I suppose I'll hear the usual spiel about traditional territory if I mention Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, Xinjiang. And I guess that arms shipment to Zimbabwe was just business.
Chinese dissident chosen by Norwegians for "Peace" prize
Sat, 2010-10-16 15:54
#52
Sat, 2010-10-16 16:21
#53
I suppose I'll hear the usual spiel about traditional territory if I mention Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, Xinjiang. And I guess that arms shipment to Zimbabwe was just business.
No, I think what you'll hear is that international law can tell the difference between national sovereignty and aggressive war. Even the U.N. figured out that much in the case of the United States' desire to "liberate" Iraq and destroy its massive store of WMD. It's rather disappointing that you seem unable to see the difference. I guess China's blitzkrieg and takeover of Hong Kong must have caused you some pain? I know it did to its rightful owners, the British Crown.
As for Zimbabwe, can you tell the difference between sending arms to a foreign government and sending bombing missions over a foreign capital? Once again, I believe international law makes that distinction with relative ease.
Sat, 2010-10-16 17:09
#54
@ Unionist #52
WRT your first paragraph, those would be your words, not mine. I am aware of some of the gamesmanship taking place in Hong Kong WRT the pro-democracy movement, and I am interested to see what happens as the 50-year deadline draws closer.
I was thinking more about the invasion of Tibet, holding military exercises just prior to Taiwanese elections, and making military invasion an official policy if independence is declared, as well as ethnic repression in what is supposed to be an autonomous region.
I hesitate to characterize your position as "US=bad China=good", though that is what it seems to boil down to. Me, I don't trust either of them.
Sat, 2010-10-16 17:54
#55
laine lowe
Back to the topic on hand, what did Liu do to promote peace?
Sat, 2010-10-16 18:15
#56
Back to the topic on hand, what did Liu do to promote peace?
Well if you want to use the strict definition maybe they should have nominated Erich Honecker. After all, things can be mighty peaceful and under control in a police state. For that matter, graveyards are pretty peaceful too.
Perhaps I am a revisionist, but personally I think the definition extends to things like freedom of expression and self-determination, freedom from persecution, and of course the use of non-violent protest for which he was nominated.
Sat, 2010-10-16 18:18
#57
I hesitate to characterize your position as "US=bad China=good", though that is what it seems to boil down to.
Actually, 6079, you hesitate to read what I say:
Let me know when the unfortunate Mr. Liu starts condemning rampant Chinese capitalism and exploitation.
You should reflect on the difference between people trying to look after their affairs and building their own society (China), and others who sit and pontificate about the inferior human rights dedication of other nations, and when they don't listen, they bomb and invade the shit out of them (U.S., Canada, U.K., their willing allies, and some of the carriers of the burden of the White Man who inhabit our progressive circles).
Not only is Mr. Liu unworthy of anything called a "Peace Prize", but until such time as he condemns, publicly and vociferously, the biggest enemies of freedom and democracy in this world, he is no friend or ally of mine. And that includes (in case you missed it the first two times) condemning his own regime for its real crimes.
Sat, 2010-10-16 18:43
#58
@ Unionist #56
No, I read and understood it just fine. I just chose not to comment on it because I don't think it's directly relevant.
But if you insist, Mr. Liu's has campaigned on his own issues. Clearly you have some concerns he is not voicing. I'm not sure why his omission invalidates the good things he is standing up for. It is a big job, as I am sure you can appreciate.
Not that I don't see corruption and other symptoms of capitalism to be a problem in China (I do - seriously), but if there are people in that country who see it as a threat, I'm sure, as you say at #45 we'll be hearing from them shortly.
Sat, 2010-10-16 19:18
#59
The Chinese people will look after their own internal affairs without any assistance from some Nobel committee, nor from us. Mr. Liu has done nothing whatsoever (at least, nothing you or I have heard of) to promote the cause of peace. His Nobel prize is an act of pure interference in the affairs of a sovereign people which has nothing to do with peace.
Sat, 2010-10-16 19:38
#60
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21247]America’s China Bashing: A Compendium of Junk Economics[/url] by Prof Michael Hudson
[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870468980457553628317504971... Gains Bipartisan Support[/url]
[url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2.... Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause[/u][/color][/url]
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
Chimerica is getting a divorce, and those things rarely ever go well. Most of what they accuse Beijing of doing boils down to US hypocrisy in both economic and military affairs.
