And the problem with an embargo is?????????It's the Chinese responsibility to figure out how to feed their people, not the United States. And I'm sure we didn't go to Canada and Australia and come up with a plan "just to starve Chinese children"... I'm also sure that the idea of: "specifically, to starve the Chinese people, hoping that mass starvation would destroy the country" is not an interest the United States currently has.

Of course what you are forgetting is that China and the Soviet Union were reluctant allies with views on governance that were apparently diametrically opposed to the US.

The Korean War, and studies of the war between China and Vietnam, showed that the Chinese themselves regard life differently, and have no compunction about sending wave after wave of virtually unarmed soldiers into enemy fire, hoping to overwhelm the enemy by sheer force of numbers (by running out of ammunition). Of course it was the Russians who perfected this technique at the Battle of Stalingrad, where for some time, Russian soldiers would disembark on the western bank of the Volga, mostly unarmed, and be expected to pick up the rifles of their dead countrymen.

Why on earth would the US supply food to this regime, where a seemingly endless supply of hands would ensure that all food received would appear to have come from Chinese fields far away?

I have no problem with US govt. policies of the time, as there was no benefit to US hegemony in the Pacific. IF people starved as a result, remember that tens of millions of Chinese died because of Mao himself with the Great Leap Forward and the attempt to collectivize production, as well as the later Cultural Revolution, which took millions of educated Chinese out of circulation for a number of years while they were 're-educated through labour'. The Chinese did this to themselves by following a cult of personality.

The US wanted no part of the lunacy of Chinese domestic policy, and rightly so.

China has the ability to offer more than it does to DPRK, and yet it does not. Why?

A leashed dog is safer than a dog running around an unfenced yard. You can feed it enough to keep it alive, but not enough to go around the neighbourhood attacking people. It will stay close by it's food bowl.

Even the Chinese respect power over others. To me it's much the same thing, and they see much the same thing in the skinny citizens of DPRK - a people who can't cause TOO much trouble, but who are useful nonetheless as a bulwark against the rampant consumerism and freedom of South Korea.

Could DPRK level Seoul? Surely, but they would pay a terrible price. It's a calculation the Chinese government is happy to make, one one the DPRK regime surely knows. So DPRK gets a drip feed of fuel, food, and some items useful for its citizens, but nothing approaching comfort, since comfort is what the DPRK regime wants.

Nobody in the six-party talks is willing to give DPRK comfort. 'Just don't die on my watch', is what I imagine all of the negotiators are thinking. Here's a hundred thousand gallons of bunker-oil. Have fun with your parades.

It's really the same thing.

Like the mass famine in the Ukraine under Stalin, or the millions who died of starvation in the DPRK or the ethiopian famine under the marxist leadership there and strange that the embargo only had effect during the great leap forward...

We didn't see a half million American military members killed and wounded trying to liberate China from the Japanese, only to turn around and try to starve them out later. What a pack of revisionist lies...

Goldhooka, while I agree with your basic take on Mr. Donaldson's interpretation, his reference is to the Great Leap Forward, an event in modern China's history -- but dating half a century ago, not to today's geopolitical stage.

Mr. Donaldson, I lived in China proper several years and in Macau several more (before Portugal returned it), and married a native of Beijing when I lived and worked in that city, so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the beliefs of ordinary Chinese regarding the mass starvation concurrent with Mao's Great Leap Forward.

My father-in-law, for instance, held the view that even had every other country on the planet been perfectly willing to provide the foodstuffs to avoid starvation among Chinese, Mao would never have permitted it. Yes, that's a road not taken, so there's no way we'll ever know for sure, but Mao wasn't particularly noted for liking "foreign intervention," as he saw it -- except when it came to matters such as the Soviet Union giving him nuclear weaponry and technology, building infrastructure in China on its own ruble, and so on.

Further, even had Mao allowed the food imports, it's a near-certainty that large quatities of it would have been diverted to the armed forces, much as North Korea diverts much foreign aid intended for the citizenry to its relatively massive military. Where do you think the North Koreans learned that in the first place? -- at the feet of Chairman Mao, The Great Helmsman, of course.

That it's utterly ruthless to say that targeting civilian populations has been the norm going back all the way to Genghis Khan doesn't alter the historical fact, just as my noting that fact does not mean that I approve of such strategies. (Recent examples include the firebombing of Dresden and the twin atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.)

