Electoral Member
Posts: 701 
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 20th, 2006, 08:52 PM
All our political parties have beat the drum on human rights regarding China. All of them, but diplomacy is a very thoughtful process going forward.
The Liberals do not take sole credit for where we are in our relationship with China. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have been advancing our working relationship with the Chinese for some time now. The process has been a refinement over the years. A careful building of engagement between nations. ‘Years and years’ of building on it and careful political maneuvering.
The result of these many years of engagement to date is about a $30 billion trade relationship between us. They are now our second largest trading partner — second to the United States!
Harper hasn’t even been there before, met with the people, and personally viewed the social landscape, and yet he goes over to Asia (not even China) for the first time with very strong vocal negative opinions. (actually, vocal on the plane after being rebuked and then from what I keep hearing, muted to the Chinese leadership.)
At most we need only to keep tweaking at it for more improvement with China. My issues would maybe lean more towards having tactful discussions over concerns of technological secrets being stolen and other issues of piracy. Again via some finesse.
That aside, their country is moving forward not backwards so as long as that is happening, we should show our acknowledgment to the changes we respect and help to promote those such changes that hopefully the Chinese will take it much further in the future.
With Harper it’s more a case where someone thinks he is going to make fine pottery and instead of going in with the delicate tools required, walks into the workshop armed with nothing but a hammer. He simply had no sense of cultural understanding to how the Chinese can best be engaged.
Given they are our second largest trading partner, you would think this situation was important enough to have really done the research prior.
All our political parties have beat the drum on human rights regarding China. All of them, but diplomacy is a very thoughtful process going forward.
The Liberals do not take sole credit for where we are in our relationship with China. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have been advancing our working relationship with the Chinese for some time now. The process has been a refinement over the years. A careful building of engagement between nations. ‘Years and years’ of building on it and careful political maneuvering.
The result of these many years of engagement to date is about a $30 billion trade relationship between us. They are now our second largest trading partner — second to the United States!
Harper hasn’t even been there before, met with the people, and personally viewed the social landscape, and yet he goes over to Asia (not even China) for the first time with very strong vocal negative opinions. (actually, vocal on the plane after being rebuked and then from what I keep hearing, muted to the Chinese leadership.)
At most we need only to keep tweaking at it for more improvement with China. My issues would maybe lean more towards having tactful discussions over concerns of technological secrets being stolen and other issues of piracy. Again via some finesse.
That aside, their country is moving forward not backwards so as long as that is happening, we should show our acknowledgment to the changes we respect and help to promote those such changes that hopefully the Chinese will take it much further in the future.
With Harper it’s more a case where someone thinks he is going to make fine pottery and instead of going in with the delicate tools required, walks into the workshop armed with nothing but a hammer. He simply had no sense of cultural understanding to how the Chinese can best be engaged.
Given they are our second largest trading partner, you would think this situation was important enough to have really done the research prior.
House Member
Posts: 4,554 
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
November 20th, 2006, 11:06 PM
There is no question that the Stalinist tyrants in Beijing violate every human right imaginable. Too bad George Bush, Sr so strenuously supported those political criminals during the Tiananmen Square crisis. In fact he was the only world leader to do so.
But as always, we must say BLAME CLINTON! for that tyrannical government's continuation.
There is no question that the Stalinist tyrants in Beijing violate every human right imaginable. Too bad George Bush, Sr so strenuously supported those political criminals during the Tiananmen Square crisis. In fact he was the only world leader to do so.
But as always, we must say BLAME CLINTON! for that tyrannical government's continuation.
Electoral Member
Posts: 701
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 20th, 2006, 11:50 PM
The Chinese hard-liners were terrible. They were responsible for real human rights issues but they are being pushed aside by a younger more robust progressive leadership. It is the very reason we need to show our support towards the progress that is happening now and as long as that continues going forward, we should work with it so the stains of the past will be the past.
A lot has happened since the time of Tiananmen. A lot has happened since the reclaiming of Hong Kong.