We've seen this all before with the US and former Soviet Union during the cold war. US and Canadian dissident writers on the left are passed over for Nobel consideration in favour of political expediency.
Sat, 2010-10-16 20:06
#61
Rabble rousing must be restricted to politically correct goals, 6079, whether in China or Kanuckistan. Attempts to bring China into position to have its people speak for the new Superpower, rather than the boys in the back room, do not qualify for Nobel status. At the present rate of developments (particularly in Africa), over the next five years the peole's voice may be needed, very, very badly, as the new Imperial power assumes full, terrifying shape. But at this time we must go with the flow or be considered outside the old pale (pre-1989) of correct thought on the People's Republic of China.
Sat, 2010-10-16 20:35
#62
It's political interference in another country's affairs as Unionist said before.
Sat, 2010-10-16 20:43
#63
But at this time we must go with the flow or be considered outside the old pale (pre-1989) of correct thought on the People's Republic of China.
Yeah, George, we progressive people have the same attitude to Western interference in Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan, so try hard to tone down the pre-conceived notions. If you don't understand, acknowledge it. Do some reading.
Sat, 2010-10-16 21:09
#64
Actually it was South African dockworkers who refused to allow delivery of that arms shipment. Somebody had better get on the phone and let them know they're just being used as stooges for the western imperialists.
Sat, 2010-10-16 21:13
#65
[url=http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/liu’s-nobel-prize-for-capitalis... Nobel Prize for Capitalism[/url]
Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese dissident who was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has been hailed as a champion of human rights and democracy. His jailing by Chinese authorities for inciting subversion of the state is widely regarded as an unjust stifling of advocacy rights by a Chinese state intolerant of dissent and hostile to ”universal values”. But what Western accounts have failed to mention is that Charter 08, the manifesto Liu had a hand in writing and whose signing led to his arrest, is more than a demand for political and civil liberties. It is a blueprint for making over China into a replica of US society and eliminating the last vestiges of the country’s socialism. If Liu had his druthers, China would: become a free market, free enterprise paradise; welcome domination by foreign banks; hold taxes to a minimum; and allow the Chinese version of the Democrats and Republicans to keep the country safe for corporations, bankers and wealthy investors. Liu’s problem with the Communist Party isn’t that it has travelled the capitalist road, but that it hasn’t traveled it far enough, and has failed to put in place a politically pluralist republican system to facilitate the smooth and efficient operation of an unrestrained capitalist economy.
Gowans is a Canadian lefty.
Sat, 2010-10-16 21:19
#66
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the obvious so far - for a year or three now the western ruling powers have been demonizing China - we hear it almost daily on the CBC one way or another - and this is just another example of full-spectrum propaganda. Liu is a nobody they would otherwise have no interest in - but if he can be used to take another swipe at the Chinese gov, then that's what he'll get used for. most people in the west have no idea at all how manipulated they all are by the media.
Sat, 2010-10-16 21:46
#67
Actually it was South African dockworkers who refused to allow delivery of that arms shipment. Somebody had better get on the phone and let them know they're just being used as stooges for the western imperialists.
Apparently there's no point having any discussion with you.
Sat, 2010-10-16 22:07
#68
I think Xiabo Lou is mistaken about US style gangster capitalism and banksterism being a good idea for China. Perhaps jailing him and his wife was a harsh measure by the authorities. But they are the authorities. I think they should just tell him to pack his bags and hand him a one-way ticket back to the states.
Sat, 2010-10-16 22:14
#69
Perhaps jailing him and his wife was a harsh measure by the authorities. But they are the authorities.
I'm sorry... what website are we on here?
And Unionist, you are absolutely right. I think we should just agree to disagree on this one while we are all still on our best behaviour. I know I'm trying hard to maintain a level of decorum.
Sat, 2010-10-16 22:45
#70
laine lowe
Seems to me that the Nobel Peace Prize has become a tool to either (a) strengthen support for regime change, or (b) reward new capitalist regimes established or enabled by western powers.
Liu's competition this year was Mugabe's political foe and western-backed politico Morgan Tsvangirai, Afghani ex-pat Dr. Sima Samar who returned to join the Afghani Transitional Government and resigned to head the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (and is currently accused of corruption and bribe-taking), and MEMORIAL international started by Andre Sakharov to document violations of human rights in Stalanist Russia and other former states in the USSR.
