It's worth remembering that 30 years ago the Chinese were funding communist revolutionaries against Burma's military government. These were mainly drawn from the Wa community, which is now knees-deep in drug smuggling.

The Chinese are viewed with suspicion across South-East Asia and the Burmese junta is no exception; its relationship with Beijing is strictly business.

Hitch overstates the potency of China's armed forces, a paper tiger if ever there was one. China's last proper war was against Vietnam. It lost, as any of Hong Kong's "boat people" could tell you.

China needs Burmese energy. Quite why Burma's other neighbours should tolerate the endless stream of drugs, refugees, and HIV that pours out of the country is another matter.

China has been modernizing its military in the past decade. Currently, it has the largest standing army in the world, with over 2.2 million active soldiers and 7 million total.

Moreover, earlier this year, China showed how sophisticated its missile systems have become when it blew-up an orbitting satellite.

Personally, I am a very harsh critic of the Chinese dictatorship and am quite bothered by its military might and influence around the world. I am even more bothered by the fact that a majority of the products available to U.S. consumers, from high tech gadgetry to lo-tech kitchen ware, have a "made in china" (or, better yet "hecho en china") labels.

There was a short at Sundance last year called Ha Ha Ha America. It's no longer available at the Sundance site, but I encourage you to try to find it. (Here, Atom Films has it, but it includes ads).

China doesn't have a dictator, and is no more likely to support questionable nations than any other powerful country is (guess who's most likely to support human rights offenders). China is certainly less likely to use their security council veto than any of the other permanent member (guess who's most likely to veto).

When the United States supports human rights abusers, they, you, perhaps even we, tend to view it a necessary evil, or as a preferable alternative to completely shutting off diplomatic relations. However, when anyone else has relations with a not so squeaky clean nation, it's suddenly an unforgivable threat. There's just a tad of hypocrisy here.

The reality is, it's not practical to unilaterally shut off relations with a nation because they are behaving badly. Such things create out of control conflict. If the U.N. decides that a nation be censured, then it should be. The rest (including this article) is hollow moralizing.

China has one of the world's worst dictators: Hu Jintao.

And certainly when you are talking about hypocrisies, I can only assume you have not read many of my many posts on Slate's Fray. Go read them, I am a very harsh critic of U.S. support of tyrants, especially the likes of King Abdullah, Pervez Musharraf, and others. I do not buy the "necessary evil" crap and bring this up time in again when discussing the U.S. support for Saddam Hussein and the precursors of the Taliban in the 1980s.

At the same time, I am not calling for unilaterally shutting off relations with such nations (e.g. I think it is foolish for the Bush Administration not to directly talk with Iran and Syria vis a vis Iraq). However, there is a huge difference in unilaterally cutting relations with a nation and outright supporting them in the continuation of their abuses.

Hu Jintao was elected at the sixteenth national congress of the communist party of China. His rule is not complete, among other mechanisms, it's subject to both the rule of law and the Chinese constitution. It's a long way from what anyone would call a democracy, but it isn't exactly a dictatorship either - not even close really. One must note that power transfered to him from his predecessor by way of election.

"However, there is a huge difference in unilaterally cutting relations with a nation and outright supporting them in the continuation of their abuses." - spruce

You seem to be implying that relations engage and disengage at stages. Perhaps you start with talking, then move on to a little trade, maybe some sporting events, and then perhaps a few fighter planes. Fine. I've never implied otherwise.

However, national entanglements can't be (and shouldn't be) pushed aside on whims. Every country in the world abuses human rights to one degree or another, so we must decide who is too bad, and isn't so bad. Then, we must decide to what degree action should be taken, and what degree relations should be allowed. Perhaps weapons are out of the question, but other economic ties should be allowed for the sake of stability Perhaps talking is all that can be granted. The question becomes: who decides these things? Who decides when is too far? Clearly, we have organizations for this. China is not one of these organization and either is the United States. The U.N. is such an organization. So really, one can't really criticize China for maintaining economic relations with a nation when the U.N. says it's perfectly fine for China to do so. If China were to suddenly sanction this questionable nation, suddenly, without U.N. authority, it could be argued that they are mistreating that nation. What if China suddenly cut all trade with the U.S. on the grounds that they considered U.S. human rights violations intolerable?

It we don't decide these things through international mechanisms, we really run a serious risk of acting on our very worst tribal biases (like the portrayal of Hu Jintao as a dictator).

I guess it is your definition of "dictator" then:

New Statesman

Washington Post

Parade

Associated Content

etc.

There are many more out there, these are just the first couple of appropriate returns in my search.

I particularly like what the New Statesman said about China being a "party dictatorship" and Hu Jintao being the head of the party.

