China says activist broke his own neck

[kumquatq3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060727/ap_on_...alyzed_activist

[Walsingham]

Just goes to show how much they fear any backtracking on our push for 'integrating' China.

 

They beat their own people down. Pressure foreign companies into participation in their repression. And supply arms directly to our stated opponents. Can you say 'appeasement'? See <_< I knew you could.

[Laozi]

Theres nothing more sad then a man willing to break his own neck just to make his government look bad. What is this world coming to?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I shouldn't worry about this guy, he's famous now. He'll probably be put on a plane to the US just before Condoleeza Rice's next visit to Beijing. Another token human rights dissident set free.

 

Who are our stated opponents, and what did the Chinese sell them? (Given our own record of selling arms to our soon-to-be-stated opponents, I'm not sure we can really complain that much. )

[kumquatq3]

Another token human rights dissident set free.

 

because staring at the ceiling in the US is soooooooo much better than staring at the ceiling in China.

 

 

We'll put "freebird" on a loop for him

[Judge Hades]

If the US government has any sort of back bone we would never have any dealings with China. A full emargo of all chinese made goods should be in place but no. Ou jelly fiwh cowardly government only goes after countries we know we can beat down while we use an "appeasement" system that does not work on countries that are equal in strength and growing stronger.

[Tigranes]

Yeah, have fun boycotting everything from China, that's where half of your crap is made. In fact, do some individual boycotting and exercise your democratic, American right. Throw out everything that says Made in China.

 

That's not to say that you're not right, though.

[Judge Hades]

Actually I do my best not to buy items made in China as much as I can.

[Dark_Raven]

No Tiawan?

[Lucius]

Hades is made in Hong Kong. :ph34r:

[Atreides]

Taiwan's cool I think. A docu I saw said they have the best Japanese food outside Japan. I hope to test that one day if I can visit Taiwan with my friend.

[Azarkon]

Not this thread again.

 

Ignorance, as always, on the part of people who don't/can't understand what is the real problem with China and what are the real solutions. I guess I can add a few tips:

 

* The central government in China does not hold all the power, nor is it a united entity that can be judged as one. The thuggery that is most oftenly reported by Western press has to do with the actions of local governments, which are corrupt, self-serving, and cannot be easily controlled due to the whole cultural "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" tradition of nepotism that has been ingrained within Chinese society (and one might argue Asian society in general) for thousands of years.

 

* Democracy, implemented in such an environment of corrupt officials and bureaucratic entanglement, cannot possibly function. What's to stop the local boss and his cronies from misreporting votes? The central government that is comprised of the friends and families of such officials? Yeah, right.

 

* A revolution to overthrow the central government will do nothing; as I said, nepotism and cronism are ingrained within the political culture. All you'd accomplish is replace one corrupt government with another. Remember, many of the current PRC power holders came from the peasantry, so it's not a matter of "teh rich are all evil teh poor are good and honest!11!"

 

* There's no such thing as "appeasement" with regards to China, at least not in the sense of appeasing Hitler. Stop all inflow of Chinese goods and nevermind what happens to the US (ie likely economic depression), China's economic collapse will bring about far worse consequences and will likely destabilize the entire region. A strong, authoritarian China is preferrable to a fragmented, sectarian, and most importantly *impoverished* China. Why? Think WW 2 - why did Germany fall so easily into the hands of Hitler? You might as well ask for another Islamic Revolution or North Korea.

 

* There is nothing, ultimately, that the West can achieve through embargos, sanctions, wars, etc. to change China that is not for the worse. The Chinese government might make some concessions with respect to human rights, but based on their record with stopping piracy, I wouldn't hold my breath. In fact, I doubt the local governments would care what the central government says, since behind closed doors it's all a family game anyhow (and this is what many Western observers don't understand about China - they try to approach it as if it were a Western sociopolitical state built upon the cooperation of industies, companies, and governments each serving their own enlightened self-interest, when it is in fact very much a game of powerful families and friends).