Sat, 2010-10-16 22:59
#71
Thanks for digging that up, laine - though I'm slowly (stupidly) starting to understand that people's minds don't get changed on fundamental questions by discussion, evidence, persuasion. Anyone that hasn't figured out the rights and wrongs of imperialism by now is not due for an epiphany any time soon. We're not talking about borderline situations. We're not exchanging ideas about strategies for winning peace and justice. Something entirely different is at play here.
Sat, 2010-10-16 23:15
#72
Perhaps jailing him and his wife was a harsh measure by the authorities. But they are the authorities.
I'm sorry... what website are we on here?
Do you think Xiabo Liu is for the Chinese people, or is he for gangster capitalism and neoliberal ideology? Do you think it will help ordinary Chinese to live better lives when banksters take over the country and dictating things to the government same as here and America and EU?
I would consider advocating for a bankrupt economic theory and US style electoral system rife with fraud and kick-back and graft to be imposed on Chinese people a threat to democracy and a threat to freedom more than exercising freedom of speech. I imagine Liu fully realized what he was doing and whose attention he would be grabbing when testing the boundaries. And if he didn't know before, he does now.
Sat, 2010-10-16 23:21
#73
What Fidel said.
Sun, 2010-10-17 00:11
#74
@ Fidel
I find it interesting that you are taking two sections out of the Charter 08 document and using them to raise a spectre of the worst of capitalist excesses, while ignoring quite reasonable and long overdue calls for social and political reform that dominate the document.
Do I support the transfer of all state properties to private hands? Of course not. But neither do I think that one line in a manifesto is going to dictate the economic future of a nation. And I certainly don't think the social reforms called for in the document are contingent on throwing the doors open and letting in the running dogs.
We call for freedom of expression, and political freedoms in our country and others. While I do understand that China is surrounded by the tendrils of global capitalism, I think it is still worth questioning if their system is so fragile that it can't bear scrutiny. Why are the people who control the largest nation in the world exempt, and somehow off limits from any criticism from within or without?
Sun, 2010-10-17 00:21
#75
his human rights manifesto includes a provision for entrenching property ownership as a human right.
The Chinese did amend their constitution to include property rights back in 1999, and passed the Property Rights Bill in March 2007 after seven years debate. Whatever he called for, that wasn't it.
Sun, 2010-10-17 00:21
#76
We call for freedom of expression, and political freedoms in our country and others.
No "we" don't. That's where "we" get off the bus.
Sun, 2010-10-17 00:52
#77
It's strange because whenever the elite here in Canada or the US felt that dissidents on the left were a threat to capitalism, the FBI blacklisted left wing Americans and ran COINTEL operations. And here in Canada we've had lefties on secret PROFUNC lists for rounding up and arrest, and apparently the guards and police in Canada would have been given the okay to shoot to death any lefties trying to escape their designated political prisons.
I don't believe we should fear of an outbreak of democracy here in our own backyards where elections are bought and paid-for by a handufl of elite billionaire oligarchs in North America. We don't have to worry that they will stop sending weapons and military aid to repressive fascist regimes like that one in Bogota that executes more union leaders and social activists every year than any other country in the world. The writing's been on the wall for democracy in the west for a long time. It's generally understood that unbridled capitalism and democracy are incompatible themes.
The CPC stood back and watched what the USAID and HIID gang, Yeltsin and Chubais etc did to Russia during the 1990s when they pauperized that nation. The CPC is taking their own approach to market economy. They don't want gangster capitalism taking over the country, and I don't think anyone can blame them for being cautious. Because the lesson here is that where there is confusion there is profit. I think Xiabo Liu and his western friends, and he surely has made friends during his time in the west, should back off and quit trying to coerce everyone into thinking neoliberal ideology and democracy are two sides of the same coin when they are anything but. These ideologues are trying to use freedom of expression and freedom of speech as a Trojan horse the same way they did in the former Soviet countries.
If they get hold of the banks and manage to corrupt them in Beijing, it won't matter who makes the laws in China after that.
Sun, 2010-10-17 01:08
#78
It's strange because whenever the elite here in Canada or the US felt that dissidents on the left were a threat to capitalism, the FBI blacklisted left wing Americans and ran COINTEL operations. And here in Canada we've had lefties on secret PROFUNC lists for rounding up and arrest, and apparently the guards and police in Canada would have been given the okay to shoot to death any lefties trying to escape their designated political prisons.