Russia... now there is a country that is showing more warning signs of going backwards instead of forwards. That would be an area where I can see human rights addressed but even then can you imagine Harper going outright and thinking he can lecture very vocally down to Putin in his home tuft — human rights issues?
Right now Canada is a regressive player with regards to international cooperation on environmental concerns and that is really a huge human issue in this day and age. How well received would European leaders be if when arriving in Canada they announce they are going to lecture down to Harper when they see him. There is a difference between forwarding concerns as opposed to talking with a superior attitude at another country’s leadership at the steps of one's parliment building.
I doubt even our government would well receive such an engagement, and even though I might agree with the outside opinions of the issue, I would find the approach shows a lack of respect to us as a nation and would have the effect of unnecessarily embarrassing us.
Lastly the USA has committed some abominable human rights abuses recently but now with a shift in the political landscape, again I would think the best thing would be to show support for the changes in political focus that we can respect. If Harper in a visit to the USA decided to lecture Bush on the spot, it would be a disaster to the needs and positive engagement of our two countries.
Criticism by the society, by the media is fine. The USA does it on Canada, Canada does it on the USA, Canada does it on the rest of the world, and now these days, the world does it on Canada.
And then the politicians can try to dance diplomatically with one another in an attempt to stand up for their values and interests. ‘Diplomatically’. They are suppose to be well versed in that.
Quoting gopher
There is no question that the Stalinist tyrants in Beijing violate every human right imaginable. Too bad George Bush, Sr so strenuously supported those political criminals during the Tiananmen Square crisis. In fact he was the only world leader to do so.
But as always, we must say BLAME CLINTON! for that tyrannical government's continuation.
But as always, we must say BLAME CLINTON! for that tyrannical government's continuation.
The Chinese hard-liners were terrible. They were responsible for real human rights issues but they are being pushed aside by a younger more robust progressive leadership. It is the very reason we need to show our support towards the progress that is happening now and as long as that continues going forward, we should work with it so the stains of the past will be the past.
A lot has happened since the time of Tiananmen. A lot has happened since the reclaiming of Hong Kong.
Russia... now there is a country that is showing more warning signs of going backwards instead of forwards. That would be an area where I can see human rights addressed but even then can you imagine Harper going outright and thinking he can lecture very vocally down to Putin in his home tuft — human rights issues?
Right now Canada is a regressive player with regards to international cooperation on environmental concerns and that is really a huge human issue in this day and age. How well received would European leaders be if when arriving in Canada they announce they are going to lecture down to Harper when they see him. There is a difference between forwarding concerns as opposed to talking with a superior attitude at another country’s leadership at the steps of one's parliment building.
I doubt even our government would well receive such an engagement, and even though I might agree with the outside opinions of the issue, I would find the approach shows a lack of respect to us as a nation and would have the effect of unnecessarily embarrassing us.
Lastly the USA has committed some abominable human rights abuses recently but now with a shift in the political landscape, again I would think the best thing would be to show support for the changes in political focus that we can respect. If Harper in a visit to the USA decided to lecture Bush on the spot, it would be a disaster to the needs and positive engagement of our two countries.
Criticism by the society, by the media is fine. The USA does it on Canada, Canada does it on the USA, Canada does it on the rest of the world, and now these days, the world does it on Canada.
And then the politicians can try to dance diplomatically with one another in an attempt to stand up for their values and interests. ‘Diplomatically’. They are suppose to be well versed in that.
Electoral Member
Posts: 701
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 21st, 2006, 12:26 AM
Politicians throw concerns about other countries at home all the time. Right now the USA knows what the world thinks about them. The world has made it clear how it feels about recent US policies. Relationships have been strained enough. A way for another country however to get nowhere fast with the USA is to give indication to the US leadership what Harper thought he could get away with the Chinese leadership. And I flaw this approach though having been very critical of the USA myself.
No leader in the world is going to let themselves be some prop so that another leader can showboat for domestic voter ratings at their expense.
