WW2 ended in China with Japanese surrendering to Nationalist army commander in Nanjing

 The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits 'atrocities' but that it attacks the concept of objective truth; it claims to control the past as well as the future. - George Orwell "As I Please," Tribune (4 February 1944)

 

The Surrender Ceremony at Nanjing on September 9, 1945

70 years ago today Japanese forces in China formally surrendered to Nationalist army commander He Ying-qin at a ceremony in Nanjing on Sept. 9, 1945. The Communist regime in mainland China is engaged in an Orwellian exercise to rewrite history. Despite what they claim today in their parades celebrating a military victory they had little if any role in, the Chinese communists disrespect and ignore nationalist veterans who fought against the Japanese empire.

The Los Angeles Times reported on one of these survivors and his anger at the rewriting of history:

Tao Shin-jun, a 97-year-old veteran of China’s fight against Japan in World War II, tears up when asked about Thursday’s military parade in Beijing marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the conflict. [...] “The Chinese Communist Party didn’t defeat Japan; this is very painful to see,” [...] “During those eight years, it was us Nationalists who were fighting – the Communists were not doing battle with the Japanese. They were trying to get Nationalist soldiers to defect to their side.”

The president of Taiwan on August 15, 2015 visiting an exhibit on Chinese resistance to Japanese aggression in World War 2 spoke plainly:

"President Ma [Ying-jeou] emphasized that there is only one truth when facing history, and that one must be truthful in facing history. The eight-year War of Resistance was led by the ROC government, he said, adding that this is not an attempt to try to take credit, but a fact. The victory in the War of Resistance is the result of the Nationalist Government in leading the nation's military in a heroic struggle, and this fact cannot be tampered with or distorted, the president remarked. On November 23, 1943, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, as supreme commander in the China theatre, also met with US President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at what came to be known as the Cairo Conference, which further verifies the Nationalist Government's victory in the War of Resistance, President Ma said."

It is important to defend the facts of the past in order to understand it and make sound decisions. Unfortunately, totalitarians do all they can to make that impossible. Today the Chinese communists are trying to rewrite their role in WW2 while yesterday the Russian communists were trying to re-interpret the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact that started the war. Lamentably, powerful and widespread pro-Red Chinese faction in the U.S. government reported journalist, M. Stanton Evans  played a critical role in bringing down our war-time ally, the nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek. Worse yet elements in the U.S. government hatched plans to assassinate Chiang when he was on the Mainland and then made plans to overthrow him when he escaped to Taiwan. Below is Chiang Kai-shek's 1945 victory speech.

Reclaiming Dialogue from Orwellian Newspeak

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. - Winston Churchill 

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. - George Orwell

In July of 2004 Bishop Agustin Roman wrote about the necessity of rescuing, a word that he described as beautiful, but that had been twisted by the dictatorship in Cuba stating:

"It's good that to start this effort, the true meaning of the word dialogue be rescued. We have all witnessed the misrepresentation of this beautiful word, thanks to the manipulations of the dictatorship that has wanted to use it for its own purposes, and also thanks to some complying with the Castro lexicon, perhaps without noticing where the misrepresentation comes from, seem content to have them steal the dictionary, the same ones who previously stole our homeland."

The word dialogue has a long history and to have arisen in the West with Plato and the Greeks over 2,400 years ago. The root meaning of the word dialogue is formed by two words dia and logos which literally means  'two way flow/exchange' of meaning. Dialogue by definition can be applied to literature, drama, music, philosophy and for the focus of this essay in an exchange of ideas and opinions or in a purely political context: "a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution."

Unfortunately, in our modern era where words often lose their meaning or are twisted to suit particular agendas it appears that the word dialogue has become another victim of Orwellian Newspeak.