The simple fact of the matter is China has a brutally repressive regime and Hu Jintao is the head of the party orchestrating these crimes against humanity. Maybe you would have been happier if I used the word "autocratic."

One by one.

The New Statesmen: describes Hu Jintao's rule as a tug of war between president and bureaucrats. By definition, not a dictatorship.

The Washington Post: "The party's authority is gradually declining, and as a result, Hu is less confident and more insecure than the leaders before him [...]" This is hardly the language one uses to discuss a dictator. Even in this highly biased article they have problems portraying Hu as a dictator.

Parade: Nothing in this to indicate that Hu is a dictator unless simply calling him one makes it so.

Associated Content: The same non-article presented by Parade.

"There are many more out there, these are just the first couple of appropriate returns in my search." - Spuce

If by appropriate you mean, tears your argument to shreds, well, I wonder what you'd think inappropriate would be..

"I particularly like what the New Statesman said about China being a "party dictatorship" and Hu Jintao being the head of the party." - Spruce

If this doesn't indicate the mental backflips required to insert the word "dictator", I don't know what does. The party in question is often described as "one party, two factions". Again, this just supports the argument that Hu isn't well described as a dictator, and China's political system isn't well described as a dictatorship.

"The simple fact of the matter is China has a brutally repressive regime and Hu Jintao is the head of the party orchestrating these crimes against humanity. Maybe you would have been happier if I used the word "autocratic."" - spruce

An autocrat is a self-appointed ruler, which Hu is not - as I've already shown. You might want to start looking up these words before you use them. But hey, I applaud you on your decision to change the subject from "he is a dictator" to he "has a brutally repressive regime". It's not really a very honest or accurate portrayal, but you've been doing so badly with the dictator thing, maybe this will work out for you.

One important question to ask yourself when it comes to human rights is this: has the nation in question moved toward or away from the ideal? (whatever that may be). By western standards, the China of today has moved a long way in the right direction (compared to twenty or thirty years ago).

Perhaps since 2002 China has moved inextricably in the wrong direction. Then again, perhaps not. Maybe it's just propaganda, maybe someone gearing up for a competition with China.

The term autocracy originally referred to a self-appointed leader, but, like most words, has taken on varying meanings over time and now is simply synonymous with dictator or despot.

My use of the word was obviously a joke, poking fun at your splitting hairs over the use of the word "dictator" to describe the leader of one of the most repressive regimes on the planet.

Of course, most people wouldn't argue against the use of the term "dictatorship" to describe China. In fact, Mao Zedong used the term himself and it is incorporated into the Chinese Constitution ("Peoples Democratic Dictatorship").

Today, China is the epitome of a dictatorship.

I can see your confusion, though. Hu Jintao is merely the "Paramount Leader" of the Peoples Republic of China, being the General Secretary of the Communist Party, President of China, and the Chairman of the Central Military Commission. And I dared call such an individual a "dictator."

Oh, by the way, here is some light reading from the Asia Times.

Excerpt:

But what does all the ideological sloganeering - not to mention the reams of official gobbledygook that is written to support it - tell us about China's next five years under a leader who will now be the unrivaled master of his party and his nation? (emphasis added just for you Jams..)

Silly me for referring to the "unrivaled master of his party and his nation" as a "dictator." Thank you, thank you, thank you, for the semantics games, it has truly been a joy.

Spruce, while I agree with your overall position, I personally would not define Hu Jintao as a dictator.

In a sense, China is more democratic now than it has ever been. The Chinese Communist Party is a mass participation party in which power is spread between factions. Hu's power is curtailed by the remnants of the Shanghai Faction led by his predecessor Jinag Zemin, and the groups loyal to the "princelings", the children of the first generation of CCP leaders who now occupy senior party positions and will soon displace Hu. The military is subordinated to civilian leaders.

That is not to say the government is democratic by Western standards. It is an authoritarian entity which possesses a key facet of dictatorships - it values its own existence more highly than the people it's supposed to represent.

I am aware of the collossal size of the People's Liberation Army, but remember this. For decades China has imposed a one-child policy. This means that most of its soldiers have no brothers or sisters.

This is just a guess, but I suspect that a war in which the PLA suffered serious casualties would be massively destablising to China. Parents who had invested all their hopes in their only son do not want to see him die in a fight over Taiwan.

"I hope the Russians love their children too." (Ah, to relive the cold war).

I recently heard or read a study (can't remember which) a piece about the psychological costs of war when a certain percentage of the population is killed or injured. As such, I certainly agree with you that if the PLA suffered serious casualties it would be massively destabilizing to China. And the one child policy would certainly compound the misery.

As for China's reforms, these may be a sign that China is (finally) moving away from authoritarianism to a more pluralistic society. However, Hu (at this very moment) is still the Paramount Leader and still is the head of China's three branches of government: the Communist Party; the PLA, and the presidency. Moreover, despite some reforms, China is still responsible for egregious human rights violations, as defined by the U.S. State Department and numerous human rights groups.