I don't believe we should fear of an outbreak of democracy here in our own backyards where elections are bought and paid-for by a handufl of elite billionaire oligarchs in North America. We don't have to worry that they will stop sending weapons and military aid to repressive fascist regimes like that one in Bogota that executes more union leaders and social activists every year than any other country in the world. The writing's been on the wall for democracy in the west for a long time. It's generally understood that unbridled capitalism and democracy are incompatible themes.
The CPC stood back and watched what the USAID and HIID gang, Yeltsin and Chubais etc did to Russia during the 1990s when they pauperized that nation. The CPC is taking their own approach to market economy. They don't want gangster capitalism taking over the country, and I don't think anyone can blame them for being cautious. Because the lesson here is that where there is confusion there is profit. I think Xiabo Liu and his western friends, and he surely has made friends during his time in the west, should back off and quit trying to coerce everyone into thinking neoliberal ideology and democracy are two sides of the same coin when they are anything but. These ideologues are trying to use freedom of expression and freedom of speech as a Trojan horse the same way they did in the former Soviet countries.
If they get hold of the banks and manage to corrupt them in Beijing, it won't matter who makes the laws in China after that.
- well said. If only more understood this ....
Sun, 2010-10-17 01:11
#79
I think Xiabo Liu and his western friends, and he surely has made friends during his time in the west, should back off and quit trying to coerce everyone into thinking neoliberal ideology and democracy are two sides of the same coin when they are anything but. These ideologues are trying to use freedom of expression and freedom of speech as a Trojan horse the same way they did in the former Soviet countries.
I'm curious as to what you mean here. Do you think freedom of expression is just a bad thing - that it is the cause of our ills - or are you saying that people in certain countries just aren't equipped to handle it the way we do?
(edit)
...or that it is a smokescreen for a capitalist invasion that people in China won't be able to see through?
Sun, 2010-10-17 01:12
#80
I think Xiabo Liu and his western friends, and he surely has made friends during his time in the west, should back off and quit trying to coerce everyone into thinking neoliberal ideology and democracy are two sides of the same coin when they are anything but. These ideologues are trying to use freedom of expression and freedom of speech as a Trojan horse the same way they did in the former Soviet countries.
I'm curious as to what you mean here. Do you think freedom of expression is just a bad thing - that it is the cause of our ills - or are you saying that people in certain countries just aren't equipped to handle it the way we do?
- you seem to be reading too fast or thinking too slow - or else just trying to be sarcastic, I suppose. Fidel said nothing about freedom of expression being good or bad - I don't think anyone denies it is good (well, there are some on babble that think there should be a certain amount of 'freedom to here an no further, bud!', but that's another story) - he said, quite clearly, that we should be wary of people using the banner of 'freedom of expression' as a trojan horse in the aim of achieving quite different goals - in this case, the usurpation of whatever it is the Chinese are doing by a government controlled by capitalist bankers. Which would not be a good trade.
Sun, 2010-10-17 01:21
#81
Gowans says everything I'd like to and in a wordsmith kind of way. Here's a bit more.
For anyone concerned with the promotion of economic rights, or the weakening of US imperialism, or with the chances that socialism might one day flourish in the world’s most populous country, the Nobel committee’s attempt to lend credibility to Charter 08 by conferring its peace prize on Liu Xiaobo is hardly to be welcome. It is as inimical to the interests of peace and the welfare of humanity as was last year’s awarding of the prize to US President Barack Obama, who has expanded the number of countries in which the US is waging war, and has tried to create the illusion that the continuing US combat mission in Iraq has ended by renaming it. Likewise, Liu has done nothing to advance the welfare of humanity. His remit, as that of last year’s peace prize winner, is to expand the interests of the owners of capital, particularly those based in the United States. He deserves no support, except from the tiny fraction of the world’s population that would reap the benefits of Charter 08’s demands. Instead, it is Beijing’s action to preserve its freedom and independence from outside domination, and to maintain elements of a socialist economy, that deserve our support.1. The Chinese Communist Party has, with justification, rejected “Western-style elections …(as)a game for the rich.” As a party representative explained: “They are affected by the resources and funding that a candidate can utilize. Those who manage to win elections are easily in the shoes of their parties or sponsors and become spokespeople for the minority.”