In this case "Dialogue is Normalization" that is when two parties meet in order to supposedly represent two parties in a conflict representing their position and interests but in reality one of the parties has invited who will represent their counterparts in the dialogue. This is done in order to promote their particular agenda which often in the case of those in power means normalizing and making permanent injustices committed while legitimizing systematic human rights violations. +972  Magazine offers the following definition of "normalization" which is often times what dialogues with a dictatorship can degenerate into: 

"It is helpful to think of normalization as a “colonization of the mind,” whereby the oppressed subject comes to believe that the oppressor’s reality is the only “normal” reality that must be subscribed to, and that the oppression is a fact of life that must be coped with. Those who engage in normalization either ignore this oppression, or accept it as the status quo that can be lived with." 

There is a spectrum of "normalization" as dialogue at one end you'll find the Brookings Institute that seeks to "overcome obstacles to dialogue" which in practice means acceding to the demands of the dictatorship on a whole host of issues then at the other extreme end is the example of Magda Montiel Davis who at a gathering of Cuban exiles, organized by the Cuban regime, in Havana in order to meet with them and "dialogue" exclaimed to Fidel Castro: "thank-you for what you have done for my people, you have been a great teacher for me."  Montiel Davis then kissed the old dictator on the cheek. The encounter of Montiel Davis with Castro was filmed by regime agents and later sold to Miami broadcasters. 

If you are to represent, as in the case of the Brookings Institution, U.S. interests in a dialogue with Cuba or, as in the case of Magda Montiel Davis, the Cuban exile community then one must represent the parties of the conflict and not seek to ingratiate oneself with the adversary while abandoning your parties positions. Also the gathering should be in a neutral location and each side should select the parties to represent them. In the case of the gathering attended by Ms. Montiel Davis all sides of the conversation were selected by the dictatorship. That is not a dialogue but a sham.

The other danger is to attempt to be "neutral." Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu ably explains the inadequacy of neutrality in a situation of injustice when he observes that:

 “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Palestinian activists, for example, argue that "dialogue" stands in the way of justice with their conflict with Israel, but one would hope that the Palestinian diaspora would favor an actual dialogue that represents their interests and grievances. Naturally, a dialogue that embraces their adversary while abandoning their claims is another matter. Or to paraphrase the Palestinians into the Cuban context: 

Dialogue would only serve to sanitize the oppressive nature of the Castro regime. Instead, we seek to build the growing movement of people that will bring an end to the dictatorship, that will help restore human and civil rights.

Dialogue redefined as normalization and normalization redefined as caving into the adversary without addressing the underlying positions of the conflict is a recipe for stagnation that benefits those in power and in the end prolongs the conflict. On the other hand a dialogue where both parties meet on an equal playing field in a frank discussion can bear fruit.

Back in 2004, in Miami, Agustin Roman spoke of both the importance and the power of real dialogue while rejecting Orwellian newspeak: 

We begin, then, claiming the Cuban people's right to speak in possession of the real value of the words, that is the only way for good men to understand each other. That's what I would also like to see with the word liberty, with the word justice, with the word democracy, the word patriotism, and with the word peace. That never again those who hijack the essence of these words and deny our people, induce us to use them in a sense different from the goodness of its true meaning. Pray to Him who has the words of eternal life, who is the word of God made flesh, not to allow that they confuse us with the words once again.

Now in 2012, in Cuba, Cuban pro-democracy leader Antonio Rodiles offers a framework of dialogue for the Cuban context which until now, the dictatorship has rejected that Agustin Roman embraced:

Visualizing and working in support of a transition towards democracy in the convoluted scenario in which we live is a process that implies, above all, political and intellectual maturity, honesty, and a high level of civic awareness. We need to understand that such dynamics would not involve just one axis, just one angle. It is impossible to imagine a transition that does not take into account Cubans in Cuba today who hold different points of view. And a transition without full participation of those Cubans outside the Island, who constitute an essential part of our nation, is also inconceivable. It is not possible to outline a transition without the workers, intellectuals, professionals and entrepreneurs both inside and outside the country.

What will you tell him?

Human Rights Watch: "New Castro, Same Cuba"

Cuba's repressive machinery remains intact under Raul Castro.

