 9.3 to 18.5 percent. The proposed deal met strong political opposition in Australia, and Rio Tinto decided instead to raise the money through existing shareholders and by forming a joint venture with BHP Billiton. Shortly after Rio Tinto declined to sell part of the company, four Rio Tinto staff members were arrested and charged with bribery and espionage, alleging they “accepted millions in bribes and stole state secrets.”
In 2010, the Chinese regime handed down stiff sentences of seven to 14 years. However, some “legal analysts said it appeared that the arrests were China’s retaliation against Rio Tinto for its decision last year to scrap plans to accept Chinalco’s $19.5 billion investment.” [19] [20]
Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) prohibit bribing foreign officials. However, as Part II of this series pointed out, corruption (and hence bribery) is a way of life under the CCP. In 2004, for example, Lucent technologies “fired four executives based in China due to possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” [21]
In 2007, the governments of both Germany and the United States sued Siemens, a German multinational engineering and electronics conglomerate headquartered in Munich, Germany, for corruption, mainly bribery, in business practices overseas. Siemens TS, a Siemens subsidiary in China paid US$22 million to intermediate companies to bribe Chinese officials to obtain a subway train and equipment project for US$1 billion. Siemens PTD, another Siemens subsidiary in China paid US$25 million to consulting companies to bribe Chinese officials to obtain two High-voltage power transmission line projects worth US$838 million. Siemens Medical Group, a third Siemens subsidiary in China paid US$14.4 million in bribes to get a US$295 million order. An anonymous Siemens insider said that 50 percent of Siemens business in China was related to bribery. Siemens provided the Chinese government with a list of those who had taken its bribes. The list included family members of two CCP Politburo members. Therefore, then Politburo Standing Committee member Li Changchun, who is in charge of the media, ordered the media not to report on the Chinese officials involved in the Siemens bribery case. [22]
Laws in the United States guarantee that workers have certain rights and prohibit companies from taking advantage of them, paying substandard wages, using slave labor, and polluting the environment. The international media have paid a lot of attention to serious worker issues at Foxconn because it is a major manufacturer of the iPad, iPhone, and iPod for Apple. The news has included reports of 16 suicides since 2010, 300 Foxconn workers threatening to commit suicide over a pay dispute, 1,000 Foxconn workers rioting [23], 150 Foxconn workers threatening to commit suicide by jumping from the roof of their factory [24], and on January 23, 2013, 1,000 Foxconn employees going on strike. [25]
In December 2012, Julie Keith from Oregon found a letter inside a $29.99 package of Halloween decorations that she purchased at Kmart. The unsigned letter pleaded for help, “If you occasionally buy this product, please kindly resend this letter to the World Human Right Organization.” It purportedly was from a prisoner inside the notorious Masanjia Labor Camp in Liaoning Province. “Thousands of people here, who the Chinese Communist Party Government is persecuting, will thank you and remember you forever.” [26]
In January 2003, Dr. Charles Lee, a U.S. citizen and Falun Gong practitioner, flew back to China to help fellow practitioners. He never got to help them. The Communist regime arrested him in Guangzhou, just as he got off the plane. After a “show trial,” he was sentenced to three years. Dr. Lee described his experience. For 50 straight days, they made him sit still on a bench, staring straight ahead, until his entire body started to atrophy from the lack of movement and his heart gave way. Then they stopped this form of torture. Lee said, “They were very good at mental torture,” as well as physical. “Some people mention the concept of ‘the genocide of souls’ — they kill your soul. They let you become a nobody.”
Lee assembled Christmas lights and made bedroom slippers, the kind with the image of Homer Simpson on them. Of the slippers’ purchasers he said, “I feel that, if they knew about my situation, it would bother them.” [27]
When he got back to the United States, Dr. Lee appeared in the movie, Free China, the Courage to Believe. He discussed how, during the 90s, he had watched Homer Simpson on television. At the time he thought it was pretty funny, but when he was forced to make those slippers in prison, he did not think it was funny at all. [28]
Yes, it is the Chinese regime and Chinese companies that violate their people’s rights and use slave labor, but, can Western companies allege their innocence, even on a moral level, when they take advantage of suppliers that violate human rights? Government officials suggest, of the policy of engagement, that one of the missions for American companies is to promote American ideals in China. However, when they instead succumb to the Communist Party’s means to obtain material benefits, they also become complicit in the Communist Party’s distorted value system and provide sustenance for the Party’s continued growth.
Sometimes Western companies even collude with the CCP in the suppression of its people’s rights. In 2002, Cisco, the U.S. based networking company, helped the Chinese government build its Internet censorship system called the “Golden Shield,” better known in the West as the Great Firewall of China. An internal Cisco document revealed that Cisco engineers regarded the Chinese government’s rigid Internet censorship program as an opportunity to do more business in China. One of Golden Shield’s stated goals in the Cisco presentation was to “combat the ‘Falun Gong’ evil religion and other hostiles,” — a statement that was attributed to Runsen Li, the Chinese government information technology chief in charge of developing the project. Mark Chandler, Cisco’s senior vice president of legal services, said in a Senate hearing on Cisco’s complicity “that he was ‘appalled’ and ‘disappointed’ when he saw that quote in the (Cisco’s) presentation.” [29] Doing business with China does not bring out the best in people.
