Header graphic for print
China Law Blog China Law for Business

Famous China Troll Nanheyangrouchuan Deconstructed. Somewhat.

Posted in Recommended Reading

Nanheyangrouchuan has commented 532 times on this blog, of which we have published 531. I do not remember exactly why we blocked that one comment, but I think I felt it too cruel/racist. We have received a number of comments and emails from our readers asking why we publish nanheyangrouchuan at all and suggesting we block him completely.
We always try to block “junk” comments, which basically consist of comments we deem to have been posted solely for advertising purposes. From time to time, we also block comments that make unsubstantiated allegations against people. Two examples highlight this. One was when we posted on a very thoughtful article (with which we disagreed) on China written by a China consultant. Someone left a comment saying this consultant had been run out of China for owing many people a lot of money. We did not publish that comment. Another time, we praised someone’s knowledge of China and someone left a comment on how this person had been fired from some job about 10 years ago. We did not run that one either. I will also admit to having blocked a few comments that are nothing more than a string of vituperative adjectives regarding me. I also have blocked a few that I deemed to be nothing more than hate speech. Now before anyone writes to question my standards on this, I will freely admit to having none beyond blocking what offends me too much.
The difficult decisions come when someone leaves a serious comment that includes something I deem hateful. Do I block the whole comment or do I delete portions? Does deleting a portion mean I am somehow changing that which the commenter intended. I have had only a couple of these and I have handled them inconsistently. One was from someone I know personally and for that one I deleted parts of it and then emailed the writer telling him what I had done and why. He thanked me for it. If I do not know the person, I usually delete the entire comment.
In the life of this blog, I have completely banned only one person and that was early on. I banned someone whose sole purpose in life seems to be to paint the Catholic church as the source of all evil in the world, including in China. I am not even remotely Catholic, but I will be damned (pun intended) if this blog is going to be a forum for someone to spread vicious and unmitigatingly hateful nonsense.
Now on to nanheyangrouchuan. My sense is that most China blog readers revile him, though he must have his supporters as well. I see him as a provocateur, who oftentimes goes too far to make his point. I think he knows China pretty well, but I also think his impressions are clouded by his rigid ideologies. Despite all this, there have definitely been a few times when I have agreed with him and there have been countless times where I have disagreed with him, but have been impressed and even pleased with his raising contrary facts and opinions. Overall — and remember this is coming from someone who disagrees with him at least 90 percent of the time and frequently harshly criticizes him — I think Nanheyangrouchuan raises the level of discussion on China in the blogosphere. He also is not without a sense of humor, which goes a long way towards redeeming people in my eyes. Everything is not political.
Nanheyangrouchuan likes to maintain his anonymity and I do not know who he is. That has obviously caused many of us to wonder who the person is behind the troll and in a recent post, entitled, “My Interview with the BBC, er Shanghaiist,” on his recently created China, Eat My Lamb Kebab blog, we get a somewhat better feel for that. The post is based on 24 questions posed by email to Nanheyangrouchuan by Dan Washburn of the Shanghaiist blog (which BTW, was just deservedly chosen by Shanghai Week as Shanghai’s Best Blog). Nanheyangrouchuan answers most of the questions and, by doing so, gives us additional insight into his mysterious persona.
One of the issues on which Nanheyangrouchuan and I always disagree is on how to handle a rising China. To greatly oversimplify, I am of the view that the West cannot stop China’s economic rise and so rather than our focusing on how to block China, we should instead be focusing on how we can influence it for the better. Nanheyangrouchuan seems to call for our boycotting China and I wholly oppose that. Fareed Zakaria recently came out with an excellent article (nominally about Burma), entitled, “Sleepwalking To Sanctions, Again
If the purpose of sanctions is to bring about a better system for a country, devastating its society is a strange path to the new order.
” That article goes a long way towards explaining my views on why I favor engagement with China, not sanctions. I do not always oppose sanctions, but I do when it comes to China.

  • Terry

    Well I finally got myself a reliable way to get around the Great Firewall, and while not considering myself a died in the wool panda licker, I really did enjoy reading nanheyangrouchuan’s blog and the answers to the questions (and some of Todd Platek’s comments there are hysterically funny). If my ethnically Han Nanyang wife could read English better, I know that she would love his blog as she is such a China hater. I too appreciate grouchy lamb kebob’s comments on other blogs from time to time as well though I don’t always agree. He/she/It also does have a wicked sense of humor at times as well.
    Thanks for this post and the partial deconstruction.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    Troll? I would prefer dwarf warrior or maybe elven ranger.
    Anyway, Shanghaiist went to all of the trouble to come up with these questions but never posted the interview, making me wonder why go to the trouble?
    As for Fareed Zakaria, I love his show, and in one of his post interview commentaries over the summer he stated that despite the US’s many missteps, especially during the W. Bush administration, the world should not rush to embrace a regime like China as the world’s replacement and that in a few short decades may come to miss the US’s vision and idealism, having been replaced by the unapologetic CCP.
    May the world get what it wishes for, but maybe the world deserves China. Look how the “global community” is handling Darfur and Myanmar.

  • http://www.thechinagame.com Paul M

    Website forums than allow comments to be made in anonymity can often break down. One of CLB’s acheivements is how it moderates a rather civil discourse.