"Despite significant obstacles to research, Human Rights Watch documented more than 40 cases in which Cuba has imprisoned individuals for “dangerousness” under Raúl Castro because they tried to exercise their fundamental rights. We believe there are many more. The “dangerous” activities in these cases have included handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, staging peaceful marches, writing news articles critical of the government, and attempting to organize independent unions." - Human Rights Watch (2009)

A decade after Human Rights Watch released their CUBA'S REPRESSIVE MACHINERY: Human Rights Forty Years After the Revolution which offered a well documented overview of how Cuba's legal system serves as part of the apparatus of repression and how it operated and operates today in Cuba the human rights organization released a report documenting Raul Castro's tenure as "President" titled New Castro, Same Cuba: Political Prisoners in the Post-Fidel Era and the complete report is available in pdf format online. The report offers a breakdown of repression against dissidents, but also offers insights into the regime's totalitarian nature :

The Raúl Castro government has applied the “dangerousness” law not only to dissenters and critics of the government, but to a broad range of people who choose not to cooperate with the state. We found that failing to attend pro-government rallies, not belonging to official party organizations, and being unemployed are all considered signs of “antisocial” behavior, and may lead to “official warnings” and even incarceration in Raúl Castro’s Cuba. In a January 2009 campaign called “Operation Victory,” dozens of individuals in eastern Cuba—most of them youth—were charged with “dangerousness” for being unemployed. So was a man from Sancti Spíritus who could not work because of health problems, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in August 2008 for being unemployed.

One must participate in the propaganda exercise and in some cases carry out acts of repression against fellow citizens in the Cuban dictatorship's version of Orwell's 2 minutes hate which is the act of repudiation that in Cuba can go on a lot longer than two minutes or risk being on the receiving end. You can see and hear a sampling of how they operate in the video below beginning at 00:50:



A word about Human Rights Watch
When a totalitarian regime is criticized it must attack the critic and question their motives. It is standard operating procedure. It has been repeatedly used against Amnesty International, UN Human Rights experts such as Christine Chanet, and against Human Rights Watch. Following the release of the report the Cuban diplomatic mission in Washington released a statement in which it described Human Rights Watch's "evaluation of human rights in Cuba is illegitimate and illegal." First who and what is Human Rights Watch? There vision and mission statement is clear as is the fact that they have a track record of being verbally attacked by numerous governments across the ideological divide. First Human Rights Watch does not recieve directly or indirectly any government funding and rely on private donations. Secondly, the organization arose out of Helsinki Watch which monitored Soviet and Eastern European compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords after their founding in 1978 and Americas Watch founded in 1981 which monitored authoritarian and military dictatorships in the Hemisphere and was criticized at the time for bias against El Salvador, Guatemala, by the Reagan Administration and was accused by The Wall Street Journal of "a gentler standard to U.S. adversaries in Central America than to U.S. friends." Now this version of events is provided by the self described"progressives" at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. The organization Human Rights Watch was to formally come into existence in 1998 as a fusion of these two organizations and similar counterparts in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Now that we have a better perspective on Human Rights Watch and in the spirit of the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words. Around the same time that Helsinki Watch and Americas Watch were doing their job on behalf of human rights Fidel Castro was hosting leaders of the Argentine military junta in Havana.

Fidel Castro, the Argentine Military Junta and the Dirty War

On the picture on the right is Fidel Castro with Argentine foreign minister Nicanor Costa Mendez of the Argentine military junta that according to a number of sources extrajudicially executed and disappeared as many as 30,000 Argentines between 1976 and 1983 in the Dirty War meeting in Havana at the Non-Aligned Movement gathering.