Edward Wong, “Official in China says Western-style democracy won’t take root there,” The New York Times, March 20, 2010
Sun, 2010-10-17 01:37
#82
@ siamdave
Just asking the man to clarify his comments. I do undertand what a trojan horse is, but presumably when the foil is freedom of speech, one might expect that that freedom itself might play a role.
I just find it odd that one can somehow turn a call for freedom of expression into a government takeover and privatization without anyone noticing. Or to turn it around, I find it curious that the two ideas seem to be inextricably and inexplicably linked in some peoples' minds. I question whether a call for greater freedom of speech automatically means destruction of their political and economic system. Frankly, I give them a bit more credit than that, and there seem to be a number of people within China who feel that was as well.
..though sorry, Gowan didn't really answer my question either.
Sun, 2010-10-17 02:42
#83
People like Xiabo Liu aren't talking about everyone's right to freedom of speech just those with the money to buy political influence. Here in one of the most ideologically driven parts of the world, media concentration in the hands of a tiny minority of rich and powerful people translates to the majority of us being fed a steady diet of propaganda, misinformation, half-truths and outright lies about politics. A well informed public and one person equaling one vote are essential to democracy, and we have neither. The CPC are able to smell western hypocrisy from thousands of miles away on the other side of the world, it's that obvious to them. The Chinese are not interested in projecting an illusion of democracy or what we have here in North America. The CPC have tried to instill a sense of what political corruption does to democracy, and the Chinese are keenly aware of the political corruption at the heart of decay and rot in western societies today. Cuba's government has made a similar effort to inform Cubans about the real political and economic system of capitalism and how it actually operates warts and all.
There are myriad issues concerning basic human rights violations and curtailment of freedom of expression occurring every single day in this very hemisphere for democrats to get excited about and without worrying about China. If our stooges had a billion people to worry about housing and feeding and providing jobs for, they wouldn't know whether to crap or go blind. There would be riots in the streets of Ottawa and Washington if a billion people were suddenly flooding into North America and trying to eek out a living in this economically depressed and ideologically driven part of the world where we are still struggling to achieve 21st century democracy and not progressing very rapidly on that front at all.
Sun, 2010-10-17 10:53
#84
Fidel, the internet has changed that completely manipulated world for those who WANT to go be free of manipulation. And no one in this neck of the woods can accuse me of not putting forward the evidence of an Unread public, all around us.
Liu wants that freedom, and is ready to be jailed for his activity. Sort of like the folks who gathered near the G20 fence.
An internationally recognized writer/poet, he's also supported by PEN, that outrageous capitalist institution of reactionary writers. Perhaps for works like these:
A Small Rat in Prison
for Little Xia
a small rat passes through the iron bars
paces back and forth on the window ledge
the peeling walls are watching him
the blood-filled mosquitoes are watching him
he even draws the moon from the sky, silver
shadow casts down
beauty, as if in flight
a very gentryman the rat tonight
doesn't eat nor drink nor grind his teeth
as he stares with his sly bright eyes
strolling in the moonlight
5. 26. 1999
Daybreak
for Xia
over the tall ashen wall, between
the sound of vegetables being chopped
daybreak's bound, severed,
dissipated by a paralysis of spirit
what is the difference
between the light and the darkness
that seems to surface through my eyes'
apertures, from my seat of rust
I can't tell if it's the glint of chains
in the cell, or the god of nature
behind the wall
daily dissidence
makes the arrogant
sun stunned to no end
daybreak a vast emptiness
you in a far place
with nights of love stored away
6. 30. 1997
Sun, 2010-10-17 11:44
#85
@ fidel
So it's okay to have all the power concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of powerful so long as they say they are communist, and the riches are technically owned by the people? Though I guess in their case they deserve their status since they work so hard making sure those billions are fed, clothed and sheltered, unlike the capitalist bloodsuckers that run the show here.
And again, to clarify, are you saying you think authoritarianism, censorship and suppression of freedoms are necessary to prevent capitalism only in China, or do you think it is simply the only way it can possibly be done? Do we need a similar reform of our political system here, or are the Chinese people a special case (if one can consider 1.3 billion people to have a unique and common set of qualities at all)?
Sun, 2010-10-17 13:39
#86
So the Nobel Peace Price is an award going to the people that express the European bourgeoisie point of view.
Now we know this and can use it to judge what they are up to.