  • Jing

    Troll with delusions of grandeur/adequacy and fond of tin foil conspiracy theories and otherwise poor logical facilities.
    Jesus Christ people, Nanheyangrouchuan is not complicated. He is Conrad if Conrad were an obnoxious self-important idiot (some would say more of).
    You give him far far too much credit Dan and this post dedicated to him is just aggrandizing him. Have you noticed the numerous occassions where lamb kebab starts the mysoginistic sex-baiting regarding Chinese women. It is pure incitement by playing on atavistic notions of masculinity. Now me being somewhat of a feminist am pretty much unfazed by it because I don’t value myself based on control of and exclusive access to female sexuality. What can I say, I am equality opportunity adherent with a preference for blondes. Nonetheless it was lamb kebab’s express intent to attack “Chineseness” by attacking Chinese male masculinity. He is sophisticated enough to realize how to provide the bait but unsophisticated enough to see that it is transparent and that he himself is channeling the same mysoginism that he is projecting to Chinese males and from whom he was hoping to elicit an emotional outburst with which to launch yet another reposte of “bad bad China”.
    I vote ban.

  • Jing

    As an addendum to Paul M, I have to also comment that CLB has done well in moderating comments. However objectionable lamb kebab’s comments are here, they are generally worse across the various other edificies on the internet wherein he sprays his bile. As someone else mentioned, simply google his screen name and marvel at his ability to waste his time across a breathtakingly broad band of blogs, forums, and errata.

  • http://www.thechinagame.com Paul M

    I am not as familiar with “nanheyangrouchuan”, but you have to discount comments made by someone who hides in the shadows. No offense to the real person behind the pseudonym. Just another thing that makes CLB more interesting – real names.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Terry,
    You are welcome.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    nh,
    I will stick with troll, but I would agree with you that (despite all of Bush’s missteps) the US is an overall force for good in the world.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Paul M,
    Thank you. That is certainly our goal.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Jing,
    I wish life were so simple that we could simply “ban” those with whom we disagree. It isn’t, and because of that, I believe tranparency, argument, exposure, and the marketplace of ideas are the best substitute. I disagree with nh at least 75% of the time and I know there are those who dislike his comments (so don’t read them), but no ban.
    He is a sexist and I (with two basketball playing daughters) am proudly not. Again though, I would prefer to prep my kids for people like nh than to shelter them from him and his ilk. Life goes on.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Jing,
    Thank you. I think nh realizes I have limits and I think he generally respects them. I will note (and not to defend nh) that on some other blogs nh is treated as a sub-human and perhaps that is why he acts so poorly on those blogs.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Paul M,
    Not sure I agree with you. Content is content and the content (not the names) ought to sell itself. Perhaps those who remain in the shadows are more willing to speak their minds….

  • Law Office of Todd L. Platek

    NH often offers valuable insights, from his angle, into his “bad, bad China.” I turned 55 on 10/24, and have been studying China and Chinese since I was 13. Many of his observations are valid, and I have commented on my similar observations over the last 40 years. Unfortunately, it is his very singular approach in thought and inclination to dislike every aspect of China which is NH’s undoing, intellectually, if not journalistically. NH creates, and caters to those similarly disposed, his own dogma of pessimism, based on biased personal dislikes. On balance, it appears not to be a completely honest approach, and preaches its own propaganda.
    NH’s misogynistic comment yesterday in CLB’s recent “sex and corruption” post, particularly disturbed me. It is superficial and hurtful to many many women, including those of his own ethnicity, which is apparently non-Han. I am a broadminded, forward-thinking person, a dedicated lawyer and humanist, a man who loves women as humans and as the opposite sex, with a sense of humor (thank you, Terry, for appreciating it!), and I will not tolerate misogynist comments. For me, NH hit his low point, not just on intellectual and journalistic planes, but on a human plane.
    Bad, bad NH. Nonetheless, I retain hope and confidence that NH can redeem himself if he opens his heart and mind.

  • Pffefer

    “I am of the view that the West cannot stop China’s economic rise and so rather than our focusing on how to block China, we should instead by focusing on how we can influence it for the better.”
    Dan, I have a question: When you said you want to influence China for the better, you meant from the western prospective, I suppose? Do you actually mean making China better suit western interest (if there is such a thing, at least American interest), or better for the Chinese themselves?
    What if there are conflicting interests? What if a “better” China is better for the Chinese, but not necessarily for the west/US? Would you still support that?

  • Soviet Scientist

    That’s funny because I always pictured Lamb Kebab in my head as a baggy cloth wearing, dread lock sporting, street kid…Who follows jam bands during the summer. You know, typical parking lot thug.
    HAHA.
    LOL.

  • astrid

    I haven’t been here long so I’ve only read about 75 of those NH comments. He actually strikes me as originally from China, though possibly not Han. In my other blogging life, I know of a Han blogger who is vehemently anti-Chinese and quick to resort to ugly ethic stereotypes (I suppose I do as well and I’m a Han woman). However, that blogger also offered interesting information and a different-sometimes refreshing-perspective.
    I don’t mind NH’s comments at all. Every successful blog has its share of trolls and NH is pretty smart/interesting for a *troll*.

  • anonym

    That guy got nothing better to do!

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Todd P.,
    Who can disagree with that? I better go back and see what NH said on that post though.

  • jms

    NH and the CCP are the flipside of the same coin — they all reduce the Chinese people into mere carictures. Everything is either black or white, good or bad, there are no shades of gray (when in fact life is all about the gray area in between). No, NH, we think you hate China not because you point out China’s problems, but because you do so in a very disrespectful and rude way toward the Chinese people.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Pfeffer,
    I always hate it when someone quotes something I said back to me because, to be perfectly frank, I do not think all that long and hard before I write things.
    When I said make China better, I was thinking of such universal notions as justice, human rights, freedom, peace, rule of law, democracy, etc.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Soviet Scientist,
    What has changed that view for you?

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    anonym,
    Is that not true of us all?

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    jms,
    You are right about the black and white thing and I think it is that alone that hurts nh’s credibility the most. I think nh hates China because he hates China. The fact that he is also frequently rude and disrespectful means he is also frequently rude and disrespectful. Those things also hurt his credibility.