 

And this represents one of the central hubris in American thinking - that other cultures can abide by the same rules it abides by and triumph similarly. Given the massive failure of such an ideology in the Middle-East, I'm surprised there are still people in the American government that believes in the same sort of engagement with China. Until you can change the culture of China, there is no "good solution," and the days when the US could simply go into a country, destroy its infrastructure, and rebuild it from the ground up (ie what it did with Japan and South Korea) are long over. The US cannot even rebuild Iraq; what makes you think it can do anything in China other than spark a world war the likes of which we have not yet seen?

 

Historically, for China, a strong central government has always equaled prosperity while a weak central government has ever equaled internal collapse, mass suffering, rampant corruption, and bloodshed. This will not change. What might change, though, is the living conditions of the Chinese people and, by way of effect, their willingness to tolerate stringent social control. What are the concerns of the rising Chinese middle class? Politics? Not so much. But the ability to spend money as they please in pursuit of luxury and to enter into the 21st century of mass consumption? Yes, very much so, and if you observe carefully, the success story of the PRC lies precisely in its ability to offer economic and social freedom while retaining political control (albeit hampered, in large part, by the presence of corrupt local governments). And it is from this point of view alone that we can hope for the future of China.

Edited July 30, 2006 by Azarkon

[julianw]

I understand how hard it is to bring any form of reforms to a system reeks of corruption on its every level, but that is precisely why democratic reforms are so necessary.

 

Remember Taiwan? It achieved considerable success in democracy within one decade. How could democracy be hopeless in China where the culture of the people is almost identical? It's true that people in mainland are less educated and have less of an understanding of their civil rights and duties, but that's all the more reason for the people to excercise their civil rights and practice their civil duties. As for how will any democratic reform in the central government even affect the local authorities as it happened in Taiwan, I think you might have underestimated the influence the central government wield over the local provinces or cities. The central government can discharge any city or province officials on a whim and appoint almost whoever they like as replacement. The locals might get away with disobeying central policies, but if the central government wishes to put its hammer down, its absolute control over the army speaks louder than any executive order.

 

We cannot change the corrupt political culture overnight, but any progress beats stagnation and to hope for the best outcome while doing nothing is no solution to any problem.

 

I think that you might also have underestimated the Chinese society's hunger for change (socially and politically). Why do you think that Falun Gong gained so much influence over China so fast that the central government felt the threat to its stability and power to rule? The Chinese people have tasted material wealth and their pursuit of luxury has not brought them the full satisfaction expected.

[kumquatq3]

Not this thread again.

 

I understood what this thread would become, but I thought this was just to morbidly funny not to post

[Azarkon]

Remember Taiwan? It achieved considerable success in democracy within one decade. How could democracy be hopeless in China where the culture of the people is almost identical?

 

Two reasons:

 

1) because Taiwan is a small island, whereas China is a diverse nation comprised of 1.3 billion people; managing an island is always easier than managing a continental empire

 

2) because Taiwan had a hell of alot of foreign support (ie from the US) that essentially produced a first world country in terms of living conditions; if tomorrow, China attained the same living conditions, democracy in the Asian sense (which is *not* the same as a lack of cronism, nepotism, or corruption - there is corruption, even within Taiwan) would probably not be far away. Let's not forget how oppressive the KMT regime was upon Taiwan when they first arrived. The PRC is no different.

 

We cannot change the corrupt political culture overnight, but any progress beats stagnation and to hope for the best outcome while doing nothing is no solution to any problem.

 

What makes you think there isn't change? The PRC's favorite saying is that it lifted 400 million of the world's poor out of poverty. These people, whom I do have contact with, are considerably well off and do not, largely, suffer the kind of problems you see publicized by Western press. It's the peasants - ie those who were left behind in the economic boom - that are largely discontent and the victims of local thuggery and corruption.