A country has to be pretty powerful in comparison to the other to do any of that. We are not in that position with China and again, China really doesn’t need to be a target of such things with how things are going these days.
Really, take a hardline approach with China now?
That makes as much sense to me as suddenly going ballistic on Cuba as Castro begins making his way to a rest home (unless Cuba suddenly does something defining). Neither do all our consumer products indicate to me a deep dislike of all things Chinese. China is soaking up western values by trade. Japan discovered a love of America that way.
Politicians throw concerns about other countries at home all the time. Right now the USA knows what the world thinks about them. The world has made it clear how it feels about recent US policies. Relationships have been strained enough. A way for another country however to get nowhere fast with the USA is to give indication to the US leadership what Harper thought he could get away with the Chinese leadership. And I flaw this approach though having been very critical of the USA myself.
No leader in the world is going to let themselves be some prop so that another leader can showboat for domestic voter ratings at their expense.
A country has to be pretty powerful in comparison to the other to do any of that. We are not in that position with China and again, China really doesn’t need to be a target of such things with how things are going these days.
Really, take a hardline approach with China now?
That makes as much sense to me as suddenly going ballistic on Cuba as Castro begins making his way to a rest home (unless Cuba suddenly does something defining). Neither do all our consumer products indicate to me a deep dislike of all things Chinese. China is soaking up western values by trade. Japan discovered a love of America that way.
House Member
Posts: 4,554
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
November 21st, 2006, 03:40 PM
Lastly the USA has committed some abominable human rights abuses recently but now with a shift in the political landscape, again I would think the best thing would be to show support for the changes in political focus that we can respect.
No dispute from me on that one. Tact and diplomacy should always be used as the means of effectuating such changes. Any unilateral invasion as Bush did in Iraq is in violation of international law as you know from my previous links on the subject. But changes cannot be brought about unless attention is drawn to violations. In a recent TV broadcast (sorry, forgot which channel), a critic of the Beijing government said that thousands {precise number unspecified} are being held under tortuous detention and forced into slave labor. Yet, Bush and other critics who are so quick to march into a helpless Iraq under the pretence that internal violence needs to be ended, remain strangely silent in the face of such contemptuous tyranny. This shows the hypocrisy of Bush politics and the double standards of those who defend him.
Lastly the USA has committed some abominable human rights abuses recently but now with a shift in the political landscape, again I would think the best thing would be to show support for the changes in political focus that we can respect.
No dispute from me on that one. Tact and diplomacy should always be used as the means of effectuating such changes. Any unilateral invasion as Bush did in Iraq is in violation of international law as you know from my previous links on the subject. But changes cannot be brought about unless attention is drawn to violations. In a recent TV broadcast (sorry, forgot which channel), a critic of the Beijing government said that thousands {precise number unspecified} are being held under tortuous detention and forced into slave labor. Yet, Bush and other critics who are so quick to march into a helpless Iraq under the pretence that internal violence needs to be ended, remain strangely silent in the face of such contemptuous tyranny. This shows the hypocrisy of Bush politics and the double standards of those who defend him.
Electoral Member
Posts: 701
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 26th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Colpy, I have at one time spent a lot of time interacting with the Chinese community, but I'm sure you'll tell me you are speaking from an extensive knowledge of interaction yourself, non?
If one were to look at China's own personal history with the west, you will find it to be a history of western exploitation, humiliation, etc. China in the 1800's during the Opium Wars by the west had never wanted to bother with the west to begin with. However the west would have it no other way when it came to it’s appetite to exploit. Just look up the history of Shanghai.
History shows a 'west' thinking it always knows what's good for the Chinese despite a history of having done the opposite to their people. Though I do not support the ideology of Communism, I do recognize that it did come about in China as a desperate means to stop the Chinese from becoming continued victims of enslavement at the time.
I am one to advocate human rights. I also look towards the ways which do actually bring about postive change.