It's relevant to point out that leaders of the People's Republic are emperors in some very real, practical ways. For example, during the days of imperial China, if someone got seriously on the wrong side of the emperor, not only was he executed, but every last member of his extended family was tracked down and killed, including *their* families. Today's leaders aren't as extreme, true, but philosophically they continue to demonstrate a perfect willingness to go after family members, colleagues, and friends of people who have crossed the Party. The logic is, "Damn! Fugitive A got away! Well, our henchmen are primed, so let's pick up his parents, wife, and child and torment them" -- notice I said "torment," which isn't the same as "torture."

The visual presentation of your argument, i.e., the places where capital letters are used, imply you believe the US bears primary responsibility for the mass starvation that indisputably occurred during the Great Leap Forward, a time when Mao ordered farmers to build backyard kilns to produce iron for the state instead of going out to plant their rice fields, an utter catastrophe directly -- and, I submit, *primarily* -- causing widespread starvation. FP pegs the number of deaths at 30 million, which sounds reasonable, though I've read estimates ranging from 20 million to 40 million (and a few much less credible claims that run substantially higher).

In sum, it's at the very least highly debatable that anything the US or any other Western country did or failed to do during the Great Leap Forward had any material affect on what happened behind the Bamboo Curtain.

Click the links in blue, you know, color blue....than click....and magic will happen. Some sources and documents will show up....click, click, click....and READ!

Stay strong EVYAVAN, I live in the UK & therefore have a better understanding of the India/Pakistan issues than anyone from the US. The UK is FAR from blameless however putting religion to one side India is now a superpower globally and has much to be proud of... I wish you all the best....

I also dont like Iran's regime, but their conscription thing really isnt much to criticize. Israel has a similar system. Even the unquestionably free and democratic South Korea has a similar conscription system.

I agree with you, my friend. I am sure the author knows nothing about history at all. I am not sure if she had studied any history at all, based on the criticisms appear on this comment column. I have never studied the history text book from China. However, I heard Chinese history, if properly edited fully, equal the size of European history combined. Of all the events that had possibly described in the Chinese history text book, why would anyone want to read about Tibet? And if Tibet is mentioned, why not include the human slavery system that was liberated from the Religion Governing Dalai Lama system.

In regard of Japanese war, the author should be ashamed for pushing the total glory for American involvement. Let's think of it in a different way and if the text book reads: The American defeated Japan in World II because the Chinese army were sitting around and doing nothing for eight years. The reason the Chinese army was sitting around because the Japanese army was doing nothing in China. So the Japanese government were angered and attacked America for nothing. And also, the Chinese army went to fight in Burma and India not with the Japanese army but just to have a tour. You can see how ridiculous this can be.

In fact the author possibly don't even know the Chinese army fought along the British in India and Burma. I gave the author for this article a "D" for failed for giving obscure reasonings in the article.

It says communist party resistance. The Chinese communist party fought in exactly one battle against the Japanese and lost. All the fighting was done by the nationalists which is why they ended WW2 in such bad shape and the communists in such good shape. As stated in the chinese textbook their version of WW2 is a lie.

I quote "Japanese textbooks are little better; they tend to skim over the event, calling it an "incident," "massacre," or "massacre incident.") The Chinese version of history has it that Japan was defeated in the war because of Chinese resistance, not because of the U.S. entry into the war. ". Then it goes on to say...."communist resistance".

Are you sure you are on the same page? Please read again.

Your concern about Mao is well taken. However, I have to tell you: Maoism went to sleep on book shelves when Mao died. Dengism is about to be expired too because his vision of economic and military development in China is increasingly distance from present reality. However, Maoism is still alive and kicking in India, Nepal, and South America, for people who are oppressed by others. Also, totalitarianism has expired when Mao died.

If you don't believe China is not an totalitarianism, then compare the situation of China now to the definition of totalitarianism. One dictionary states " Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority". In a sense, Mao had formed the totalitarianism state because he control absolutely the government organs and he could stay at that position for life.

After Mao, each General Secretary of the CCP has only a term of maximum six years and he had to be voted into the position by other interest group leaders in the party. Therefore, the rule of law is that the General Secretary is not for life but is voted in every six years or less. And he can only serve two terms.

Another aspect is that market economy cannot be controlled by the government but it can only be directed into certain directions similar to India or the Western countries. Therefore, China is no longer a planned economy. That's one aspect where people have a lot of freedom.

In regard of people's personal freedom, with passing of many laws in the last 30 years, people's conduct is governed mostly by the rule of law rather than the will of the party. In most cases, people can do whatever they want within the rule of law.

In comparison, China is not an totalitarianism but it is not a anarchy. It is somewhere in between which China has chosed to be. Before new China, China was a fake democracy which the people rejected and chose something else. Now this choice of new government had evolved into something which is suitable for the Chinese people. It is still evolving and it will continue for some time.