  • http://www.chinahearsay.com Stan Abrams

    Dan,
    First, it’s your blog and you can set whatever comment policy you want without having to justify it to anyone. I appreciate the transparency and free speech principles, however.
    Second, I’ve never heard of this particular troll dude before, but rude and disrespectful is what makes the blogosphere interesting. Without trolls, things would get boring in a hurry, and there is nothing I like more than arguing against China bashers. Things get too out of hand with a troll, you either pull the plug or have Steve go after ‘em.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Stan,
    Okkkaayyyy.

  • http://cornponepapers.blogspot.com Robert Luedeman

    On the masthead of my blog is this legend:
    I moderate the posts here and I delete without comment those that attack me personally and are generally sophomoric, unlettered and play games with the truth. This blog isn’t a public toilet and you don’t get to write on the walls here, people.

  • Soviet Scientist

    When I first started following the Chinese blogs, I sort of pictured him as an ally of mine, because I do share some of his views (Tibet for example).
    But as time went on, I realize he is a bit too extreme even for me.
    With that said, I still agree with some of the things he is saying, minus the really negative stuff.
    BTW I’m Chinese.

  • Jonathan

    Dan,
    A troll is someone who posts for the sake of provocation, the content is not that important.
    We might not agree with some of your subjects posts, but he is definitely not a troll. His posts include arguments, insights and real content. He argues his point, and not for the sake of trolling. Therefore, the title of your post is really inappropriate.

  • Soviet Scientist

    Forgot to add: Also because he is a troll. I’m also a troll. I love to troll Shopgirl’s blog. HAHA. I just lost all credibility right there.
    But NH is on my level…
    We relate…

  • http://www.chinavortex.com Paul Denlinger

    I don’t think that there is enough recognition in the west of how differently Chinese think what are in Chinese interests, from what western observers believe _should be_ in Chinese interests.
    In many instances, well-meaning westerners actually undercut Chinese reformers by advocating their reform platforms, and by trying to engage the Chinese in discussions about political reform. This is because they are spun in China as being puppets of “westerners” who are “interfering in Chinese internal affairs”. I do not think that there is enough awareness in the west and on this blog of this very real public and private pressure which continues to exist to this day.
    The most intelligent and well-thought response is to publicly advocate that the Chinese government and Chinese people must find their own path to social and political reform, while pointing out the successes and failures of western democracies and their experiences. This should be offered to the Chinese only as a reference.
    If the west does not like the direction China is going, then the next logical response is to not engage/trade with China. This is a drastic but also logical outcome. If one were to accept the premises of globalization, then this would not even be considered. However, as tensions rise between China and the west over various issues, I see this as a very real possibility. Globalization has not panned out the way it was intended to, especially in the west, and China is being blamed in large part for this. This blame and fear will only increase in the short term.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    One man’s troll is another man’s 13th level Paladin with a +12 gold sword and dragon skin armor.
    With that being said, black and white comments get the point across. And while we live in a mostly gray world, all of you teach your kids about RIGHT and WRONG, which are the two most polar, black and white issues in our society. And social anthropologists, who are now turning their attentions away from ancient civilizations and stone age tribes and towards developed and 2nd tier societies, have for the most part concluded that common RIGHT and WRONG principles regarding murder, fighting, stealing, infidelity, etc are shared values in Minnesota, Zimbabwe, Syria, Russia and even China.
    I have acknowledged China’s rights and attacked its many, many wrongs based on many of the same values that we are taught as kids and all of you teach your kids. Is that as bad as telling kids that murder is bad and murders should be punished and yet all of you do business with the CCP (’89, FLG organ harvesting, Hu’s Tibet campaigns, Gulja, support for NK and Myanmar)?
    The world’s parents teach their kids these things and yet the whole world has turned its back on Myanmar and the Darfur region, using “business is not politics” excuse (and yet business does involve politics).
    The world rightfully scolds the US for invading then FUBARing Iraq, but how many of these finger waggers were doing business with Saddam? The entire security council, and the UN upper management was skimming oil for food.
    Shame on all you, and remember this next time you sit your kids down for a lecture or punish them for a violation of your household rules.
    I picked out China for a few reasons but I believe China’s rise, instability, brashness and more than a few similarities between the CCP and the Nazis will mark a turning point in the world and for the US. And things will be brutal and ugly before they get better.
