Back then (just as now), Western intelligence services had very limited access to the internal workings of the Communist countries (as Churchill famously quipped: "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"). But nature abhors vacuum, and the new science was born - they called it "Kremlinology". A large number of well-paid American social scientists (I feel nauseous even using this oxymoronic term, "social scientists") were pouring over the photographs of the Soviet Politburo, counting the minutes each communist leader was speaking during the Party Congress, analyzing the sequence of names in the official newspapers. Indeed, as any former Soviet citizen would know, every step of the leaders of the communist junta was rehearsed, and every detail had a meaning. You could theoretically find out who was favored by Brezhnev and his clique by the order in which the government members were walking up the Lenin's mausoleum during the May Day parade. All that may be in the past - or is it really?
This year, the Nobel Committee, apparently ashamed of its 2009 decision to grant the award to Barack Hussein Obama (former community organizer, most famous for being the most thin-skinned US president of all times) decided that 2010 will be different. And indeed it was, The Nobel Prize was awarded to a person with actual achievements, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. According to wikipedia, he is a "Chinese literary critic, writer, professor, and human rights activist who called for political reforms and the end of communist one-party rule in China". What's even more amazing is how much his views are in line with the views of the pro-Western Soviet dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Valeria Novodvorskaya, anti-Putin activist Viktor Shenderovich and pro-freedom writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Indeed, Liu Xiaobo may prove to be a little bit too progressive and too pro-Western for American progressive intellectuals. One must not forget that the denounciation of Western culture and support for socialist cannibals is a requirement for anyone who wishes to be considered an intellectual in the US. In fact, I was struck by the views that this brave man had the audacity to say – indeed he would be in danger of losing his job and face continuous harassment from the socialist thugs if he were a professor in American university – let alone the communist paradise of China. Here are a few of the most outrageous quotes from him:
“In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong’s Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation.I read this and laughed – damn, this guy is a classical Russian liberal (don’t mistake a Russian liberal for an American one – because a Russian liberal is solidly pro-Western, pro-freedom and anti-socialist).
He replied: “(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.”
Later Liu said something which rings true to all pro-Western intellectuals in the Soviet Empire:
“Modernization means whole-sale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing Western way of life. Difference between Western and Chinese governing system is humane vs in-humane, there’s no middle ground… Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race”.
According to wikipidea, he did not stop with this heresy against the edicts of American liberalism and said something even more outrageous:
In his 1996 article titled “Lessons from the Cold War”, Liu argues that “The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.” He has defended U.S. policies in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which he thinks is the fault of the “provocateur” Palestinians.
Liu also published a 2004 article in support of Bush’s war on Iraq, titled “Victory to the Anglo-American Freedom Alliance”, in which he praised the U.S. led post-cold-war wars as “best examples of how war should be conducted in a modern civilization.” and predicted “a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge.” During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu again praised Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US’s wars.
I am in a 100% agreement with everything this man says – with the exception of one quote from 2009 - I cannot think like that :
“I have no enemies, and no hatred. None of the police who have monitored, arrested and interrogated me, the prosecutors who prosecuted me, or the judges who sentence me, are my enemies. While I’m unable to accept your surveillance, arrest, prosecution or sentencing, I respect your professions and personalities, including Zhang Rongge and Pan Xueqing who act for the prosecution at present.”
With all due respect, but I consider this approach to be fundamentally wrong. I think it was Valeriya Novodvorskaya who wrote that when she was arrested, she would specifically tell the KGB officers that’s it was their fault, their responsibility, and they should be ashamed of what they are doing. In other words, it was not business, it was very personal. Same attitude was also expressed by a famous Russian writer
Vladimir Voinovich - he recalls in one of his books how he was shaming the KGB officer and telling him that his only noble way out was to commit a suicide (KGB was forcing Voinovich out of the country).