Today the Chinese are moving forward in their society and of course people here will think in terms of what they’ll just believe or at worst, what a western politician will make them believe. The economic changes and improvements in standards of livings has also paved the way for more progressive attitudes, social reforms and global cooperation. If you drew it on a chart, the line would be going upwards.
If the west allows these changes to continue by the Chinese, ‘change’ will occur through China’s own evolution of it’s society and the part the west now has in helping to bring such change about is through trade.
Honestly, right now I'm more concerned with our society and social issues and government transparancy and media restrictions, and our MPs being muzzled, etc. etc. Unacceptable.
Quoting Colpy
IMHO, Harper understands quite well how to talk to the Chinese.
I'm only concerned that he is far too gentle with them.
(from topic forum: Opinions on Canada's Role in Afghanistan)
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...anistan-2.html
I'm only concerned that he is far too gentle with them.
(from topic forum: Opinions on Canada's Role in Afghanistan)
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...anistan-2.html
Colpy, I have at one time spent a lot of time interacting with the Chinese community, but I'm sure you'll tell me you are speaking from an extensive knowledge of interaction yourself, non?
If one were to look at China's own personal history with the west, you will find it to be a history of western exploitation, humiliation, etc. China in the 1800's during the Opium Wars by the west had never wanted to bother with the west to begin with. However the west would have it no other way when it came to it’s appetite to exploit. Just look up the history of Shanghai.
History shows a 'west' thinking it always knows what's good for the Chinese despite a history of having done the opposite to their people. Though I do not support the ideology of Communism, I do recognize that it did come about in China as a desperate means to stop the Chinese from becoming continued victims of enslavement at the time.
I am one to advocate human rights. I also look towards the ways which do actually bring about postive change.
Today the Chinese are moving forward in their society and of course people here will think in terms of what they’ll just believe or at worst, what a western politician will make them believe. The economic changes and improvements in standards of livings has also paved the way for more progressive attitudes, social reforms and global cooperation. If you drew it on a chart, the line would be going upwards.
If the west allows these changes to continue by the Chinese, ‘change’ will occur through China’s own evolution of it’s society and the part the west now has in helping to bring such change about is through trade.
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss
Where’s Mao? Chinese Revise History Books
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: September 1, 2006
BEIJING, Aug. 31 — When high school students in Shanghai crack their history textbooks this fall they may be in for a surprise. The new standard world history text drops wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization.
Socialism has been reduced to a single, short chapter in the senior high school history course. Chinese Communism before the economic reform that began in 1979 is covered in a sentence. The text mentions Mao only once — in a chapter on etiquette.
Nearly overnight the country’s most prosperous schools have shelved the Marxist template that had dominated standard history texts since the 1950’s. The changes passed high-level scrutiny, the authors say, and are part of a broader effort to promote a more stable, less violent view of Chinese history that serves today’s economic and political goals.
Supporters say the overhaul enlivens mandatory history courses for junior and senior high school students and better prepares them for life in the real world. The old textbooks, not unlike the ruling Communist Party, changed relatively little in the last quarter-century of market-oriented economic reforms. They were glaringly out of sync with realities students face outside the classroom. But critics say the textbooks trade one political agenda for another.
They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it. The one-party state, having largely abandoned its official ideology, prefers people to think more about the future than the past.
The new text focuses on ideas and buzzwords that dominate the state-run media and official discourse: economic growth, innovation, foreign trade, political stability, respect for diverse cultures and social harmony.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss
Where’s Mao? Chinese Revise History Books
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: September 1, 2006
BEIJING, Aug. 31 — When high school students in Shanghai crack their history textbooks this fall they may be in for a surprise. The new standard world history text drops wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization.
Socialism has been reduced to a single, short chapter in the senior high school history course. Chinese Communism before the economic reform that began in 1979 is covered in a sentence. The text mentions Mao only once — in a chapter on etiquette.
Nearly overnight the country’s most prosperous schools have shelved the Marxist template that had dominated standard history texts since the 1950’s. The changes passed high-level scrutiny, the authors say, and are part of a broader effort to promote a more stable, less violent view of Chinese history that serves today’s economic and political goals.