    Jing by far is a worse troll and can’t even make understand english or life. My comments regarding Chinese women, while off-color, are not untrue. All of you are in or frequently go to China and see Caucasian cave men with a wide variety of moderate to good looking Chinese girls. I can go into a variety of reasons, some told to me by Chinese girls, but facts are facts.
    And attacking Chinese masculinity? Didn’t I pay a compliment to Jackie Chan for his fitness? Zhou Yun Fa for his looks? But these guys do not represent the norm for local Chinese officials. The vast majority of them are pigs, pure and simple. Villagers with power, arrogance and an inferiority complex.
    Grooming and manners are completely lost to them, even when they visit “the big cities” because in their day to day world they are “it”.
    In fact, I’ll give two reasons why Chinese girls prefer white (or at least western) guys to local guys, and these reasons were told to me by Chinese girls. 1. Chinese guys aren’t good at personal hygiene, especially in the private regions and feet. Who would be turned on by “funk”? 2. Western guy=bad (ie cheating) boyfriend, Chinese guy=bad husband. All of those “working late” sessions, KTV meetings and “business travel” does not go unnoticed by housewives. When you ask a Chinese housewife, and she answers in a subdued tone and looking away from you (usually at the ground), you know that she knows her husband is handling some business and it isn’t for his employer.
    However, I do apologize for remarks taken as offensive, I was engaging in dark comedy which is something everyone living in China ought to know something about.
    As for “bad bad China”, China is generally a force for bad. Even as part of UN missions, the PLA hangs back and kisses babies, builds bridges, etc while leaving the dirty work of actually defending people to countries with much less competent militaries so that the Party mouthpieces can brag about China’s “peaceful, non-aggressive rise”.
    pfeffer:
    Your style of writing and opinions on the US and China closely match John Feffer of “The Nation”.
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/feffer
    Your grasp of history was already crushed in the “Granite Studio” blog and you had nothing of consequence to say to my comments regarding 89% of Chinese people being satisfied with their gov’t except for topics A-Z.
    As for hating China as China or hating China as the CCP, it has more to do with the Chinese gov’t and its successive dynasties, of which the CCP is one. The rulers of China are to fault for China’s current condition, not the people, not the foreign devils, the rulers.
    People should take a bit more time to read my interview before jumping the gun with “racism” and “sexism” charges.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Robert,
    I allow all that in. I merely block that which offends even me.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Soviet Scientist,
    If he would tone it down, he’d be more effective. Probably too late for that, or maybe he’s got some other, more moderate, alter ego out there somewhere.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Jonathan,
    I dunno. It was just a headline.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Paul,
    I don’t know whose blog you are reading, but it sure ain’t mine. I have never really advocated for China to change anything politically and I certainly I have never gotten specific.
    I do occassionally suggest where China needs to work on its court system and laws, but when I do so, I nearly always just mimic what I have been told by Chinese lawyers who practice in that system. I am constantly discussing how I am not a fan of imposing one country’s system on another country and in fact, I am just waiting for the publication of an article co-blogger, Steve Dickinson, wrote essentially defending China’s legal system and pointing out that so many of the complaints about it come from those who are simply not familiar with it. I must have stated at least ten times on this blog how I initially thought Bush was just trying to fool the American people when he was talking about bringing democracy to Iraq because I did not believe anyone who knew anything about the Arab world would even think that would be remotely possible. It was only later that I came to believe Bush actually believed it. I mention that here as a concrete instance where I highlighted the sheer stupidity of taking something from one culture lock stock and barrel into another culture, before its time.
    I generally stay out of China politics and social politics because I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough on those issue to contribute. I am not saying outsiders do not have the right to speak on those things, because they certainly do, but I am saying I intentionally leave those discussions for others.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    nh,
    It is ridiculous to compare China’s present leadership to Nazi Germany and doing so waters down what the Nazis did. It is insulting.
    China is far from perfect and I am no fan of the CCP, but I think we all can agree China today is better today (for its own people) than it was ten years ago.
    I too believe in a right and wrong and would agree murder and stealing are wrong. But by those criteria, China is doing pretty well. Why the focus on China, when we have Russia seriously backsliding towards dictatorship, Iran threatening to exterminate an entire nation, Saudi Arabia exporting terrorists by the bunches and blocking anything that even approaches freedom and tolerance, Zimbabwe/Mugabe ruining lives by the hundreds of thousands, North Korea, Sudan, Yemen, Syria…. China is opening up, albeit slowly.
    We should be wary of China, yes, but cut them off or treat them as an evil empire, no.