That is not the only member of the junta that he commiserated because he was also photographed here on the left with "President" Reynaldo Benito Antonio Bignone Ramayón who, like Fidel Castro then and Raul Castro today , was"President" in name only, but in reality a brutal military dictator. In 2009, he is on trial for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of 56 people in a concentration camp. Sadly, whereas groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International sought to expose the Dirty War and stop it and to later document the crimes committed and along with the victims demand justice the Cuban government did everything at the time to block efforts to investigate the disappearances from their perch at the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

The Castro Brothers Crimes in Ethiopia

Raul Castro & Fidel Castro with close ally Mengistu Haile Mariam

In the case of Marxist ruler Mengistu Haile Mariam or as Fidel Castro referred to him "Comrade Mengistu" there is a lot of information demonstrating the close working relationship between Mengistu and both Castro brothers. Cuba sent the first wave of what would become 5,000 Cuban troops to fight government rebels in December 1977-January 1978. In September of 1978 Fidel Castro arrived in Ethiopia to address both Ethiopian and Cuban troops and claim both victory and the Ethiopian revolution's popular support:

"Comrade Cubans, I can recall those days of December 1977 and January 1978 when we said farewell to the first Cuban internationalist combatants who were leaving for Ethiopia. [...]Eighteen months later we have returned to a Ethiopia which is victorious be cause of its combative sons' heroism and the support of international solidarity, as Comrade Mengistu stated 2 days ago. Moreover, it is also an already powerful Ethiopia. Tuesday's popular parade confirmed the enormous popular support for this revolutionary change. Yesterday's military parade tells us of the degree of organization and discipline achieved by the combative and courageous fraternal Ethiopian people. The rapid revolutionary offensive of the Ethiopian and Cuban troops practically annihilated the enemy. [...]Ethiopian brothers, together with you we have fought and we have won. Together with you we are ready to fight again and to win again. Together with you we pledge: Fatherland or death, we shall win!

Fidel Castro addressing Cuban and Ethiopian troops in Ethiopia September 1978

Castro's September 1978 speech places Cuban combatants on the ground in December of 1977. The importance of these dates will become evident later on. The next excerpt is from a conversation with the then East German dictator Erik Honecker discussing the situation in Ethiopia and Fidel Castro's assesment of Mengistu in February of 1977 following a visit and meeting with him:

Mengistu strikes me as a quiet, serious, and sincere leader who is aware of the power of the masses. He is an intellectual personality who showed his wisdom on 3 February. The rightists wanted to do away with the leftists on 3 February. The prelude to this was an exuberant speech by the Ethiopian president in favor of nationalism. Mengistu preempted this coup. He called the meeting of the Revolutionary Council one hour early and had the rightist leaders arrested and shot. A very consequential decision was taken on 3 February in Ethiopia. The political landscape of the country changed, which has enabled them to take steps that were impossible before then. Before it was only possible to support the leftist forces indirectly, now we can do so without any constraints.

Fidel Castro with close ally Mengistu Haile Mariam

The dates are important because it coincides with the beginning of the "Red Terror" in which 2,000 Africans were slaughtered. This was a purge of political opponents. According to press accounts: "Suspects were rounded up, some shot, others garrotted. The bodies were thrown on the streets." There would be a Cuban military presence on the ground until 1988. In December 2006 Ethiopia's former dictator was found guilty of the extrajudicial killing of thousands of political opponents and his involvement in a famine which killed one million people and found guilty of genocide in absentia. A Reuters video report on the 2006 trial is available below:



Naturally the Cuban government would not have been pleased with Reed Brody Human Rights Watch's legal counsel's reaction to the trial and verdict at the time: "This is a man whose regime was marked by some of the worst atrocities of our time. Thousands of political killings [were carried out and] over 100,000 people died as a result of forced relocations."

No doubt the Castro brothers and all those officials in the dictatorship who have committed gross human rights violations feel a little uncomfortable when they see their close allies being tried and condemned for crimes against humanity and genocide as the ultimate condemnation by history. Not to mention that groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International "would very much like to see [Mengistu] physically brought to justice--not justice in absentia." Has anyone given any thought to what responsibility Cuban leadership shares with the events in Ethiopia? Difficult questions that the dictatorship in Cuba would rather not answer truthfully or be held accountable.