Can American Companies Win on an Unfair Playing Field?
Western companies face increasing competition from Chinese companies. These Chinese companies are generally State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). Though they are called companies, they are not like Western-style companies. These SOEs are backed by the Communist regime. To a certain extent, they enjoy many benefits that Western companies do not enjoy, such as being able to obtain cheap land, always having access to low interest loans, obtaining favorable government policy decisions, and no worries about labor disputes or environmental concerns.
Thus, these SOEs can afford to bid low, or even take a loss, to gain a business advantage. After all, the CCP has their back.
The rules are also different.
In 2011, a controversy erupted over the hiring policies posted publicly on Hanban’s website. Candidates for teaching positions should be “between the ages of 22 to 60, in good physical and mental health, have no record of participation in Falun Gong and other illegal organizations, and have no criminal record.” The North American representative for Hanban acknowledged that Falun Gong practitioners were excluded from being hired in the United States because Confucius Institutes must follow Chinese law as well as US law. [30]
In an opposite situation, the CCP pressured Mary Kay China, a subsidiary of the United States-based cosmetics company Mary Kay Inc., into requiring that its employees sign a pledge that categorized Falun Gong as “illegal.” Although it was a U.S. company, Mary Kay was not allowed to apply U.S. laws against discrimination in China. When the issue was brought to the attention of a U.S. Congressman, as a remedy, Mary Kay Inc. created a new pledge that did not single out any particular organization, religion, practice or movement. [31]
Both organizations faced the same human rights issue. The Chinese organization doing business in the United States stated it had to follow Chinese law. The American company doing business in China was also forced to follow Chinese law. International companies and organizations are, too often, choosing to follow the dictates of the Communist regime instead of the founding principles of the United States.
Why? Because it is an unfair playing field. The United States is a gentleman and respects established rules. It won’t do anything to a company that does nothing bad, just so it can prevail. The CCP does not respect any rules and will do whatever it takes to get what it wants; so if a company does not listen to it, it will punish that company or even drive it out of the Chinese market.
Suppose that, in a marathon, one runner is the fastest in the world and obeys the rules. The other runner is a relay team of 10, all of whom use steroids, wear imitation high-tech shoes (having stolen the design from the fastest runner), and carry a knife to stab whoever is in front of them. Who will win the competition?
Conclusion
An article in People’s Daily claimed that China’s rise seriously challenges the validity of (Western) universal values. It said, “The rise of China, as the representative of the emerging economies, is severely impacting Western universal values. … In the new era, the world needs the Chinese dream, because the China model is enriching the fundamentals of universal values.” The article closed by stating, “Through China’s revitalization, [China] will lead the ‘post Western era’ in order to achieve the sustainable development of human civilization; China will fundamentally be established as the legitimate world leader.” [32]
In February 2011, President Obama asked Steve Jobs what it would take to make iPhones in the United States. Jobs replied, “Those jobs are gone. … And they’re not coming back.” [33]
What the Communist Party is maneuvering and is counting on is not just that the United States will lose its jobs to China. It will also lose its spiritual base: the American ideals, its founding principles, and its universal values, because these are the Party’s greatest threat.
Let’s ask of the American people: “In order to save a few dollars, can you sleep soundly at night if you wear the Homer Simpson slippers made by slave labor (including American citizen Charles Lee) or if you use an iPhone made by workers who may have committed suicide as the only answer to the working conditions in a Communist regime?”
If these questions were asked during the Cold War, the answer would definitely have been “No.” If it is asked today, we hope that the majority of Americans would also say “No,” but if the West keeps yielding to the CCP ideology, what will the answer be ten years from now or twenty years from now? Seeing the trend, will you be able sleep soundly tonight?
People are awakening. Commenting on the fierce multi-year campaign of cyber attacks against American media, the ever direct Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China, pointed out that the CCP leaders “now crave control of not only their nation but ours as well.” “They have morphed from a threat to their own people to a threat to free institutions and free societies. The unprecedented attack on Western media is part of a campaign to intimidate reporters and affect political discourse in America and elsewhere. The West, and democratic countries everywhere, cannot allow the Chinese to succeed.” [34]
Also, some American companies, including Apple, GE, and Whirlpool are bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. When they went to China, they did not think things through and forgot the benefits of doing business in the United States. Now they realize that doing business is much more than maximizing immediate gain. [35]
The issue is values. It includes not only economic values, but also business ethics, moral values, societal values, spiritual values, and the American ideals.
Part IV of Clash of Values will review the policies and relations between the governments of the United States and the People’s Republic of China.
Endnotes:
[1] Jiang Zemin: “The Struggle to Build the Party into a Stronger Vanguard of the Working Class,” (December 29, 1989), “Selected Important Documents Since the Thirteenth Party Congress,” Volume II, Page 809, Edition 1, October 1911, People’s Publishing House.[2] Jiang Zemin’s Speech on the National Overseas Propaganda Work Conference,
Xinhua, “Jiang Zemin on Human Rights.”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-01/20/content_696952.htm.