  • http://www.chinavortex.com Paul Denlinger

    The main point I’m trying to address is how openly backing Chinese advocates of reform can actually undercut those reforms’ chances of success. You certainly have a right to support change in China’s courts and legal system; as a legal professional you are speaking from a position of credibility and authority. I agree with you that those reforms are needed.
    The problem is that in China the law does not operate separately from the party and is thus often subject to political interference.
    What the US has lost completely is credibility in urging reforms through stupidity and insensitivity of colossal proportions when it comes to “diplomacy”. (I use quotes because the current administration has made the term “US diplomacy” an oxymoron.) Witness today’s criticism of Russia and China over Iran.
    The sheer tragedy of this is that by their gross stupidity and ineptitude, it is now very difficult to provide input to rising powers like China just when it is needed most.
    As Americans, this is something we need to be sensitive and aware of. Washington DC may live in their own fairyland; we Americans have to live in the real world.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Paul,
    I generally agree with you on this. Public humiliation does not tend to work well with any country and is particularly ineffective when dealing with China. Between Condi Rice as Secretary of State and Bush as President, we have probably the worst combination in my lifetime, or at least tied with Jimmy Carter.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    Well, the Nazis rounded up and killed specific groups of people, ~20-30 million. Mao and the CCP racked up ~40-50 million through “policies”.
    Basically, the Chinese gov’t has no problem and never had any problem using its own people for fodder to accomplish its goals. I’ll point to the Three Gorges dam as an example. No deaths, but millions displaced to unfamiliar areas with little or no compensation. This project was supposed to power the new Chongqing municipality, instead it keeps Shanghai out of the black and recently the Chinese gov’t has admitted that the whole project is a cascading disaster, from landslides to silt buildup to irreversible pollution.
    And millions of peasants suffer, but who cares, this is business!
    As for the rest of the list, they can be relegated to a long list of “dancing the with the devil” as well, but with the exception of the Saudis the US isn’t too involved with those countries, and China is their biggest benefactor (Iran is split between China and Russia).
    Russia is full of problems and they are a threat because of constantly unfulfilled aspirations. But we had and still have no problem labeling them as an “evil empire”, why isn’t China labeled as such, as China has a long history of “evil empire” behavior and as many on this blog acknowledge, is feverishly racist and getting worse.
    Was the USSR any worse than China? They were more honest about their intentions. The only difference is the USSR didn’t have 1+ billion potential low wage skilled and unskilled workers or the etherial 1 billion potential customers.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    nh,
    Mao is no more and it is not fair (even though it is the same party) to compare today’s government to Mao. Times change. It is also not fair to compare Three Gorges damn to Auschwitz.
    As dissappointed as I am with Russia, I would not label them an “evil empire.” I reserve that moniker for places like North Korea and Iran.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    And who has been the sole benefactor of NK?
    And here is a little bit of why China and US businesses are so bad:
    China Angles to Buy 3Com
    Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:48 PM
    The pending sale of a U.S. defense contractor to a company directly linked to the Chinese army would normally be canceled at once.
    However, the links between a dark Chinese company and many of the most powerful politicians in America appears to have put the buyout of 3Com on the fast-track toward approval.
    Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs ? two leading financial firms ? are currently seeking the buyout of 3Com, a computer communications firm with U.S. defense contracts. 3Com makes equipment used by the Pentagon to block computer hackers.
    Bain is financing the buyout of 3Com with the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei. Huawei is associated with the Chinese, Iraqi, and Taliban militaries.
    Bain Capital is a major financial firm with a great deal of success in the past. Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. According to Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign Web site, Bain is “one of the nation’s most successful venture capital and investment companies.”
    However, it is Huawei that will benefit from the buyout. Huawei installed air defense networks for Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. The CIA, U.S. Defense Department, the Rand Corporation and even Indian intelligence agencies have openly documented Huawei’s links to Saddam and the Taliban.
    According to the CIA, Huawei was responsible for the installation of an advanced fiber-optic air defense network in Iraq during Saddam’s brutal rule. The Huawei network, NATO code-named “Tiger Song,” was used to shoot down allied aircraft flying patrol over the Iraqi skies.
    The network was installed in violation of an U.N. embargo. Worse still, the air defense network was paid for by the corrupt oil-for-food program which send cash to Huawei that was intended to feed starving Iraqi children.
    Despite its history of killing American soldiers ? it is Huawei’s teaming with Bain and Goldman Sachs that has enabled the Chinese company to arrange the buyout of 3Com. The Bain/Goldman/Huawei team has influence inside the highest political circles.
    For example, current Republican candidate Mitt Romney has links to Bain. Gov. Romney enjoyed a successful career at Bain, helping to amass over a quarter of a billion dollars in his own personal fortune. Romney may have left the company in 2001, but he and his family still own a significant stake in the firm through his blind trust, which according to the Washington Post earned him $7 million to $15 million during the last year.
    Bain associates, employees and friends have also been very generous to Gov. Romney’s campaign for the White House. Bain employees have donated over $190,000 to Romney, making the firm one of his largest sources of political cash. This amount does not include the efforts of former and current Bain partners and executives of companies Romney bought who are also raising hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    All these financial ties to Bain bring into question the possible conflict of interest that Romney faces. So far, Gov. Romney has refused to comment on the Bain deal. Repeated calls to the Romney campaign were not returned.
    Another link in the chain for Huawei is Goldman Sachs ? a financial company that is also sponsoring the 3Com buyout. Goldman is the former employer of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The Treasury Department is charged with reviewing the take-over of 3Com by Huawei. Paulson had to recuse himself from the process because of the possible conflict of interest.
    The Bush administration is having trouble dealing with the take-over bid. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed that he was completely in the dark about the deal. The admission by the Gates echoed similar admissions by the Pentagon top brass that they also were unaware of the buyout.
    The Defense Department and the U.S. intelligence agencies were surprised by the proposed deal and had to scramble in order to get it reviewed for national security reasons.
    The failure at the Defense Department is attributed to the Defense Technology Security Agency or DTSA. The Pentagon has not appointed a director to run DTSA and the length of time the position has been vacant suggests little sense of urgency to do so. Leaderless, DTSA was caught unaware of the deal and was unable to provide warning to senior Defense Department officials.
    During the Clinton years, DTSA was a strong advocate of checking all export deals with China. In fact, aggressive DTSA efforts were documented by the Loral Corporation for holding up the sale of advanced radars to the Chinese military. Today, DTSA is a headless giant unable to do its job.

  • Law Office of Todd L. Platek

    NH: Apology accepted.
    I think you are a bit off with the Nazi Germany thing. More likely, similar to Germany of the second-half 19th/first-half 20th centuries, discovering itself anew and playing furious catch-up ball with the powers-that-be. Nazi Germany was the maniacal culmination of the failure of that “weltanshauung.” Chinese governments have always been authoritarian, if not totalitarian, and that isn’t necessarily totally negative when the conditions call for it, although persecution of millions is horrible no matter whether it’s Chin Shi Huang or Mao. What is happening today in China is the culmination of a few thousand years; the Cultural Revolution was the icing on the cake, a sort of “never again” slogan for most Chinese today. That, in itself, is a good thing, and the CCP’s acknowledgement of such is constructive.
    Let’s keep engaging China in every positive way so that she, the CCP (which isn’t going away anytime soon, and will morph for survival and control), and 1.4 billion people don’t go out on the lunatic fringe. It doesn’t help NH or anyone else on this planet to alienate China, lest we push them into a corner. We don’t need another Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or USSR blindly going down its own self-destructive path and taking us along with it. Given the current state of affairs, hopefully that’s not about to happen anyway, since we all need each other to survive on this blue rock of magma orbiting around an unsympathetic huge fiery globe through arbitrary space. Keep it in perspective.
    Your criticisms otherwise? Always welcomed here as a means of keeping the ship on course.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    And does “engaging” China mean helping its rapidly developing military at the same time China is becoming more and more bellicose about its “lost territories”, which is a similarity to Nazi Germany?
    Take a moment to ask yourselves why the Russians have begun restricting the sales of weapons to China and have refused to participate in space, aerospace and naval JV projects.