Last but not least I must recall Solzhenitsyn's call to Russian people to defend themselves with knives, hammers and any dangerous objects they could find during the political arrests. His slogan was "Let's make them (the KGB) scared of us".
All in all, it's obvious that Liu does not share the hatred of communism and communists, hatred which is common among many Russians, hatred so vicious that it darkens your mind and you are ready to tear your enemies bit by bit. For any Russian-speaking reader of this post who forgot this feeling, I would point to a famous song by Alexander Galich about the funeral of a Nobel-winning Russian writer Boris Pasternak - a man who was driven to death by the vicious campaign of the communist regime in the 1950ies. As Galich said (my translation) – “we will remember every name of every person who raised his hand” (i.e. voted to condemn Pasternak for his anti-communist novel “Doctor Zhivago”).
It seems though that my post somewhat slipped away from the main topic of Kreminology. But fear not, Hyphenated American is on the case.
After the Nobel Committee had announced its decision to award the prize to a famous dissident, Chinese government, quite understandably, got upset. The Chinese progressives told the world that this award was “counter-productive” (or something pompous like that) and forbade Liu’s wife to leave China – so that no one could accept the award. The communists did something even better – they told everyone who would listen that it would be very appreciative of the China’s allies who would refuse to be present during the award ceremony. And this is where Kreminology finds its use. According to the media, 18 countries openly refused to come the ceremony, and the list of the countries is not without surprises: Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu raised the stakes even further, by stating: “As far as I know, at present, more than 100 countries and organisations have expressed explicit support for China opposing the Nobel peace prize, which fully shows that the international community does not accept the decision of the Nobel committee.” All in all, only 44 countries were present during the ceremony.
It should not surprise anyone that Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Ukraine, Cuba boycotted the award ceremony. I don’t know what the hell is wrong with Tunisia, the Philippines and Morocco – but it makes sense to mark these three as supporters of oppression.
The remaining ones are rather peculiar – Pakistan, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt. Pakistan is now being pumped up with US money and military equipment with one goal in mind – to keep it from falling under the power of local moderate moslems. In spite of much advertised moderation of the “Religion of Peace”, it is known that some moderate moslems may start cutting off heads of the infidels and stoning adulterous women if US does not stop them – so it makes sense for the civilized world to keep those moderate moslems in check. The Pakistani government is now fully dependent on the US good will, and if that good will disappears, the Pakistan’s Prime Minister Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yousaf Raza Gillani make wake up one day and discover that his head is hidden in the drawer. The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are in even worse position, given that US troops currently occupy both of these nations. Saudi Arabia exists solely because the US protects it from the neighbors with a rather large army contingent. And yet, all four of these American satellites smugly ignored Obama’s calls to democracy and instead supported Chinese brutal regime. Egypt is receiving about 2 billion of US aid annually – and yet it pissed on Obama and joined China (I support the pissing part, but I strongly disagree with cowtowing to the commies). Colombia was famously rebuffed by Obama in 2008 (he said that he would not support the trade deal with the US ally because of his support for the unions) and Obama was still stuck on stupid in 2010.
In short, I understand why Colombia, which is now seeking good relationship with Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chavez, endorses Chinese brutality against its dissidents. Amazingly, US government has no influence over our protectorates – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, while I have no illusions about the first three, Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be different, but apparently under Obama’s supervision they turned into classical Third-World anti-American dictatorships. In fact, I would even say that there is no reason for the US troops to continue their fight in these two countries – I officially declare that I lost all hope in the occupation. The fact that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan sided with China against democracy is, what any Kreminologist would say, a very troubling sign which should not be ignored.
In short – Obama, bring the boys back home, there is nothing for us to achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore. After all the successes in 2007-2008 in Iraq, you squandered it all. Bring the boys back home, Obama, bring the boys back home. We need them here – and maybe we can use them to control our border with Mexico. Last but not least, it would be easier for them to vote, once they are back in the country – and God knows these boys don’t vote for the anti-American scum.