Sun, 2010-10-17 15:21
#87
So it's okay to have all the power concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of powerful so long as they say they are communist, .
They don't actually want US style capitalism in China. Harrison Salisbury wrote in "Tiananmmen Diary" that the vast majority of protesters were not demanding western style capitalism. IOWs they weren't demanding the economic system what Xiabo Liu advocates for be foisted on them. US elections really are a game for the rich. Money has no place in a true democracy. Gorbachev and company also thought that what Russia would be getting from HIID and USAID advisors would be Swedish style socialism. Nothing was further from the truth.
And again, to clarify, are you saying you think authoritarianism, censorship and suppression of freedoms are necessary to prevent capitalism only in China, ...
I think the Chinese have their own way of doing things. It's a combination of Confucianism and strong central government. Capitalism here in the west has worked to overthrow the very idea of government acting independently at arm's length from the corporatist system. Our stooges have become little more than hirelings for corporations. 30 years ago, rightwing think tanks were considered just that, right wing think tanks. Today they bend the ears of our stooges in government and senators. Democracy in Canada is merely an illusion. And in the US, the revolving door access between Washington and Wall Street is a well trodden path.
They really don't want what we have in Canada and the US, which is debt driven war capitalism. And since the bombing of Yugoslavia and Chinese embassy, the false flag gladio operation on 9/11/01 with their lap dogs in Ottawa following after them to illegal US-led military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and marauding over the borders into Pakistan, the CPC in Beijing have begun to view the USA and Canada as corrupt and lawless nations where banksters and shadow government militarists have taken over powers of resource allocation and political decision making. The CPC in Beijing watch as our corrupt and lawless nations surround them and Russia militarily and continue the illegal occupations in countries on their front steps in Asia.
Sun, 2010-10-17 15:35
#88
@ Fidel
As I said, I don't think it is fair portray Charter 08 as wanting "US-style capitalism" and ignore everything else in it.
And there is nothing in there responding to my question about the relationship between authoritarianism and censorship and resistance to capitalism and democracy (with a cowboy hat, if you prefer to qualify it). I don't actually need an answer, thanks.
The Chinese have their own way of doing things? Well evidently a some of them do; I'm not sure all 1 billion of them are of one mind about it.
Sun, 2010-10-17 15:54
#89
I think it difficult to dress up the Trojan horse and pass it off as democracy. And I forgot to mention the increasined nuclear threat with modern day crrises of capitalism. With crisis after crisis of the ideology, war capitalism follows not far behind as per Marx. The CPC in Beijing are also keenly aware of the only superpower with nuclear weapons on foreign soil and roaming the seven seas in 2010. Threatening other countries militarily is supposed to be illegal since Nuremberg. And yet there they go still threatening Iran with nuclear incineration unless tehran promises to stop making imaginary nuclear weapons. The embargoes against Cuba and North Korea amount to medieval sieges in modern times and have nothing to do with free trade theory or promoting democracy.
Xiabo Liu is a mouthpiece for a corrupt and lawless political and economic system. Xiabo Liu is actually advocating fascism for China not free market capitalism and definitely not democracy. No where in the US Constitution does it mention capitalism or corporate rights. It does not begin with, We the corporatists and bankers shall screw the people ... It actually does begin with, "WE THE PEOPLE..." The time has actually come for the American people to overthrow their corrupt and lawless system and fight for democracy themselves.
Sun, 2010-10-17 19:45
#90
laine lowe
Authoritarianism. So easy to brand any form of government that western capitalists reject as such.
Back in the land of the free:
US notches world's highest incarceration rate (Aug 2003)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html
A flawed system? US boasts the highest incarceration numbers in the world (Aug 2010)
http://welcometoafreeworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/flawed-system-us-boasts-...
China doesn't crack the top 10. Canada ranks 13th out of OECD countries but Harper and Toews want to improve our standings.
Fidel, thanks for all your thoughtful posts explaining what I would think was the obvious on a progressive board.
ETA: plural - many great posts
Sun, 2010-10-17 20:36
#91
Thanks laine lowe. And I think Stephen Gowans comments are on the mark, too.