  • Jing

    Goat kebab is as predictable as always. His problem (one among many) is his intellectual laziness and general infantile nature. The 3com case in point, Huawei is only a minority partner in the possible purchase only owning about 10% compared to Bain. The majority of 3com’s revenue and work force, somewhere around 80% are already in China. Huawei doesn’t manufacture air defense networks, all it provides is communications equipment.
    The entire arguement against the 3com buyout and others like it relies on two factors; personal ignorance and a reflexive cold war attitude of “look out! Commies!”
    Shit roles down hill and all Goat kebab ever manages to do is sling it vigorously with reckless abandon and hoping that ignorance will lead it to strike somewhere and stick. The problem with correcting his rantings is that it takes complexity and nuance, subtlety and logic, context and detail, all of which requires a sophisticated reader. His simple job is to just be redundant and rely on people to not think to any great depth.
    As the saying goes, the enemy of truth is not is not lie; deliberate, contrived, and dishonest but the myth, persistant, persuasive, and unrealistic. Correcting myths are all the harder because they rely on inherent biases that are notoriously difficult to dislodge if at all possible.
    For all those fellow commenters who think goat kebab has anything to offer one has to recognize that he is in fact little more than the infant terrible of the Chinese blogging circuit. All he manages to accomplish is muddy up the water when the goal is in seeking clarity.
    By the way Goat kebab, since I’m already debasing myself by merely responding to you, I have to say you have got to be utterly clueless if anyone who has read a fraction of your rantings across the China blogosphere believes that your only beef is with the Chinese government. That sort of backtracking is as disingenuous as David Duke saying he isn’t anti-Jew but rather pro-white. In either case, blaming everything you find objectionable in China on China’s present and past governments is yet another indicator of your intellectual paucity and inability to form complex thoughts.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    Jing’s near sightedness regarding “communism” as it pertains to China or any other country only highlights her lack of knowledge.
    Before Marx there was “Utopia” and before “Utopia” there was an emporer named Wang Meng who wanted to redistribute land among peasants to diversify national wealth, boost the economy and diffuse a repetitive source of domestic revolts. He died a very Julius Ceasar-like death and supposedly his nobles stuck candle wicks into his large body and left them to burn for a month.
    That being said, if a Russian, Iranian, Columbian or Arab country wanted to buy a stake in 3com, what would our response be? Yet people have the nerve to defend such a move by a Chinese, gov’t controlled company.
    Heck, there would be alarms even if a Japanese or S. Korean company made such a move.
    BTW, 3com has a small market share but they specialize in network security and have a relatively large market share of that sector.
    We shouldn’t let reactionary cries of “racism” from panda-lickers scare us into making stupid financial or national security moves.

  • http://chinaandi.typepad.com China and I

    I think Jing and NHYRC are going a little bit too far for my taste right now.
    I enjoy reading the comments of NHYRC in principle even if I strongly disagree with them but I think there are things that shall not be said.
    Shall I blame young Germans because their grand-parents were nazis?
    As we say in French, NHYRC, you give water to the windmill. By constantly arguing with China, you give your counterparts in China, the arguments why China shall not follow the path of a more open world.
    (Most probably Dan you know this saying “Donnez de l’eau au moulin”)

  • PiPi

    I actually also agree with some of the things that the kebab writes about and I believe he is an intelligent and articulate individual, I just disagree with the way he goes about spewing it everywhere, even where it is unwanted or unneeded. I do however have my doubts about his ‘sincerity’. If he’s as high level as he claims – “If I was having no effect we wouldn’t be having this interview and there are things going on behind the scenes that you won’t be made aware off. I do participate in policy discussions at the think tank level…” – then why would he waste time commenting on half of the sites he does. Surely he can’t think that by posting at sites like Sinocidal for example, that he will influence or change anything or anyone. A lot of the responses to the questions in the interview are pat-myself-on-the-back replies which leads me to believe he is mainly just attention seeking and filling his delusions of grandeur.
    If he is ‘party to things going on behind the scenes’, would he allude to or hint at there existence?
    As far as I recall, he’s also changed his point of thrust from nationalism to environmental issues. It all seems to me to be anyway to attack the CCP but I think he definitely has ulterior motives behind his environmental crusade. He spent his earlier trolling days gassing off about Uighur abuses and even told a story about how his Uighur father (or maybe uncle – I can’t remember) was killed by the communists.
    There’s just been too many contradictions in his stories and he’s too vocal in too many different places at too many levels for me to take him seriously. He’s free to do what he wants but I think he loses respect from people who would listen to him if he would just tone it down and streamline his sermon to those that want to listen.
    Happy Weekend.

  • Handan

    wow, I wish I were nh just for the attention he’s getting here:p. Don’t we all talk to get noted?
    Half kidding. Somehow when I was going through this heated discussion here, I pictured it as a face-to-face early night beer garden conversation taking place somewhere in Beijing.

  • Inst

    To go totally tinfoil hat; there’s good evidence that Wikipedia’s administrators have been infiltrated by British intelligence. Why can’t Nanhe be of the same class? Of course, I’d imagine that a real intelligence service man would be more capable…

  • Inst

    Hey, Q, did anyone ever bother to track Nanhe’s IP? Does he shift around a lot, or does he have a convenient single location?

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    @China and I:
    “As we say in French, NHYRC, you give water to the windmill. By constantly arguing with China, you give your counterparts in China, the arguments why China shall not follow the path of a more open world.”
    Yes I do, that French actor in “Matrix II” had good lines about action and reaction, benefit and consequence.

  • Bruce Dickenson

    I thought this was supposed to be a useful place to come for China legal comment. It turns out its just another forum for the blogger and his troll to post about their egos. If this subject is the most viewed and
    commented on this blog I think that tells you
    a lot about this blogs aims.

  • Raj

    I think I agree with Bruce. Why is this blog even writing an entry on a commentator like him?
    If he’s that bad he can be banned/blocked/junked/whatever. If he’s simply annoying he can be warned privately. If he’s neither then accept he has a POV that is sometimes controversial for certain people.
    Again, why write a whole entry?