As for Hu's power being curtailed by Shanghai faction, this was certainly true. However, as this article from 2003 shows most members of the Shanghai faction shifted their positions from Jiang to Hu. This is further shown in this Asia Times article from last year, which shows the waning power of the Shanghai faction and the growing consolidation of power by Hu.

Hu may lack the "cult of personality" that some former Chinese leaders maintained, but he nonetheless controls all three branches of Chinese government.

I, of course, am not an expert on these matters, only an observer that tries to base my opinion on the best available information. And based on that, all I can say is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, chances are it is a duck. I am sure someone will point out, though, that it is actually a mallard and, though technically a duck, I used the generic form of the word obviously meaning a domestic duck.

Thanks for the link. But really, I seriously recommend you read this stuff before you post it. The only thing in doubt at this point is your literacy.

Here's another excerpt...

"What is required is a fundamental change in China's deeply entrenched political culture. That is a big challenge for a mild-mannered technocrat who has cautiously worked his way to the pinnacle of Chinese politics. There is much at stake for China - and for a world that has come to count on China's success. Let's hope he is up to the task." - Asia Times

Mild-mannered technocrat is of course code for "dictator" - or maybe he's just something all together different. And seriously, in what way is "Paramount leader" any different than "Commander and Chief"? You have the nerve to criticize me for assuming the dictionary has something to say about the word "dictator", for playing semantics games, and splitting hairs, and then present this weak propaganda as your evidence? This is just embarrassing now.

Come on man... read! This article raises the specter of Hu's supposed intentions (not his reality), and then goes on to describe those intentions as progressive. Wow... what scathing evidence of dictatorship.

"Silly me for referring [...]" - spruce

Not silly. Just wrong.

"[...] splitting hairs [...]", "semantics game", etc... - spruce

Translation: he's a bad man and I don't like him, so how dare you tell me what I can call him.

Look. Call him whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when people laugh at your ignorance. I know I will be.

Those aren't the three branches of the Chinese government, but ok smartguy, let's hear your criteria for a "dictator". So far we have...

1) Must be elected

2) Must be the commander and chief of the army.

3) Must be accountable to a constitution and the rule of law.

4) Must answer to a legislative branch.

5) Must do things spruce thinks are bad.

Any other criteria for dictator?

Hu was only ever subject to a very limited election, one that was predetermined before ever being held. The rule of law is alien to China; judges have no real independence and often rule instrumentally at the government's behest. China's legislature is a rubber-stamp body that queries only a tiny proportion of the edicts it is ordered to pass.

Again, I'd argue that none of this makes Hu Jintao a dictator, just the frontman of a dictatorial Communist Party in which he by no means has absolute sway. For me, dictators wear uniform and brook no opposition from even their party political supporters.

"Paramount Leader" refers to the head of all three of China's branches of government.

How is this different than the Commander in Chief?

If the United States was a single party nation that outlawed all other parties and the same individual that was the Commander in Chief of the military was also both the head of state and the head of the single authoritarian party, then maybe you could say the two are similar. But they aren't.

It was certainly a nice try on your part though to equate the two. You might also consider reading the U.S. Constitution if you are having further problems with the differentiation.

Perhaps you have a better name for a country that outlaws all but one party, stifles political dissent, and has a single leader in charge of all three branches of government. Maybe you call it "paradise." I call it authoritarianism.

In the meantime, maybe you should take you own advice and go read up on how this "mild-mannered technocrat" has worked to consolidate power during the past four years. Here's a good start.

Excerpt:

Hu has placed particular emphasis on tightening the party's control over public opinion, presiding over a crackdown to restore discipline to state media and intimidate dissident intellectuals. He has also gone further than his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, by adopting new measures to regulate discussions on university Internet sites and the activities of nongovernmental organizations.

Excerpt:

...many have concluded Hu is an ideologically rigid and exceedingly cautious apparatchik who recognizes the party's authoritarian system is in trouble but wants to repair it.

Yes, just like our Commander in Chief! There are plenty more such article out there.

Goodness, Jams, I love it when you get hotheaded--it makes these posts that much more fun.

Yes, "branch" was the wrong term to use. I mean, after all, by the Chinese Constitution, there are three branches, just like in the U.S.:

Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

However, unlike the U.S., the three branches are not separate. The President is elected by the National People's Congress, just as the judges are appointed by the National People's Congress. In other words, there really is only one branch.

And since there is only one political party (CCP) and a single individual is both the head of the party and the executive, oh and is head of the military too... I think you see where I am going with this one.

Again, Jams, perhaps you view this as "paradise" or even a democracy. The rest of the world sees it as authoritarianism.