I would like to see Americans fight for and achieve Franklin D. Roosevelt's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights]second bill of rights, [/url] including:
[list=1]
[*] Employment, with a living wage,
[*] Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
[*] Housing,
[*] Medical care,
[*] Education, and,
[*] Social security[/list]
Americans have achieved few of these things really. Opinion polls say that some 70% of Americans are living paycheque to paycheque today. The political right has worked diligently to make obtaining most of the items on that list provisions of an increasingly market based economic ideology since the Reagan era. Most other capitalist countries achieved all of the items listed by FDR's second bill of rights some time ago. The new liberal capitalist ideology says that workers should not enjoy security in accessing any of those things unless by market diktats.
Sun, 2010-10-17 23:04
#92
Yeah, Fidel, you are in top form these days. Thanks for stating the basics, in thorough and calm and convincing fashion.
Sun, 2010-10-17 23:26
#93
Oh the flattery! Thanks Unionist. I don't always put the effort into posting that I should. If you all miss my frequently rambling commentaries in the next while, don't. There are plenty of good babblers with perfectly good left wing points of view here to take up the slack. I know that I'm impressed.
You're very good yourself in my opinion, Unionist. I read your comments and find myself agreeing often and without much to add.
Mon, 2010-10-18 02:06
#94
If you want to take a run at the Nobel Peace prize-- go for it. It seems corrupt and politically motivated.
If you want to call it interference in other countries' internal affairs, that is fine as well.
But I don't get this attack on Liu Xiaobo in the context you set out. He is not an American he did not campaign for recognition from the Nobel Committee. To call him a mouthpiece for the US because he does not live up perfectly to your expectations is interesting logic. He also is not the only author of the document and a good number of Chinese support that document which includes a good many things that are hard to argue with as well as the passages you have trouble with.
He has also stated directly that he is not interested in a deal to leave China as he is Chinese and is not looking for any "escape to the US."
At first I had decided to stay out of this thread because I am no friend of the Nobel prize and agree that it is interference. However, to refer to Xiaobo in the way that is being done here with a view to measuring him against the agenda of the left in this country, in the context of the hatred of the US which is earned here but not the greatest issue to the Chinese, is in itself both interference and a projection of a foreign agenda. Calling him names based on a North American view is interference -- even if that view is a left of centre one. The hypocrisy of the attacks on this person here to suit an agenda that I might in some respects support, I find revolting.
I don't find the focus of some Chinese to change the way their country is run to be necessarily a US capitalist agenda. I do find the idea that everyone who is against the Chinese government is assumed to be some toady of the US troublesome and a projection of our side of the battle here on the Chinese context. It is not butting out of China's internal affairs to be writing such venomous statements about a dissident in that country.
In fact it is my opinion that the US and Canada have no interest in human rights in China beyond rhetoric for a home audience. I do not assume they are assisting in any way those who want to have a debate in China about what kind of country they will have. I recognize there are anti-China statements that make the rounds here, but I would not think that seeing China as a single country that would have no internal debate unless prompted by Western capitalist influence is anything but insulting.
To use the expression upthread-- we should have gotten off the bus somewhere between the stop of criticizing the manipulation of Nobel prizes (legitimate) and the personal insult to a Chinese dissident if you really believe in non-interference. And if it is okay to have a discussion about this dissident then it also should be politically correct to discuss the rest of the Chinese context without being called names here.
Perhaps of course this is not about interference but some politically correct defence of a country that is socialist in name only and whose government is every bit as complicit in the exploitation of poorer people as ours is and actually in spite of the rhetoric it seems these governments all get along in the same basic agenda. In any case it seems interference is ok as long as it is politically correct.
Mon, 2010-10-18 02:27
#95
I did not notice a link to an English translation of Charter 8 so am providing one.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/chinas-charter-08/
You will find the offensive paragraph on private property and the divestment of Chinese public property in to private hands. Of course I think this would be a mistake. But there is much more in this document including a call for universal health care and education as well.
This is not the direction that I would hope China would go in the end. And there are obvious influences from those who have studied the US political culture, and in fact I suspect the translation exaggerates these, but the document is Chinese and in a Chinese context.
In any case I think interpretation of the document as well as "interference in China's affairs" should not be so selective-- you do or you don't.
Perhaps we can either agree to shut up about this or that it is indeed okay for Western people to discuss this so long as we do not seek to do any more than that. But the idea that we can only talk provided we support one side of the discussion seems serving of an agenda that is not Chinese.