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    @Inst,
    I use a VPN.

  • snow

    I used to think he was something interesting to talk to, like he is intelligent, sure he might be but…
    Now, I’m not sure… It almost seems that he is one of those paid CCP people used to brainwash Chinses etc. Why do I think that? Because the classis trick of the CCP is to not let the Chinese people understand the difference between China and the party, they say crap like there is no China without the CCP, they make them sing it in the prisons etc.
    When Chinese people hear other people criticise their country, they get patriotic and it fuels their hatred and defence.
    If people who are not ‘communists’ cannot even get out of the trap of mistaking China for the CCP, how can we help the Chinese get the CCP out of their country?
    The Chinese culture is not bad, China is beautiful and the people were very cool, the CCP is a %*#@,,, thats a fact now why not stop demonizing a whole country and do our proper research on the source of the evil and corruption?

  • http://china.notspecial.org/archives/2007/10/stop_the_spread.html The Opposite End of China || Xinjiang & Northwest China Blog (中国的另一端 || 新疆 & 中国西北博客)

    Stop the Spread of Nanheyangrouchuan!

    Sure, like most luminaries inhabiting the China blogosphere I sometimes get comments from Nanheyangrouchuan. And yes, the guy can be so comprehensively negative about China that it makes you…

  • sevenleagueboots

    It appears nanheyangrouchuan has cleaned up his act this year. Either that or the weak quality of these dismissive arguments against his position are in newspaper talk: filler, or egos as a previous entry has it. Regarding 3Com, Mitt Romney, and Goldman Sachs, I find his info most useful. The remarks of China legal in this regard were lame and pejorative.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Jing,
    I agree with you. Nh does grossly oversimplify and the 3com thing is an excellent example of that.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    nh,
    I don’t understand your politics at all, and I am not sure you do either. You seem to hate facism, communism, and capitalism. What’s left? Please actually respond (for once).

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    China and I,
    My French is too rusty to remember much. Sorry. I agree with you regarding nh’s extremism, certainly, but I am hesitant to agree that we should remain silent for fear of offence. But, the way nh goes about it is counterproductive.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Pipi,
    I concur.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Handan,
    I like that….

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Bruce Dickenson,
    First off, this is not the most commented upon post. Not even close. Nor do I have any reason to believe it is the most viewed. This post was 1000 and something for us, but thank you for judging the entire blog on it.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Raj,
    I chose to write on nh because, like it or not, he is a leading figure in the China blogosphere. That alone makes him newsworthy. I thought readers would be interested in the topic and, judging by the number of comments, it seems they are.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    snow,
    I agree. I think. I am usually not a big fan of demonizing an entire country and nh does certainly tend towards that.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    sevenleagueboots,
    To whom are you referring when you say “China legal”?

  • Bruce Dickenson

    I rest my case. This blog has become a circus.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com China Law Blog

    Bruce Dickenson,
    Then why do you keep coming here and leaving your comments?

  • Law Office of Todd L. Platek

    Interesting take by Snow: NH is actually a CCP dude, purposely confusing it all to make the Party’s point. I love it. Has “Animal Farm” arrived? NH as Squealer, out front for Napoleon? And on hind legs to boot!

  • Anonymous

    “You seem to hate facism, communism, and capitalism. What’s left? Please actually respond (for once).”
    C’mon Dan, do you really think I’m going to allow myself to be ideologically pigeon-holed, which would open myself up to exhaustive and varied attacks of every conceivable nature and detail?
    If I have one bit of the intelligence that so many of you compliment me for having (thanks btw), you already know the answer.
    Additionally, would I allow myself to be cross examined?

  • Serwat

    Hi Dan,
    Thanks for the interesting post and starting the conversation.
    While I and most of the people I know who visit this blog first arrived here to hear your legal insights on business in China, the fact is that your blog has become a common meeting ground for any China-related conversation. I don’t expect you to strictly enforce a law-only agenda for all discussions here and appreciate that you’ve created this forum for those of us with a China interest, even when those interests are only marginally law-related. It’s nice to know that lawyers are capable of conversations that do not revolve completely around the law.
    And since NH is such a fixture to your blog, it seems obvious to me why you might want to blog about him/her.
    NH, getting a straight answer out of you is like pulling teeth, except the teeth would eventually come out, and I don’t expect an answer ever would. But, that is your online personality and for better or worse, you are who you are. Gotta give you credit for sticking to your true self.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    Law, like everything else is subject to human fallacies like emotions, which leads to racism and politics. So having a broad range of topics on a law blog is not surprising and should be encouraged.
    As for whether I answer questions to people’s satisfaction, I answer them to my satisfaction and that is enough.

  • http://www.thechinagame.com Paul M

    Did this comment thread break any record?

  • Charles Liu

    nh, “FLG organ harvesting” is propaganda.
    Both US State Dept and long time Chinese dissident Harry Wu have conducted secret investigations inside China and found it not credible:
    http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf (section CRS-7)

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    Anything the US State Dept says bold-faced lie. State deliberately tried to hide the potential 3com deal from Defense, and State also covers up for Blackwater in Iraq. State works for Wall St, not the President.
    You are also doing a bad job at backpeddling, first you find evidence saying “organ harvesting numbers are not that high”, then you find evidence completely dismissing organ harvesting.
    In your posts about Chinese people suing the Chinese gov’t and winning, you obvious didn’t actually read the article, you just scanned the headline and posted it. You are a poser, a fraud, not an intellectual on any level and don’t even have any relevant China experience.
    I may not agree with MAJ or chriswaugh, but they can at least offer up an intellectual rebuttal (I’m shocked at how much of a reader MAJ is in social theory). You on the other hand are a “google-n-paste” guy.