Supporters say the overhaul enlivens mandatory history courses for junior and senior high school students and better prepares them for life in the real world. The old textbooks, not unlike the ruling Communist Party, changed relatively little in the last quarter-century of market-oriented economic reforms. They were glaringly out of sync with realities students face outside the classroom. But critics say the textbooks trade one political agenda for another.
They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it. The one-party state, having largely abandoned its official ideology, prefers people to think more about the future than the past.
The new text focuses on ideas and buzzwords that dominate the state-run media and official discourse: economic growth, innovation, foreign trade, political stability, respect for diverse cultures and social harmony.
Honestly, right now I'm more concerned with our society and social issues and government transparancy and media restrictions, and our MPs being muzzled, etc. etc. Unacceptable.
Senate Member
Posts: 5,574
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
November 27th, 2006, 12:35 AM
Read and understood, Elevenele.
I can't say how strongly I disagree, although the context of my opinions are not from close contact, they are simply the opinion of an observer and (if I may call myself this) an amateur historian.
I need to call your attention to the following facts:
There has been no regime change in China since 1949. The same party, with many of the same people, still rule China. These folks have murdered tens of millions......this regime is the worst bunch of mass murderers to ever form a government on earth. That's saying something.
If you think they have changed so much, I would point out that Tianamen Square was not that long ago. In addition, China executes officially 1,500 people a year. Unofficially, that number is over 10,000. From whom, BTW, they harvest organs, sometimes before the execution.
China is becoming a military power, and an aggressive, expansionist military power. They have grown as a threat to Taiwan and others in the area by leaps and bounds, and they are not shy at sabre-rattling.
Pick a third-world monster-nation. Say, for instance, the Sudan. Or Zimbabwe. One thing I can guarantee you, China is best buddy of the rulers, helping them out with arms etc.
I could go on and on and on, but I will spare you.
Now, the one thing I have heard of that makes sense in China is recent moves to prevent the ever-increasing wealth gap in that nation..........but I believe that is simply self-preservation.
In my opinion, China needs to be contained militarily, isolated ecomically, and ostracized diplomatically.
This is another issue on which we will never agree.
Read and understood, Elevenele.
I can't say how strongly I disagree, although the context of my opinions are not from close contact, they are simply the opinion of an observer and (if I may call myself this) an amateur historian.
I need to call your attention to the following facts:
There has been no regime change in China since 1949. The same party, with many of the same people, still rule China. These folks have murdered tens of millions......this regime is the worst bunch of mass murderers to ever form a government on earth. That's saying something.
If you think they have changed so much, I would point out that Tianamen Square was not that long ago. In addition, China executes officially 1,500 people a year. Unofficially, that number is over 10,000. From whom, BTW, they harvest organs, sometimes before the execution.
China is becoming a military power, and an aggressive, expansionist military power. They have grown as a threat to Taiwan and others in the area by leaps and bounds, and they are not shy at sabre-rattling.
Pick a third-world monster-nation. Say, for instance, the Sudan. Or Zimbabwe. One thing I can guarantee you, China is best buddy of the rulers, helping them out with arms etc.
I could go on and on and on, but I will spare you.
Now, the one thing I have heard of that makes sense in China is recent moves to prevent the ever-increasing wealth gap in that nation..........but I believe that is simply self-preservation.
In my opinion, China needs to be contained militarily, isolated ecomically, and ostracized diplomatically.
This is another issue on which we will never agree.
Electoral Member
Posts: 701
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 27th, 2006, 06:02 PM
You see, I have to shake my head. The way things are going, given time, the next generation will hopefully have changed China for good. What you are proposing will at best punish all the billions undeservedly and turn all those young moderate Chinese into hard-liners then given to believe the need to be against us in the world. You would set the country in the direction of North Korea more than anything else when they are not a North Korea.