Mon, 2010-10-18 06:35
#96
Just a comment re Sean's comments above - it would be nice to see a bit more calm and reflective discussion like this on all of these threads - they all too often get off on tangents of disparaging name-calling of people the poster does not agree with, and similar things. Good, of course, I suppose, for people who want to prevent discussions getting anywhere ...
Mon, 2010-10-18 10:34
#97
@ siamdave #95 #79
Not sure I know exactly what you are getting at, but perhaps I am reading too fast and thinking too slow again.
@ Sean In Ottawa #92
I read your comments last night. Thanks. Frankly I didn't even bother going down that road. Since Liu's western education was trotted out fairly early, so I figured it would be a non-starter. Plus, I find it a bit mystifying to read the level of conversation about freedom of speech, democracy, a person who has been in and out of jail for 20 years, and what is good for us here, and for them there.
Given that this thread feels a bit like a trip to Kafkatown, I'm not surprised I just passed on the very important point you make.
I know you and I have some differences of opinion on other aspects of this issue. Given that, I appreciate even more your effort to bring a bit of perspective to this in a clear way.
Mon, 2010-10-18 10:45
#98
Thanks for this-- it has inspired a more general discussion of what is and is not ok with respect to interference-- and I think I'll start a thread on that and see what others think. Perhaps the quesiton needs to be posed in the theoretical rather than within an example.
If we all agreed about everything there would be no purpose in coming to this place.
Mon, 2010-10-18 11:36
#99
@ Sean in Ottawa
More meta, eh? That should get people running for the doors. *grin*
I think a discussion is a good idea, but frankly, I think keeping one foot in the real world is a good measure, because I think a lot of this depends on circumstance. There are not that many set rules that everyone is going to agree upon. That said, the first thing I thought of when we started talking about interference was Amnesty International.
On this issue, I don't think there's much disagreement that the Nobel Awards are often highly political and eurocentric, though I think they have gotten it right on occasion.
And I don't have a problem with the notion that China's future is up to the Chinese, though it gets a bit complicated since when it comes to business and world affairs they are not behind a wall. Sinochem's recently-withdrawn rival bid for Potash Corp brought that issue to the fore here in Saskatchewan.
It's the questioning of Liu's credibility as Chinese (along with several hundred others, since he was not alone in signing the manifesto) that I find curious and more than a little offensive. And of course the unexplained need for repression that we would scream bloody murder about if it were happening to us.
Mon, 2010-10-18 12:19
#100
Agreed and people are forgetting that he is not the sole author of the document.
Calling him an American Stooge is unfair since we don't even know if he was the author of the more offensive property rights clause in the document. He might have accepted that as compromise-- we do not know.
What we do know is the document was a consensus document written by multiple authors and signed by hundreds of people many of whom are a part of the Chinese establishment. We also know that there is a battle underway within the Communist party between reformers and the more hard line. The Premier has come out apparently on the side of the reformers and has made some clear statements. Premier Wen is also indisputably the most popular politician in the country and his views ultimately will hold some weight although he, himself has been censored lately. Western people who think that this division in Chinese politics is purely the result of Western interference are crediting the West with more importance, power and influence than it actually has.
It would be a mistake to look at what is happening in China in a purely US-China cold war lens as it is much more than that and while the international situation is relevant it is not the main event. As well, we should not make assumptions about the direction reformers want to go or that this could be easily pigeon-holed into a Western context.
I did start the thread-- with a long statement on the issue- we shall see if anyone is interested in the topic. It is possible people won't be. My desire to take it out of context was to avoid the double standard and emotional punch that comes from some of the contexts we consider. I'll leave further discussion to that thread.
My view of Liu is coloured by the fact that most of the people I speak to about this are Chinese, almost all of them are establishment (visiting professors etc.) and hardly revolutionary. Many of them are definitely Communist party insiders. None of them have expressed the hatred for him and the disdain for him that is in this thread. The opinions ranged from cautious optimism that reforms such as his could be possible to expressions of support for alternative views, to very little knowledge of him, to what I thought to be wait and see stances. This is in stark contrast to the views I normally hear about people such as the Dalai Lama who most Chinese I know do not like and express that clearly. I don't hold as negative a view on the Dalai Lama as many here do and so there is a context to what I am hearing.
Mon, 2010-10-18 12:51
#101
@ siamdave #95 #79
Not sure I know exactly what you are getting at, but perhaps I am reading too fast and thinking too slow again.
- that 'old habits are hard to break' thing, I guess.