China vs Tibet Monks

[Ionstormsucks]

PS. I'll drop the "honey" if you'll drop the "mate." M'kay?

Nahh, it's ok - I'm not touchy there... I'll stick to my mate, mate... and you to your honey.

By Godwin's law, I declare this discussion over.

Shouldn't that have been the point where you stop posting? You know, mate... I explicitely mentioned that I do not want to compare China and Nazi Germany, because I knew what would come... so I hoped this would make you read the following sentences more closely... without any effect it seems. No, I did not compare China and Nazi Germany, I compared the domestic policy of China and Germany. And I explicitely remarked that there are differences between both countries.

No Freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, violent repression of minorities - do you honestly deny that there are similarities?
I would even go further, look at China's inner structure - One political party that has written down its claim to power in the constitution... sound familiar? Again, you posted the picture of the Olympic flame in Berlin...

Funny, that -- Zhu Di, from Beijing, sitting three feet from here and busily programming away, doesn't seem all that ignorant to me. Thirty years ago, she wouldn't have been able to leave the country, let alone go back to celebrate New Year's with her family every day.

You know, progression is a flexible term, I admit that. For you that might mean that China opened up politically. For me that only means that China opened up economically. On the day Zhu Di, from Beijing, sitting three feet away from you and busily programming away, can publicly criticise her own country and go back to China to celebrate New Year's wearing a "Free Tibet" t-shirt not having to fear to be imprisoned, I'll agree with you.

Yeah, but clearly you don't want to compare China with Nazi Germany, honey. You just said so above, right?

Yep, mate... that's exactely why I'm comparing the behavior of the UN with the behavior of the rest of the world during the Nazi regime and not the coutries China and Germany.

My problem with you, honey, is this: you're assuming that whatever we choose to do -- whatever sanctions we impose, or threaten to impose, will actually help rather than hurt the Tibetans. . . . it won't help the Tibetans either.

And my problem with you, mate is this: you're using pragmatism (of which we know that it will definately NOT help the Tibetans, because it is exactely the pragmatism we displayed the last 50 years) to present yourself as a great philanthropist. As I said before, the question is not if we can force China into doing what we want. Of course we cannot sanction China for years and years until it finally gives in and does exately what we want. Even the sanctions after 1989 didn't hold very long, but that's not the point. The UN is about to lose its credibility if it constantly sanctions countries that are small and weak and lets those get away that are powerful and big.

I do not believe that the Chinese would bend to international pressure on Tibet, or Taiwan, or any other matter regarding their territorial and internal integrity, under any circumstances. They'd rather starve... and, more to the point, they're clearly strong enough to take the edge off any such pressure that they won't have to.

Again, this is not about crushing China until it does everything we want - I'm well aware that this is not how international politics work. You always need to leave open a backdoor so China can keep its credibility and integrity. At the moment however the UN is at the point where it risks losing its own integrity and credibility. We're miles away from economic sanctions, the UN doesn't even have the guts to release a resolution concerning this matter - the last one is from 1965. There are no actions that signify China that there is a limit how far it can go.
The same goes for the western countries individually. The signs that are given to China are extremly contradictory. One the one hand the German federal chancellor criticises China for its rather shabby treatment of human rights and on the other hand Germany pays China 67.5 mil Euros development aid a year. How does that fit together?

And why is he a prominent figure? Because of the vastly improved media access to China nowadays. Thirty years ago, nobody would even have heard of him. Remember what a sensation it was when somebody managed to sneak the Tiananmen pictures out?

Yes, now we can finally see live on TV how China violates human rights. Thirty years ago we needed material that was smuggeled out of China... oh wait, that hasn't really changed since a few weeks ago China kicked out the foreign press.
The "improved media access" doesn't keep China from doing anything. I think that became quite clear since the protests began. What prominence can do is - it can give you a certain protection... but that's it. That doesn't mean that China has changed.

What's going on in China at the moment makes that all too obvious. Know what Liu Jingmin (former deputy mayor of Peking, now vice president of a committee supervising the games in Peking) said in 2001? The games would help the human rights in China. Know what Amnesty International says - that a big part of the repressions that are going on in China at the moment do not happen despite the Olympic Games, but because of the Olympic Games. Even before the protests started (again AI) China intensified its activities against human rights activists.

Political liberty isn't a binary condition; it's a continuum, with Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, or Hitler's Germany near one end of the scale and the EU and the US near the other end of the scale. Today's China is clearly far from free, but it's come a very long way from the Cultural Revolution. Baldly brushing away all of this progress as "there is no political liberty in China" is wilful ignorance.

Are you sure? Taking into account the recent events in Tibet are you without doubt convinced that if several thousand students gathered today on Tiananmen Square protesting for more freedom, China would not do the same as it did in 1989? I am not.

Seriously, honey, you're being charmingly, if slightly dangerously naive if you feel that China today is comparable to China under Mao, or Germany under Hitler.

And seriously, mate, you're being charmingly, if heavily dyslexic if what I wrote made you think that I ever did that.

 

[Prime Junta]

Nahh, it's ok - I'm not touchy there... I'll stick to my mate, mate... and you to your honey.

It's not that I'm offended; it's just irritating and tiring to read. So I won't. Ta.

 

[Ionstormsucks]

It's not that I'm offended; it's just irritating and tiring to read. So I won't. Ta.

Anytime, mate.