That will then be billions of Chinese all bent to viewing the west as an enemy, and I’m sure adopting a ‘real’ military policy aimed at us because of it. So sure, great, if your a fan of very dangerous world instability.
To put it in a different context, somehow the generation that faced the Japanese were able to move on and let Japan become what it is even though that country really committed war atrocities. If you really want to talk about having a history of atrocity, Japan had been responsible for millions of Chinese having been subjugated, slaughtered, and enslaved.
When I was in Philippines the people there remember the horrors of Japanese occupation. There is an old fortress, I believe in Manila, where they use to torture the Filipinos and is still there as a reminder. As I remember they had prison cells that were below sea level to allow a drowning of the inmates. Moreover, from all these different countries, towards Korea, the Japanese in history took woman from their neighbours, placing them into sexual slavery.
After they were defeated by the Americans at the end of World War II, somehow an American (or North American) can reconcile differences quite quickly when you think about it after having obliterated many of the Japanese with an atom bomb. And though having broken the Japanese will for war, it doesn’t mean that you’ve simply erased what had been done by the Japanese, or erased those involved in what had been done. The A-Bomb is never so precise as that.
Now what I am trying to say in this is not to slam the Japanese and I hope Japanese people can forgive me for offering them as a lamb in making my point. I hold utmost respect for concepts of Budo and the qualities of the refined cultural practices of Japanese culture and Zen Philosophy. However, I just wish to illustrate that now Japan is considered a very respected member of the world community, and it never got to this point by further isolating this country. Again, Japan changed by trade and a goal of economics.
Your approach, more about punishment, while may feel right for your attitudes to not forgetting ‘a wrong’, do not amount to ‘a right’ for what I believe you would like to see in the world.
And there are so many good faceless Chinese that you are simply punishing unnecessarily. I’ve read of some of the reforms to the their political system. They are not a democracy, but the younger generation has entered the political system. A moderate side has taken control of the country.
And no, the Chinese are not the ‘worst’ mass murderers on the planet.
Without sounding cliché as it’s so easy to throw this one in now, but I’m sure you wouldn’t apply you same punitive stance against the United States who have committed atrocity too in recent history. All over the world and quite impressively if you combine actions. The Americans however are western friends when doing it.
Even the Vietnamese managed to forgive them. Hey, Bush just went to Vietnam recently and those people lost what? millions in that war from the American invading forces?
There seems to be no equality in judgment in this world.
You see, I have to shake my head. The way things are going, given time, the next generation will hopefully have changed China for good. What you are proposing will at best punish all the billions undeservedly and turn all those young moderate Chinese into hard-liners then given to believe the need to be against us in the world. You would set the country in the direction of North Korea more than anything else when they are not a North Korea.
That will then be billions of Chinese all bent to viewing the west as an enemy, and I’m sure adopting a ‘real’ military policy aimed at us because of it. So sure, great, if your a fan of very dangerous world instability.
To put it in a different context, somehow the generation that faced the Japanese were able to move on and let Japan become what it is even though that country really committed war atrocities. If you really want to talk about having a history of atrocity, Japan had been responsible for millions of Chinese having been subjugated, slaughtered, and enslaved.
When I was in Philippines the people there remember the horrors of Japanese occupation. There is an old fortress, I believe in Manila, where they use to torture the Filipinos and is still there as a reminder. As I remember they had prison cells that were below sea level to allow a drowning of the inmates. Moreover, from all these different countries, towards Korea, the Japanese in history took woman from their neighbours, placing them into sexual slavery.
Quote:
Hey, in World War II, the Japanese trained pilots to act as suicide bombers. Ironic. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture (such as the view that those enemy soldiers who surrender while still able to resist were criminals).
From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture (such as the view that those enemy soldiers who surrender while still able to resist were criminals).
After they were defeated by the Americans at the end of World War II, somehow an American (or North American) can reconcile differences quite quickly when you think about it after having obliterated many of the Japanese with an atom bomb. And though having broken the Japanese will for war, it doesn’t mean that you’ve simply erased what had been done by the Japanese, or erased those involved in what had been done. The A-Bomb is never so precise as that.