 

Unfortunately, it's also the case that these peasants lack much of the education that you'd expect from an average first world citizen. The success of democracies are largely determined by the qualities of its people; in China, democracy would mean the dominance of 800 million unwashed uneducated masses over < 400 million middle-class, among which a small fraction holds a majority of the wealth (much like the US). Can we say Communist revolution all over again?

 

I think that you might also have underestimated the Chinese society's hunger for change (socially and politically). Why do you think that Falun Gong gained so much influence over China so fast that the central government felt the threat to its stability and power to rule? The Chinese people have tasted material wealth and their pursuit of luxury has not brought them the full satisfaction expected.

 

Err, I hope you're not stating that the reason Falun Gong gained so much influence is because of its push for change. Falun Gong is a cult (insofar as the term can be applied - I'm not trying to be derogatory to their goals here, but they have very cultish features) and its appeal is largely religious. Yes, religion can be awfully influential, as we've seen in the Middle-East, and when it comes into contact with a secular authoritarian government there's bound to be major clashes of power. That's what happened with Falun Gong, unfortunately.

Edited July 30, 2006 by Azarkon

[Finger of Death]

......

[Musopticon?]

What are yout thoughts, FoD?

[julianw]

Two reasons:

 

1) because Taiwan is a small island, whereas China is a diverse nation comprised of 1.3 billion people; managing an island is always easier than managing a continental empire

True but it's no reason not to reform just because it's too difficult.

 

2) because Taiwan had a hell of alot of foreign support (ie from the US) that essentially produced a first world country in terms of living conditions; if tomorrow, China attained the same living conditions, democracy in the Asian sense (which is *not* the same as a lack of cronism, nepotism, or corruption - there is corruption, even within Taiwan) would probably not be far away.  Let's not forget how oppressive the KMT regime was upon Taiwan when they first arrived.  The PRC is no different.

This is also no excuse for the communist regime to deny people democratic reforms. The majority of the population (even most of the peasants) has improved their economic well-beings many folds since the early 80s, but the political system has remained about the same. Furthermore, a country's economics will always be linked to its politics. An unprogressive political system in China will eventually hinder its economic progress. The current stability sustained by the economic boom of China will end, and to reform without bloodshed might not be possible anymore.

 

Unfortunately, it's also the case that these peasants lack much of the education that you'd expect from an average first world citizen.  The success of democracies are largely determined by the qualities of its people; in China, democracy would mean the dominance of 800 million unwashed uneducated masses over < 400 million middle-class, among which a small fraction holds a majority of the wealth (much like the US).  Can we say Communist revolution all over again?

India has a similar economic structure and its democracy has worked. Maybe an electoral system will work in China to offset the dominace of the peasants?

 

Err, I hope you're not stating that the reason Falun Gong gained so much influence is because of its push for change.  Falun Gong is a cult (insofar as the term can be applied - I'm not trying to be derogatory to their goals here, but they have very cultish features) and its appeal is largely religious.  Yes, religion can be awfully influential, as we've seen in the Middle-East, and when it comes into contact with a secular authoritarian government there's bound to be major clashes of power.  That's what happened with Falun Gong, unfortunately.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not saying Falun Gong is pushing for any sort of political change but this phenomenon does reflect a void within the Chinese society that cannot be filled by material wealth or any sweet lies about communism.

[Finger of Death]

What are yout thoughts, FoD?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He( broken neck one) is an idiot.I don't know someone who break his neck before I visit this post.

It is nothing happen for goverment,because Chinese people is too much, they(goverment) don't really care about someone was dead.

Only war can change this.

[Azarkon]

This is also no excuse for the communist regime to deny people democratic reforms. The majority of the population (even most of the peasants) has improved their economic well-beings many folds since the early 80s, but the political system has remained about the same. Furthermore, a country's economics will always be linked to its politics. An unprogressive political system in China will eventually hinder its economic progress. The current stability sustained by the economic boom of China will end, and to reform without bloodshed might not be possible anymore.