[3] Qiushi, Several Issues on “Universal Values,” November 17, 2008.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/theory/2008-11/17/content_10369804.htm.
[4] Red Flag Manuscript, “Why China Should Suspect Western ‘Universal Values,’” February 6, 2009.
http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/41038/8758966.html.
[5] People’s Daily, “Developing a Strong Cultural Country: the Party’s Realization and Confidence in Cultural Development under the New Situation,” January 17, 2012.
http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/16894037.html.
[6] The CCP’s News, “Understanding the Seventeenth Party National Congress Report (Part 7): Pushing for Socialist Culture Big Prosperity and Big Development,” November 6, 2011.
http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/49150/49152/6488361.html.
[7] The CCP’s News, “The Plan to Double the Culture Industry Is Published: At Least Double the Value during the ‘Twelfth Five-Year’ Period,” February 28, 2012.
http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64093/64387/17246920.html.
[8] China.com.cn, Culture Security, September 26, 2009.
http://opinion.china.com.cn/opinion_42_4242.html.
[9] Xinhua, “Global Times English Edition Was Launched,” April 19, 2009.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/newmedia/2009-04/19/content_11217348.htm.
[10] Chinese Academy of Social Science, “2009 Major Events of Chinese Media ‘Going Abroad.’”
http://www.cass.net.cn/file/20100202256905.html.
[11] Bloomberg, “China Says No Talking Tibet as Confucius Funds U.S. Universities,” November 1, 2011.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-01/china-says-no-talking-tibet-as-confucius-funds-u-s-universities.html.
[12] New York Times, “After Fury Over 2010 Peace Prize, China Embraces Nobel Selection,” October 11, 1012.
[13] Wall Street Journal, “Japan’s Public Welcome for Dalai Lama Irks China,” November 13, 2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578116623056839826.html.
[14] Guardian, “South Africa acted unlawfully in failing to give Dalai Lama visa, court rules,” November 29, 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/29/south-africa-dalai-lama-visa.
[15] Time, “In China, Muted Reaction to Dalai Lama’s Visit,” February 19, 2010.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1966629,00.html.
[16] (French) Parliamentary Assembly, “Written Question No. 443 by M. Lindblad,” April 16, 2004.
http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=10498&Language=EN.
[17] New York Times, “Discontent Simmers as Angolans Go to the Polls,” September 4, 2012.
http://cn.nytimes.com/article/world/2012/09/04/c04angola/en/.
[18] Washington Post, “Foreign companies in China sound off on business policies, July 22, 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072106001.html.
[19] New York Times, “Chinese Court Hands Down Stiff Sentences to Four Mining Company Employees,” March 29, 2010.
[20] Wikipedia, “Rio Tinto espionage case.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Tinto_espionage_case.
[21] CFO, “Lucent Fires Four on Bribery Suspicions,” April 7, 2004.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3013085?f=related.
[22] Kanzhongguo, “Li Changchun Prohibited Reporting Because the Siemens List Is Too Sensitive.”
http://m.kanzhongguo.com/node/289823.
[23] CNet, “Foxconn worker jumps to death from apartment in Chengdu,” June 4, 2012.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57453111-92/foxconn-worker-jumps-to-death-from-apartment-in-chengdu/.
[24] New York Times, “Chinese Workers’ Rights,” February 8, 2013.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/chinese-workers-rights/.
[25] Radio Free Asia, 1,000 Foxconn Workers Strike.
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/foxconn-01232013131803.html
[26] The Oregon, “Plea for help from labor camp gets international attention,” December 28, 2012.
http://www.oregonlive.com/happy-valley/index.ssf/2012/12/plea_for_help_from_labor_camp.html.
[27] National Review, “Buying Chinese,” April 11, 2006.
http://old.nationalreview.com/impromptus/nordlinger200604110739.asp.
[28] Free China, the Courage to Believe
http://freechinamovie.com/
[29] Wired, “Cisco Leak: ‘Great Firewall’ of China Was a Chance to Sell More Routers,” May 20, 2008.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/leaked-cisco-do/.
[30] Wikipedia, “Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_Confucius_Institutes#cite_note-Nest-11.
[31] Association for Asian Research Website, “Mary Kay Inc. discontinues use of pledge in China that cites Falun Gong as ‘illegal,’” November 2, 2003.
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1734.html.
[32] People’s Daily, “China Model Is Defeating the Universal Values,” January 12, 2013.
http://military.people.com.cn/n/2013/0112/c1011-20179476.html.
[33] Forbes, “Why Apple and GE Are Bringing Back Manufacturing,” December 12, 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/12/07/why-apple-and-ge-are-bringing-manufacturing-back/.
[34] World Affairs, “How Should the US Respond to China’s Cyber Attacks?” February 6, 2013.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/gordon-g-chang/how-should-us-respond-chinas-cyber-attacks.
[35] Forbes, “Why Apple and GE Are Bringing Back Manufacturing,” December 12, 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/12/07/why-apple-and-ge-are-bringing-manufacturing-back/.