  • Charles Liu

    nh is resorting to personal attack because he has nothing to say about the facts presented:
    - Both Harry Wu and US State Department conducted secret investigations and found the organ harvesting allegation not credible.
    Here’s a Congressional Research Service article that covered the organ harvesting allegation, describing State Dept conducted two vists, 1st one in secret:
    http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf
    (page CRS-7)
    - The link showing the 150 WuXi farmers winning their case against National Land Resource Dept was subsquently cited. Here it is again:

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    Hey Charles;
    http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/china1/china_948.htm
    http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/WR96/Asia-02.htm
    Notice the dates on these papers, especially the first one. CCP organ harvesting of political prisoners ain’t new.
    As for the US State Dept, they have no credibility anymore. They grant legal immunity to Blackwater despite having no authority to do so (probably illegal in some fashion) and actively attempted to conceal the 3com acquisition from legally required national security review by DOD, which is probably a felony.
    Boeing 737s sold to the PLAAF for use as command posts:
    Boeing 737, tail-number B-4052, was sold to China United Airlines in 1990 by Indonesia.
    Boeing 737, tail-number B-4053, was sold in 2000 through a purchase approved by the Clinton administration directly to China United Airlines – a PLAAF owned company.
    The aircraft appear to have been modified by Xian aircraft company for use as C3 command posts.
    Both aircraft were sold as commericial airliners for civilian use only. US export regs state that even re-sold airliners require US government approval before conversion to military use. The Bush administration has not uttered one word about the 737s being used by the PLA. Boeing also has made no comment.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.960287,116.25232&spn=0.007401,0.014462&z=16&om=1&source=embed
    You can’t handle the truth Charles.
    “The link showing the 150 WuXi farmers winning their case against National Land Resource Dept was subsquently cited”
    The Wuxi farmers didn’t win any court cases at the local level or with the local Bureau of Land and Natural Resources due to “late filings”, “no standing” and “inadmissible evidence”, they filed a petition to the Beijing Ministry of LNR and won a re-hearing though.
    Keep following this case Charles, the good money is on the local LNR again rejecting the farmers’ petition, and Beijing LNR can use the fact that they remanded the case for a re-hearing to say that “Beijing cares” and the national office did “something”.
    The farmers’ will end up spending all of their savings and disposable income fighting a never ending battle, which is how the CCP peacefully harmonizes the idea of individual land ownership for Chinese with socialist Chinese characteristics and continued economic prosperity.

  • Anonymous

    - Neither HRW article mentioned Falun Gong.
    - There’s absolutely no linkage between the 737 and US embassy’s undercover investigation of Falun Gong’s organ harvesting allegation.
    - What about Harry Wu’s secret investigation that found nothing?
    - Here’s refernce to the discredited Falun Gong organ harvesting allegation, from a CECC brief critical of China, where congressional researchers Emma Ashburn and Thomas Lum are quoted:
    “Emma Ashburn, a research associate at the Congressional-Executive Committee on China (CECC), said that the Matas-Kilgour report really – offered nothing new – in terms of evidence on the matter of organ harvesting. The evidence they did collect, namely the phone calls and testimonies, were dubious in their objectivity.
    Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, Thomas Lum, noted that the evidence could have easily been distorted. The individuals calling the hospitals were all affiliated with FLG, and Lum said that it is unlikely for doctors and officials working for the state to casually divulge such sensitive and damaging information so easily.
    Moreover, Lum’s efforts to contact both the Chinese journalist and doctor’s wife have been fruitless, as FLG members direct all communications toward these individuals and they often do not respond. Harry Wu, a longtime political activist known for his hardline anti-PRC views, announced on August 9, 2006 that he would challenge the allegations made by FLG about targeted organ harvesting, especially the claim about the Sujiatun concentration camp.
    About the report, the South China Morning Post reports, “Mr. Wu, who has spent 15 years gathering evidence on the harvesting of organs from executed Chinese prisoners, said the information was based on the testimony of two witnesses, neither of whom had first-hand information. He believed the reports were fabricated.”
    Wu had tried to follow up with the witnesses just as Lum had – to the same futility. “In the face of these criticisms, including from even Wu, who formerly held friendly relations with FLG, all things considered the allegations FLG has made about a targeted campaign of state-sponsored genocide are most likely untrue.”

  • Charles Liu

    hn, the WuXi farmers still have their land:
    http://www.xhby.net/xhby/content/2006-07/29/content_1348917.htm
    See case #3 – The farmers petitioned for the reversal when the eminent doman was first announced. The farmers didn’t even hire lawyers and they won.
    The Beijing decision means the peition to repeal should not denied, else it’s back to the courts.

  • http://badbadchina.blogspot.com nanheyangrouchuan

    Charles,
    You mean case #8, and like your previous articles, the farmers won nothing, the case was sent back to local authorities for a re-hearing. What do you think will really happen? I think this case will disappear in a cloud of bureaucracy.

  • fathersdaygifts

    look at these funky fathers :-) http://www.fathersday.la
    http://www.fathersday.la

  • closetworld

    Thanks so much Closet World Our Closet dialect birth b deliver physician was out within 48 hours, and we settled on the best organization for my old lady’s closet
    closet world

  • WPT

    Whatever happened to that guy? I don’t see him any more anywhere bitching and moaning and making things up about China. Anyone know?

  • wayne

    I had a run in with Nanheyangrouchuan at Strategy Page a few years back and he is a waste of time. His comments were funny and hypocritical considering that he married a Chinese girl. I
    hope the next time which brings me to my next point.
    Why is it that I find more and more caucasian men who are married to ethnic women seems to be more racist than anyone else? (e.g. Nanheyangrouchuan, John Wayne, etc).
    It seemed as that these same lame cowards are overcompensating for now being ‘white’ enough and trying to fit in.

  • Abbey Moon

    I miss him.