 

The leadership has no interest in democratic reforms, because that cuts into their political power. The rich have no interest in democratic reforms, because they see nothing to be gained and everything to be lost. The poor, while they may want democratic reforms, are not pissed off enough to fight for democratic reforms, and at any case most of them blame the local governments and not the central government, which they associate with the old Communists that liberated China. And none of the above want democratic reforms as imposed by a foreign government, ie the US in Iraq. Putin put it best when he brushed off Bush's proposal for democratic reforms in Russia: "if by democracy you mean what's happened in Iraq, we'd rather not have that, thanks."

 

So tell me - how exactly do you bring about democratic reforms?

 

India has a similar economic structure and its democracy has worked. Maybe an electoral system will work in China to offset the dominace of the peasants?

 

People in China do not consider the weak infrastructure of India, alongside its numerous rural problems, its caste biases, and its internal fragmentation issues, an example of success, so I doubt bringing up India will help your cause.

 

I am not saying Falun Gong is pushing for any sort of political change but this phenomenon does reflect a void within the Chinese society that cannot be filled by material wealth or any sweet lies about communism.

 

If the sort of revolutionary change you're suggesting by innuendo is what the Chinese people wanted, they would've stuck with Communism. No, like normal human beings, that's not what they really care about. But a comfortable living that does not involve starvation due to a failed harvest, and which includes all the nifty luxuries of the modern world? Now we're talking.

 

Make no mistake, the PRC is not immortal. Their success lasts insofar as they are able to keep up the economic boom that gives off the impression that China is moving forward and becoming a global superpower. When that streak ends - and, significantly, not by foreign intervention but by the mistakes of the PRC itself - they will have to deal and that might just include democratic reforms. But till then, I wouldn't hold my breath in believing that anything can be done.

Edited August 1, 2006 by Azarkon

[julianw]

So tell me - how exactly do you bring about democratic reforms?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I will once again compare China's situation to that of Taiwan. Take a closer look at the resumes of the recent leaders of Taiwan's three largest political parties and you will find out that they all graduated from foreign universities in the likes of Cambridge, Cornell, and UC Berkeley. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese students studying abroad and today's Chinese population is increasingly aware of the fact that many of their government's policies are completely unacceptable for any modern country.

 

It's true that when the Communist Party of China begins to lose its grip on the country and China becomes unstable and unpredictable, change will ensue, but that is not the favorable outcome for China, her neighbors or US. It's also true that no ruling parties are willing to reform and give up their political power, but in the past, few visionary leaders have done precisely that and brought a country weakened by corruption back to its feet. My best hope is that with the passing the current leadership of China which is still from a generation that is educated under heavy Communism brainwashing and unprogressive and the right amount of international pressure, China can reform within one or two decades.

[Azarkon]

So still a top-down revolution, huh? Well, we can agree to hope, but more than that I wouldn't count on it. Certainly, any actions on the part of Western powers wouldn't do jack and would probably exacerbate the situation, in my view.

[alanschu]

How is the reform to Democracy doing in Russia?

[Judge Hades]

I do not like the chinese government nor will I ever like the chinese government unless they do some major reforms that opens up tot he freedom of speech and the press as well improve their track record on human rights. I will never forget nor forgive the massacre of Tienemen Square. What got me was Bush Sr. repsonse to it. Instead of doing what would be right and ending trade and diplomatic relations with that government we give them favored trade status. Appeasement indeed.

[Azarkon]

I'm kinda curious about you, Hades. On one hand, you strike me as someone who wants the US to be isolationist - ie not to meddle in the affairs of other nations, and yet on the other you appear to be a hardened moralist who wants to see economic sanctions, which are most definitely the instrument of US neo-colonialist intervention, being implemented against authoritarian regimes. I understand the whole "we shouldn't do business with bad governments" angle, but you do understand that a sanction on the part of the US is not merely a hands-off approach for us, but an aggressive policy of containment, right?