Now what I am trying to say in this is not to slam the Japanese and I hope Japanese people can forgive me for offering them as a lamb in making my point. I hold utmost respect for concepts of Budo and the qualities of the refined cultural practices of Japanese culture and Zen Philosophy. However, I just wish to illustrate that now Japan is considered a very respected member of the world community, and it never got to this point by further isolating this country. Again, Japan changed by trade and a goal of economics.
Your approach, more about punishment, while may feel right for your attitudes to not forgetting ‘a wrong’, do not amount to ‘a right’ for what I believe you would like to see in the world.
And there are so many good faceless Chinese that you are simply punishing unnecessarily. I’ve read of some of the reforms to the their political system. They are not a democracy, but the younger generation has entered the political system. A moderate side has taken control of the country.
And no, the Chinese are not the ‘worst’ mass murderers on the planet.
Without sounding cliché as it’s so easy to throw this one in now, but I’m sure you wouldn’t apply you same punitive stance against the United States who have committed atrocity too in recent history. All over the world and quite impressively if you combine actions. The Americans however are western friends when doing it.
Even the Vietnamese managed to forgive them. Hey, Bush just went to Vietnam recently and those people lost what? millions in that war from the American invading forces?
There seems to be no equality in judgment in this world.
Electoral Member
Posts: 701
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
November 27th, 2006, 07:12 PM
A hardline approach at this time would only weaken those we want in positions of power within China. Chinese Leader Deng has since died with the current leadership being even more moderate in policy and each successive generation will bring progressive change (hopefully). Deng was China's Leader during the Tiananmen protests and to note another irony, he was the one to first really introduce a direction of progressive reforms.
A hardline approach at this time would only weaken those we want in positions of power within China. Chinese Leader Deng has since died with the current leadership being even more moderate in policy and each successive generation will bring progressive change (hopefully). Deng was China's Leader during the Tiananmen protests and to note another irony, he was the one to first really introduce a direction of progressive reforms.
Quote:
Some notes on the Tiananmen issue. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/19/deng.obit/
Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping dies
Led economic reform; cracked down on political dissent
February 19, 1997
Web posted at: 5:24 p.m. EDT (1724 GMT) Deng
BEIJING (CNN) -- Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who opened China's economy to the world while maintaining strict ideological control, died Wednesday at age 92.
China's state-run Xinhua News Agency said Deng died from complications from Parkinson's disease and a lung infection.
Deng was the great reformer, the man who first initiated the process of change that swept the communist world. But, even when challenged in the streets, Deng never abandoned his commitment to Communist Party rule in China.
Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping dies
Led economic reform; cracked down on political dissent
February 19, 1997
Web posted at: 5:24 p.m. EDT (1724 GMT) Deng
BEIJING (CNN) -- Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who opened China's economy to the world while maintaining strict ideological control, died Wednesday at age 92.
China's state-run Xinhua News Agency said Deng died from complications from Parkinson's disease and a lung infection.
Deng was the great reformer, the man who first initiated the process of change that swept the communist world. But, even when challenged in the streets, Deng never abandoned his commitment to Communist Party rule in China.
Quote:
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/...kgrnd.htm#1989
1989 Student Movement and Tiananmen Square
After Zhao became the party General Secretary, the economic and political reforms he had championed came under increasing attack. His proposal in May 1988 to accelerate price reform led to widespread popular complaints about rampant inflation and gave opponents of rapid reform the opening to call for greater centralization of economic controls and stricter prohibitions against Western influence. This precipitated a political debate which grew more heated through the winter of 1988-89.
The death of Hu Yaobang on April 15, 1989, coupled with growing economic hardship caused by high inflation, provided the backdrop for a large scale protest movement by students, intellectuals, and other parts of a disaffected urban population. University students and other citizens in Beijing camped out at Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu's death and to protest against those who would slow reform. Their protests, which grew despite government efforts to contain them, called for an end to official corruption and for defense of freedoms guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution. Protests also spread through many other cities, including Shanghai and Guangzhou.
Martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. Late on July 3 and early on the morning of June 4, military units were brought into Beijing. They used armed force to clear demonstrators from the streets. There are no official estimates of deaths in Beijing, but most observers believe that casualties numbered in the hundreds.
After June 4, while foreign governments expressed horror at the brutal suppression of the demonstrators, the central government eliminated remaining sources of organized opposition, detained large numbers of protesters, and required political reeducation not only for students but also for large numbers of party cadre and government officials.
Following the resurgence of conservatives in the aftermath of June 4, economic reform slowed until given new impetus by Deng Xiaoping's dramatic visit to southern China in early 1992. Deng's renewed push for a market-oriented economy received official sanction at the 14th Party Congress later in the year as a number of younger, reform-minded leaders began their rise to top positions. Deng and his supporters argued that managing the economy in a way that increased living standards should be China's primary policy objective, even if "capitalist" measures were adopted. Subsequent to the visit, the Communist Party Politburo publicly issued an endorsement of Deng's policies of economic openness. Though not completely eschewing political reform, China has consistently placed overwhelming priority on the opening of its economy.
1989 Student Movement and Tiananmen Square
After Zhao became the party General Secretary, the economic and political reforms he had championed came under increasing attack. His proposal in May 1988 to accelerate price reform led to widespread popular complaints about rampant inflation and gave opponents of rapid reform the opening to call for greater centralization of economic controls and stricter prohibitions against Western influence. This precipitated a political debate which grew more heated through the winter of 1988-89.
The death of Hu Yaobang on April 15, 1989, coupled with growing economic hardship caused by high inflation, provided the backdrop for a large scale protest movement by students, intellectuals, and other parts of a disaffected urban population. University students and other citizens in Beijing camped out at Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu's death and to protest against those who would slow reform. Their protests, which grew despite government efforts to contain them, called for an end to official corruption and for defense of freedoms guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution. Protests also spread through many other cities, including Shanghai and Guangzhou.
Martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. Late on July 3 and early on the morning of June 4, military units were brought into Beijing. They used armed force to clear demonstrators from the streets. There are no official estimates of deaths in Beijing, but most observers believe that casualties numbered in the hundreds.
After June 4, while foreign governments expressed horror at the brutal suppression of the demonstrators, the central government eliminated remaining sources of organized opposition, detained large numbers of protesters, and required political reeducation not only for students but also for large numbers of party cadre and government officials.
Following the resurgence of conservatives in the aftermath of June 4, economic reform slowed until given new impetus by Deng Xiaoping's dramatic visit to southern China in early 1992. Deng's renewed push for a market-oriented economy received official sanction at the 14th Party Congress later in the year as a number of younger, reform-minded leaders began their rise to top positions. Deng and his supporters argued that managing the economy in a way that increased living standards should be China's primary policy objective, even if "capitalist" measures were adopted. Subsequent to the visit, the Communist Party Politburo publicly issued an endorsement of Deng's policies of economic openness. Though not completely eschewing political reform, China has consistently placed overwhelming priority on the opening of its economy.
Senate Member
Posts: 5,574
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
November 28th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Eleven, you compared China to Japan.........
Tell you what, I will accept China immediately after an American General writes a new constitution for that nation. One that entrenches democratic institutions, limits military power, and forbids expansionist military manouvers.
The Constitution that has helped the Japanese become the great nation they are was penned by Douglas MacArthur.
Now THAT is change, you must admit.
Other than that point, we'll have to simply disagree.
Eleven, you compared China to Japan.........
Tell you what, I will accept China immediately after an American General writes a new constitution for that nation. One that entrenches democratic institutions, limits military power, and forbids expansionist military manouvers.
The Constitution that has helped the Japanese become the great nation they are was penned by Douglas MacArthur.
Now THAT is change, you must admit.
Other than that point, we'll have to simply disagree.
